What's
InThe News Click on News Header to go directly to their articles
image
1996 Thru 1999Archives
| 2000 Archives | 2001
Archives | 2002 Archives
|
2003 Archives | 2005
Archives | 2006 Archives
| 2007 News | Top
June
17, 2004
In Upstate County, Ashtrays and Beer Bottles Still Share the Bar
By Michael
Cooper
UTICA, N.Y. - The sign on the door says "Smoking.'' Seven cut-glass ashtrays sit on the copper-colored bar, all in plain sight. And when David Sprague strode into the cool, dark barroom here on Friday afternoon, the first thing he did after high-fiving a friend and ordering a bottle of Budweiser was to take out a Newport and light up.
The bar, the Varick, which is just down the street from the old brewery that now makes Saranac beer, is one of the 28 establishments in Oneida County that have received waivers from the state's smoking ban. No other county has issued as many, and that record, along with the efforts of two lawmakers to alter the state's ban to allow smoking in bars that install filter systems, has quietly made this upstate county along the Mohawk River the smoking capital of New York State.
"This is why I come here,'' said Mr. Sprague, 37, a motorcycle rider and chain smoker who said that before the Varick received its waiver he used to sneak into the kitchens of bars to smoke, brave sub-zero weather for cigarettes or even use chewing tobacco so he could stay indoors. "In the bar I'd chew Skoal, and ask for a cup to spit it out in.''
Under the state's smoking ban, which went into effect last July, most counties in New York were given the authority to draft their own guidelines for issuing waivers. Typically, establishments must show a financial loss above a threshold established by the county, usually 10 or 15 percent. With New York City and its surrounding counties covered by their own local smoking bans, the vast majority of waivers have been granted upstate. And Oneida County, where many local elected officials oppose the ban, tops the list, having issued more than a fifth of the waivers in the state.
But if local officials hoped that issuing waivers here would give a much-needed shot in the arm to struggling bars, the scene on the streets of Utica would suggest that a waiver doesn't necessarily translate into more customers. Even after the Varick threw open its doors to begin happy hour at 4 p.m. on Friday, a much bigger crowd was found just up the street at O'Donnell's - a bar without a waiver that still drew many smokers, who took breaks from their beers for cigarettes on the sidewalk.
One smoker outside O'Donnell's, Jeff Nelson, 36, said he was glad that the Utica area was leading the state in exemptions from the smoking ban, but he added that a sense of loyalty kept him drinking at O'Donnell's. "The number of bars in Utica exceeds the number of churches,'' Mr. Nelson said. "If you look at some neighborhoods, there's a bar on every corner. And people stay with their neighborhood bars.''
A statewide analysis of the smoking ban by the American Cancer Society shows that of the state's 65,000 bars and restaurants, only 132 have been granted waivers. And the society said that its data indicated that demand for the waivers appeared to be declining.
"After an initial flurry of complaints about the law, we've seen a significant drop in the number of establishments requesting waivers,'' Donald Distasio, the chief executive of the cancer society's eastern division, said in a statement.
But Oneida County remains a haven for the live-and-let-smoke crowd.
Joseph A. Griffo, the Oneida County executive and a nonsmoker, said that the county was simply trying to enforce the state law as it understood it. He said most waivers were granted to establishments that had demonstrated economic hardship as a result of the ban. And he added that there were no plans to market the county as a tourist destination for smokers.
"It wasn't the intent to try to say, 'Hey, come to our place, because there are bars that allow you to smoke,''' Mr. Griffo said. "We're not using it to try to draw people. We just felt that based on the conditions that were thrust upon us by the state, that we would do the best we could to deal with those.''
Mr. Griffo said that many in the county were upset that the state had simply passed the ban with little public input, leaving local governments to enforce it and interpret its waiver provisions. He said he would prefer a law less open to interpretation. And he noted that the county's position would have to be revisited soon, because the existing waivers - for saloons, clubs, businesses and a bowling alley - last one year.
The two state lawmakers representing Utica - State Senator Raymond A. Meier, a Republican, and Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, a Democrat - have introduced legislation that would amend the ban to allow smoking in bars, bowling alleys and pool halls that install air purification devices.
Senator Meier, a nonsmoker and a legislator who voted for the ban, said he was moved to introduce his proposal to help tavern owners who say that the ban has devastated business, and to end the inconsistent way the law has been interpreted.
"You effectively have, in the 57 counties outside the city of New York, 57 different standards, and you can see that,'' he said. "This county has granted more waivers than any other county. Some have granted none. There's no uniformity of administering this waiver process and absolutely no predictability about it.''
State officials said it was unlikely that the air purification bill would pass this session. But the new proposal has alarmed antismoking advocates, who see it as an attempt to gut what they consider one of the great public health advances of recent times.
"The law is working as intended,'' said Michael Bopp, the American Cancer Society's director of advocacy for New York State. "The most severe cases, as determined by local officials, have availed themselves of the relief that is in the existing law - its waiver provisions. Now the state should move forward and let the law stand as it is.''
Indeed, the ban has its fans even in a bastion of legalized smoking like Oneida County.
Symeon's, a popular Greek restaurant near here, banned smoking before the state law passed. "It was a Friday night, and we were full; we had a waiting line,'' Symeon Tsoupelis, 33, the owner, recalled. "The smoking section was empty. So we said, 'No smoking tonight.' The next night, Saturday, the same thing. Our clientele dictated it.''
Mr. Tsoupelis said that he received two angry letters about the ban, but that within a year and a half the eight sets of regular customers who had sat in the smoking section were regulars once again. "They are all back,'' he said.
At the Varick, though, even a couple of nonsmokers said they were happy to be able to sit in a bar that allowed smoking again. "When I go to a bar, I know what I'm getting into,'' said Greg Stiefvater, 31, who said he quit smoking a few years ago.
May
12, 2004
A
City of Quitters? In Strict New York, 11% Fewer Smokers
By Richard
Perez-Pena
In the wake of huge tobacco tax increases and a ban on smoking in bars, the number of adult smokers in New York City fell 11 percent from 2002 to 2003, one of the steepest short-term declines ever measured, according to surveys commissioned by the city.
The surveys, to be released today, show that after holding steady for a decade, the number of regular smokers dropped more than 100,000 in a little more than a year, to 19.3 percent of adults from 21.6 percent. The decline occurred across all boroughs, ages and ethnic groups.
The surveys also found a 13 percent decline in cigarette consumption, suggesting that smokers who did not quit were smoking less. Like similar local and national polls, the surveys counted as smokers all people who said that they had smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lives and that they now smoked every day or "some days."
City health officials and opponents of smoking said they believed that the decline was caused primarily by sharply higher tobacco taxes that went into effect in 2002, including an increase to $1.50 from 8 cents a pack in New York City.
The drop also coincided with a new city law banning smoking in bars, a new state law prohibiting it in restaurants and bars, and the Bloomberg administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign, which has included advertising and the distribution of free nicotine patches to thousands of people.
"From what we've seen, we believe New York City experienced the steepest decline anywhere in one year," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city health commissioner.
Spokesmen for the largest cigarette makers said the higher taxes had certainly pushed down sales. They also said they did not know how much consumption had actually declined because they could not account for factors like smuggling to evade taxes and increased sales of lesser-known brands from smaller manufacturers.
"You have some people just saying, `I'm not going to pay that much' and quitting, but I seriously doubt" the figure of 11 percent, said John W. Singleton, a spokesman for the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, said he had no reason to confirm or rebut the city's figures.
City officials said they expected skepticism from critics who will call the survey numbers an attempt by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's administration to validate his anti-tobacco policies, just as some people disputed the administration's reports showing no loss of business in bars after smoking was outlawed there.
"I take a pessimistic view of their figures because I suspect they're geared to supporting their agenda, but in this case, I'm sure we all hope that their stats are correct and less people are smoking," said Councilman Tony Avella of Queens, who has clashed with the mayor on tobacco control policies.
Administration officials said that the 2002 and 2003 telephone surveys were conducted for the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene by Baruch College researchers using identical methods and that the random dialing approach and questions were the same as those used in annual surveys by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They also point out that the city polls used very large samples, 10,000 people each time, which pollsters say makes the results more authoritative. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1 percentage point, officials said.
Other evidence also suggests a sharp drop in smoking, including lower city and state tobacco tax revenue, sales of products like nicotine patches and gum, and anecdotal reports of greater enrollment in smoking cessation programs.
"New York did the perfect trifecta that no one has attempted before — raising taxes very steeply, making it harder to smoke indoors, and promoting cessation, so you would expect a dramatic result," said Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, a professor of health and health care at the University of California at San Francisco and a former president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which finances health care research. "Most cities and states aren't doing much of anything."
Legislation to raise the minimum legal age for smoking to 19 from 18 in New York State has been proposed. Yesterday, when asked about the proposal, Mr. Bloomberg said: "I certainly would not be opposed to raising the age. You know, I've done what I think I can to discourage smoking in the city."
According to the Centers for Disease Control, adult smoking nationwide declined steadily from the first surgeon general's warning in the 1960's to the early 1990's, then held steady, though it continued to decline among teenagers. Annual federal surveys by the Centers for Disease Control show the adult rate, both nationally and in New York State, steady at about 23 percent for several years, through 2002, the most recent year for which numbers are available.
For a decade, surveys showed the rate in the city almost unchanged. The most recent surveys show greater declines among people who federal and city statistics indicate are less able to afford higher prices: the youngest adults, Bronx residents, women, and blacks and Hispanics.
"This city survey shows what can happen if you attack it really hard," said Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco-Free New York, an advocacy group. "It is not at all surprising. This is what we said all along would happen if you sharply raised the cost of smoking."
New York State raised its tax on cigarettes from 56 cents a pack to $1.11 in March 2000, and on April 1, 2002, lifted it to $1.50, one of the highest tobacco taxes in the country. New York City raised its tax on July 1, 2002, from 8 cents to $1.50, by far the highest local levy in the country. The federal tax rose to 34 cents from 24 cents in January 2000, and to 39 cents on Jan. 1, 2002.
So the combined city, state and federal levies on a pack stood at 88 cents at the end of 1999, $1.53 at the end of 2001, and $3.39 by mid-2002.
A new city law took effect on April 1, 2003, prohibiting smoking in bars and eliminating limited exceptions to the previous ban on smoking in restaurants. A statewide ban in restaurants and bars took effect on July 24.
The city conducted its 2002 survey from May to July, and the 2003 canvass from April to November.
In 2002 and 2003, taxed cigarette sales declined about 25 percent statewide and about 40 percent in the city, according to government officials. Some of that drop reflects increased efforts to evade higher taxes, like Internet sales and bootlegging. In the city today, a name-brand pack of 20 cigarettes typically retails for $7 to $8, but nontaxed packs smuggled into the city can be bought illegally on many street corners for about $5.
Health researchers, economists and cigarette makers agree that some of the fall in tax revenue represents a real decline in consumption, but they disagree on the extent. Studies have shown that a 10 percent increase in the cost of cigarettes produces about a 4 percent drop in use.
"New York City is almost a laboratory experiment in what happens when prices get so high people just refuse to pay it," said Mr. Singleton, of R. J. Reynolds. "There's a real economic incentive here for people to break the law."
In 2002, drugstore sales of antismoking products — mostly nicotine patches and gum — rose 3.3 percent nationally and 9.7 percent in New York State, according to Information Resources Inc., a company that tracks drug sales. In 2003, as the products' prices rose, sales dropped 8.7 percent nationally. Sales fell less sharply in New York, by 7.5 percent, or about 50,000 units, but those figures do not include the 35,000 nicotine patch kits the city sent to smokers free last year.
Health researchers say that smoking cuts short the lives of about one-third of long-term smokers, by an average of about 14 years. Dr. Frieden, the city health commissioner, said reducing the smoking population by 100,000 people, if the change is permanent, "means that there will be at least 30,000 fewer premature deaths."
April
25, 2004
So
a Guy Walks Into a Bar With an Air Monitor...
By Richard
Perez-Pena
It takes a toll, being the scientist who has to measure the air quality in bar after bar around the East and West Coasts, wearily checking for smoke particles between beers.
"You go to a bar, have a beer, go to another bar," said Mark Travers, a 28-year-old doctoral candidate at the University at Buffalo, part of the State University of New York. He carried his sophisticated monitoring equipment in a shoulder case.
"By the end of the night, you aren't so motivated to pick up and go on to the next bar," he said. "Occupational hazard. I'm not really complaining, 'Oh, I have to go bar-hopping again.' But I definitely don't go in to work early like I used to."
Nonetheless, after months of arduous research, Mr. Travers and other scientists at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo have reached a significant conclusion about indoor air in Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's New York, a year after the city banned smoking in all bars and restaurants: The atmosphere in them has, on average, less than one-tenth as many fine particles and other harmful chemicals as in cities where smoking is still allowed. When they looked only at bars, and only late at night when the indoor haze was thickest, the contrast to New York City was much sharper.
While the results he gathered may not be terribly surprising, the study, financed in part by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an antismoking group, put a numerical stamp on the still-new experience of walking into a bar past midnight and being able to see across the room, of hoisting a pint or two and not having your eyes sting or your hair and clothes smell of the experience the next morning.
"It still seems really strange to be in the bar at 1 a.m., when I'd say 60 percent of the people are at least part-time smokers, and not see that cloud," said William Schumacher, a bartender at Kenn's Broome Street Bar in SoHo. "I always thought the smoke didn't bother me, but I go home feeling better these days."
In a sampling of Manhattan taverns Mr. Travers visited last Saturday night, the average concentration of those tiny particles, soot, was 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air, about the same as he had found a few weeks earlier in Buffalo. Health experts say that number is not particularly good - the city has measured lower concentrations at the mouth of the Holland Tunnel at rush hour - and reflects New York City's general air pollution problems.
But it is a far cry from cities where smoking is still allowed. In dozens of bars and restaurants in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Hoboken, N.J., Mr. Travers found an average particulate concentration of almost 300. That number includes measurements taken at places that are primarily restaurants, and some readings taken before the nights got busy. In bars visited late at night, the particulate pollution in other cities often topped, 400, 600, even 1,000 in one case.
California began the effort to ban smoking in bars back in 1998. But for all its health-conscious image, the trend-setting left coast did not match New York in Mr. Travers' findings, for the simple reason that people there cheated. In some Los Angeles night spots, he found smokers defying the ban, and an average particulate level of 94.
In addition to particulates, second-hand smoke contains carbon monoxide and a group of carcinogens called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH. Mr. Travers measured carbon monoxide and found significant, but less striking, differences between smoking and nonsmoking businesses. He did not test for PAH, which studies show varies in direct proportion to particulates.
Several studies have shown that secondhand smoke poses a risk of cancer and heart disease, while a few others - the ones cited by opponents of smoking bans - have not shown any link. Inhaling fine particles in large amounts, from whatever source, can cause many health problems.
The numbers collected by Mr. Travers show striking variation, in ways that both sides in the ongoing debate might seize on to support their arguments. In Albany, tavern owners and some legislators are proposing exemptions to the ban that New York State passed last year, for bars with good air-flow systems.
The ESPN Zone at Baltimore's Inner Harbor presented one extreme early one evening. Families with children having dinner sat at many of the tables, and there were only a few smokers in a half-full, modern room with high ceilings and gale-force ventilation. The particulate level was 70 - far below most other smoking places, but still almost triple the New York City average.
A few hours later, at the Horse You Came In On bar in Fells Point, a low-ceilinged old Baltimore place packed with hard-drinking people in their 20's listening to a band playing Cheap Trick covers, it was 526. And that was mild compared with the upstairs bar the next night at Millie & Al's, in the Adams Morgan section of Washington, D.C., where the particulate level hit 1,119, or about 45 times as high as a typical New York City place.
Even the nonsmoking places varied, depending on factors like the presence of a kitchen (stoves and ovens produce some particulates), and the general level of air pollution in the city.
Tagging along with Mr. Travers and talking with patrons also turned up a wide range of attitudes. Some nonsmokers said they did not mind smoking and opposed any infringement on the right to smoke, while some smokers said they would be happy to see a ban.
People said that smoking prohibitions had subtly altered their social equations, encouraging them or discouraging them from going out to bars, depending on their tastes, and causing nicotine refugees to gather out on the sidewalks.
"I believe in personal accountability, and I know what I'm doing to myself, and this is one of my happiest moments," Hafeez Rajii, a visiting New Yorker, said between drags on a Parliament in Garrett's, a bar in the Georgetown section of Washington.
A number of smokers said they approved of nonsmoking laws, and even saw a benefit to themselves. "I smoke a lot less now because of it," said Matt O'Brien, 26, who sat with friends last weekend at the Heartland Brewery Union Square in Manhattan.
The ban has even changed the pickup scene, according to Mr. Schumacher, the bartender. "There are lot of guys you see in here, not smoking,'' he said, "but as soon as they see a pretty girl go out there for a smoke, they step out and light up."
April
9, 2004
Rejecting
Constitutional Claims, Judge Upholds Smoking Bans
By Susan Saulny
A federal judge in Manhattan has upheld the smoking bans that the city and state enacted last year.
In a widely expected decision released yesterday, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the bans do not unduly burden smokers' rights to freedom of speech, association, travel or any other protected privileges.
Audrey Silk, the founder of the group that filed the lawsuit against the bans last July - NYC Clash, Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment - said yesterday that it had not yet decided whether to appeal.
"Of course we're disappointed, because we feel we presented a very strong case with a lot of documents that refute the common perceptions," Ms. Silk said.
The group contended that the amount of smoke bartenders and waiters are exposed to is limited, and so not enough of a health threat to necessitate a ban, Ms. Silk said. Summing up that point, she added: "The dose makes the poison."
But the court did not agree with the group's move to discredit scientific evidence about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, or any of its other points.
The group also held that the city's Smoke Free Air Act and provisions of the state's Clean Indoor Air Act are variously vague and overly restrictive, violating the First and 14th Amendments.
Judge Marrero held that the group's First Amendment arguments had a "critical flaw" - "the premise that association, speech, and general social interaction cannot occur or cannot be experienced to the fullest without smoking."
Clash suggested that the ban would deter travel to and within the state, eating away at the liberty to move freely, a right that the 14th Amendment states cannot be abridged without due process of law.
But the judge wrote that he doubted the bans would play any material role in smokers' travel decisions. "Smokers remain free to travel as they please, to no less degree than nonsmokers, and may still smoke while they drive their automobiles or walk in the streets," he said.
The city's chief lawyer on the case, Ave Maria Brennan, an assistant corporation counsel, said in a statement that she felt the court "reached the correct decision."
Thomas R. Frieden, the city's commissioner of health, said in a statement: "The Smoke Free Air Act was enacted to protect workers from the adverse health impact of secondhand smoke, and we are pleased with the Federal District Court's decision upholding its constitutionality."
March
29, 2004
Bars
and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says
By Andrea
Elliott
The city's restaurants and bars have prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments since the law took effect a year ago, according to a study to be released by the city today.
The study also found that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less secondhand smoke in the workplace.
"It really confirms that New York City is now a healthier place to work, eat and drink," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, commissioner of the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which produced the report along with two other city departments and the New York City Economic Development Corporation.
Critics say the report is flawed because it does not separate bar and restaurant statistics, whereas bars have suffered more from the ban, critics contend. The increase in tax payments and jobs must be weighed against the restaurant industry's emergence from the post-9/11 recession, said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association.
"There's no separation between Starbucks and McDonald's and the nightclub and bar industry," Mr. Rabin said. "Many restaurant and bar workers have had to take second jobs to make up for lost tip income."
Data from the city's Department of Finance shows that the money spent in New York bars and restaurants has increased, the report states: from April 2003 to January, the city collected about $17.3 million in tax payments from bars and restaurants, a rise of about $1.4 million over the same period a year earlier.
The payments were for the general corporation tax and the unincorporated business tax, and are usually collected quarterly from restaurants and bars. The rates have not changed since before April 2003.
An average of 164,000 people were employed in restaurants and bars in 2003, the highest number in at least a decade. Since the smoking ban took effect last March 30, employment in bars and restaurants has risen by 10,600 jobs, taking into account seasonal fluctuations, according to the report.
The number of the city's bars and restaurants - roughly 20,000 - remained about the same in the third quarter of 2002 as in the third quarter of 2003. Last year, the New York State Liquor Authority issued 1,416 new liquor licenses to New York City businesses, compared with 1,361 the previous year, the study reports.
But the report does not reflect the harsh realities faced by the city's bars, which catered to a smoking-heavy crowd before the ban, said bar merchants, who questioned why bar data was not separate in the report. The city's answer is that data that separates bars from restaurants is not reliable, said Sam Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.
"We'd be guessing, and we probably wouldn't be as accurate," Mr. Miller said.
To try to demonstrate where the report fell short, David McWater offered his own experience: he owns five taverns in Manhattan, including Nice Guy Eddie's and Julep in the East Village. Last year, he said, his businesses experienced, on average, a 1 percent increase in sales, compared with the usual 8 to 15 percent sales increase enjoyed by the bars in previous years.
"In the old days a smoker might spend six hours in my bar drinking and talking to friends," said Mr. McWater, 38. "Now he's spending four hours in the bar and two hours outside smoking. I can't serve people outside. Every time a smoker goes outside, that's lost revenue."
The study also found that 97 percent of the more than 22,000 establishments inspected by the city from April 2003 through February were found in compliance with the new law and that 150,000 New Yorkers reported less exposure to secondhand smoke in their workplaces since the ban took effect.
The Health Department conducted an air quality survey of a sampling of bars and restaurants in August 2002 and returned to the locations in May 2003, after the ban took effect, and noted substantial improvement.
March
9, 2004
A
Cultural History Faces Stringent Smoking Laws
By Corey Kilgannon
Of the roughly 20 hookah bars in New York City, about half are clustered along a short stretch of Steinway Street in Astoria, Queens, known as Little Egypt. Here in the hazy cafes, owned mostly by Egyptian immigrants, men smoke fruit-flavored tobacco called shisha through water pipes called hookahs as they banter in Arabic, play chess or backgammon, or simply pass the day in a fragrant fog.
But big trouble has come to Little Egypt, causing the kind of jitters more often associated with the cigarette habit. Hookah shop owners say the city's Health Department has begun sending agents to Steinway Street to aggressively enforce the stringent smoking laws that took effect last spring - laws the owners had thought they could quietly sidestep.
Ali Mohamed and Moustafa Elgohry, Egyptian immigrants who own a shisha cafe on Steinway Street near 25th Avenue, said they had received six summonses from the city in recent months, one resulting in a $1,200 fine. "We charge $4 for a smoke," Mr. Mohamed said. "Do you know how many shishas I have to sell to make that back?"
When the smoking ban first took effect a year ago, the two men said, they received sporadic summonses, several of which were dismissed by the Health Department's administrative tribunal. "But they've been very aggressive lately," Mr. Mohamed said. "Two weeks ago, they sent their guys to every shisha shop on the block. It's harassment."
Mr. Elgohry said enforcement agents had warned customers in his shop that they, too, would be ticketed if caught smoking. "They've scared some of our customers away," Mr. Mohamed said. "We're hard-working people trying to earn a living. I worked 20 years driving a cab for the money to open this store. Now they're trying to close us down."
The owners have enlisted the help of their councilman, Peter Vallone Jr., who wrote to the city's health commissioner last week arguing that the shisha cafes are no different than the cigar bars that qualify for a legal exemption from the smoking laws. Mr. Vallone said that city law allows smoking if the bars draw at least 10 percent of their revenue from the sale of tobacco. Most of the shisha café owners say they earn well over half their revenue from tobacco.
But a Health Department official said yesterday that the cigar-bar exemption applied only to places that sell alcohol.
Elliott S. Marcus, an assistant commissioner, said, "Hookah establishments may apply for an exemption as a tobacco bar - which by definition is an establishment where the sale of food is incidental, at least 40 percent of gross receipts are from the sale of alcohol, and at least 10 percent of gross receipts are from the sale of tobacco products or the rental of humidors.
"To date, the department has not received any tobacco bar applications from hookah establishments," he said, adding that they were therefore subject to the city smoking ban.
The cafe owners said they would not serve alcohol because most of their customers were Muslims, who do not drink.
"I've asked that the city give them exclusion from the smoking laws because they fit into a cigar bar exemption," Mr. Vallone said last week. "The only difference is that they don't serve alcohol, but should they be punished for that?"
The cafe owners contend that hookah smoking is a vital part of their culture. And their shops were instrumental, they say, in transforming what was a downtrodden block several years ago into a bustling commercial strip where shops stay open late at night and people mill about on the street the way they do in downtown Cairo.
Many of the cafes draw their largest crowds well past midnight. Egyptians, Algerians, Tunisians and others, mostly men, sit next to tall ornate water pipes, sipping juices, coffee or strong tea between puffs. Some like the tobacco dipped in molasses or flavored with fruits or spices. A full pipe usually costs $4 and can last an hour.
Muhamed Bashir, who owns a restaurant on Steinway Street that offers shisha smoking, said: "We get customers from all over - Long Island, Connecticut, New Jersey. But they would not come if we didn't have smoking."
City agents have inspected his shop three times recently, he said, adding, "Luckily, no one was smoking when they came, but they said, 'If anyone smokes hookah, we're going to give them a ticket.' "
Esam Adly, the manager of the Egyptian Cafe, which opened four years ago on Steinway Street, said he had received three summonses in recent months. Two were dismissed after hearings and the third will be heard later this month, he said.
"New York has many different cultures, and smoking shisha is part of our culture," he said, staring nervously into an open-air oven baking small coals to a rosy glow so they could be placed on hookahs to keep the shisha burning. "It's an Arabic tradition, and it's our whole business. We couldn't stay open without it."
Muhammed Darwish, 36, a livery driver, sat last week in the Egyptian Coffee Shop. "This is our culture," he said. "Smoking brings our people together. It's not like a bar. People only come here if they want to smoke, or don't mind others smoking. Customers would rather smoke here than at home, around their wife and children."
Next to him was another hookah smoker, Khalid Kairouani, 38, a former Olympic runner from Morocco who has won three United States championships in the 3,000-meter category. He exhaled a thick plume of aromatic smoke toward the No Smoking signs on the wall. The owner, Labib Salama, said he put the signs up because cigarettes were banned in the shop.
"Shisha is the reason people come here," said Mr. Salama, 50, an Egyptian immigrant who recently called many fellow cafe owners to his shop to plan strategy and choose a lawyer to help them fight the city crackdown.
"If the city stops shisha smoking, many shops here will close," Mr. Salama said. "We brought this block back to life. Does the city want it to be dead again?"
February
14, 2004
Gladly
Taking the Blame for Health in New York City
By Jennifer
Steinhauer
With the exception of the police commissioner, the heads of city agencies tend to be virtually invisible to the public, trotted out for the occasional news conference with the mayor while doing most of their business behind closed doors.
But Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city's health commissioner, has turned out to be an active policy advocate among the city's department heads, the outspoken architect of some of the Bloomberg administration's more controversial policies.
Although Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is more closely associated with a law that bans smoking citywide, the legislation was actually developed by Dr. Frieden, who was also given responsibility for helping to push it through the City Council.
Since Dr. Frieden was appointed in 2002, the Bloomberg administration has also changed the city's restaurant inspection process and increased the fines, infuriating the industry so much that its trade group sued the city.
In some ways, Dr. Frieden, who is 43 and is married with one child, is inheriting a tradition of active health commissioners that retreated during the Giuliani administration, when public health was a back-burner issue.
"The city health department has a long history of activist health commissioners going back to the turn of the century," said Dr. Mark Chassin, the chairman for the department of health policy at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
Although Mayor Bloomberg has taken both the credit and the grief for the ban on smoking, the restaurant fines, and the opposition to a bill on lead paint hazards, insiders on each issue know that the health commissioner is the one who developed these policies.
And while Dr. Frieden is highly respected among Mr. Bloomberg's senior staff members, many of them also grumble that his policies have come at a political cost to the mayor. "The smoking ban would never have happened without him," said one administration official.
Dr. Frieden offered no apologies for his eager enforcement of the law. "It has been said that public health programs are inherently unpopular because they improve the health of a large number of people, but many of them disturb a small number of very vocal people," he said. "We have done a terrific thing, by improving the way we inspect restaurants. We now have cleaner food, but the restaurants that are getting fined are angry."
About the smoking law, he said: "In public health there is no pro-TB or pro-Ebola lobby, but there is a pro-tobacco lobby. And they spend $2 billion on marketing and promotion. Everyone knows that secondhand smoke kills. It would be a pretty sorry case if a health commissioner didn't support this law. The surprise is that the mayor supports it. But I would be happy to be attacked for it."
Dr. Frieden's health goals have expanded greatly in his current role, with interests as varied as racial disparities in health care, colon cancer, and helping new mothers care for their infants. His pet cause, though, is ending tobacco use, a goal he repeats in interviews, in his letter to New Yorkers on the health department's Web site, and in conversations with doctors. "In terms of tobacco control, we're not done," he said. "Seven out of 10 people want to quit. What we know is the health care system doesn't do as good a job as it could in helping them."
Dr. Frieden, who is an obsessive consumer of data, also decided that the city's restaurant inspections were not focusing on the things that actually cause people to get sick. So he changed the category of many violations and increased fines substantially; the minimum fine doubled to $200. Inspection failure rates doubled last year, although they are ticking down again.
Doug Griebel, the president of the New York City chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association, said of Dr. Frieden's changes: "There are too many inconsistencies in the inspections, and fines have quadrupled, which serves no purpose other than to raise money." Mr. Griebel, who owns four Manhattan restaurants, complained, as have other owners, that violations that could be addressed on the spot before now automatically result in fines.
Dr. Frieden still enjoys dining out on sushi, and said he was just fulfilling a mission. "Public health has one underlying philosophy, and one underlying methodology," he said. "The underlying philosophy is social justice, and methodology is using data to improve decisions."
February
11, 2004
Smoke
if You Have Money? Hardly, Mayor Says
By Jennifer
Steinhauer
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is once again slipping into the quicksand created by his citywide smoking ban - not over its existence, but over perceived inconsistencies in enforcing it.
The troubles for the mayor began last week when The New York Times reported on a black-tie dinner on Jan. 15 at the St. Regis Hotel where Wall Street big shots puffed away on cigars within smelling distance of the mayor. Mr. Bloomberg, whose ban on smoking extends to every restaurant, bar and hotel in the city, has urged New Yorkers to tattle on those who break the law. The city has issued dozens of summonses.
Mr. Bloomberg has since said he did not see smoking - or at least he did not remember seeing smoking - at the St. Regis event, and yesterday he became annoyed during an interview on WLIB when he was asked about it again.
"It's somebody trying to make a story," Mr. Bloomberg said. "The bottom line is, I don't really remember anybody smoking. Most people weren't, and if there were some people in the corner smoking, they were smoking. What do you want me to do, call the cops?"
Well, yes, many people indeed would have liked to see Mr. Bloomberg force the wealthy revelers at the St. Regis to put their cigars out, because that in fact is what the law dictates. The problem for Mr. Bloomberg is that he has more than once given the appearance of having a different standard for upper-class New Yorkers - some of whom have taken to puffing in front of the mayor with the explicit goal of taunting him - than he does for bar hoppers around the rest of the city.
"Bloomberg is a clear example of 'Do As I Say, Not As I Do,' " said Tricia Romano, who has a nightlife column in The Village Voice. "The places he parties are high-society hangouts - they aren't going to get complaints from the neighbors. And I'd be shocked if a gang of rich socialites were huddled outside smoking cigarettes and driving the neighbors crazy with the noise."
This is not the first time this has happened to Mr. Bloomberg. Last summer, police officers gave tickets to people drinking beer in public at a July 4 party on the beach in the Rockaways, but allowed people to drink wine in Central Park during a free concert by the New York Philharmonic the following Monday.
When asked about the discrepancy at a news conference, Mr. Bloomberg said that the drinking near the beach led to drowning, adding: "I don't know of anybody that's drowned in a tuba recently."
February
6, 2004
If
Only for a Night, Wall St. Fallen Idol Is One of the Boys
By Landon
Thomas Jr.
Richard A. Grasso is no longer a member of Wall Street's most exclusive public club, the New York Stock Exchange, but he still belongs to its most secretive society, Kappa Beta Phi.
The sole purpose of the society, which claims more than 250 of Wall Street's executives and former chiefs, is to allow some of the biggest egos in finance to poke fun at themselves and to induct new members in a campy rite that dates back to 1929.
At its annual black-tie dinner on Jan. 15 at the St. Regis Hotel, Mr. Grasso was not only in attendance, but the butt of a series of jokes about his $139.5 million pay package as chairman and chief executive of the exchange. Bankers who were there said he took the ribbing in good humor.
Like the best of clubs, Kappa Beta has special privileges — lifetime membership, which Mr. Grasso can now appreciate, and, for the broader membership, even the leeway to break a municipal law or two.
Laughing with Mr. Grasso were several former directors of the stock exchange who granted him that pay and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, perhaps the biggest titan in the room with a net worth of $4 billion. Though the mayor famously banned smoking in public places in New York, several Wall Street executives enjoyed an illicit puff of the occasional cigar in his presence.
"Sure, there were cigars passed out," said Alan C. Greenberg, the former chief executive of Bear Stearns, who is known as Ace. "And some people even had the guts to smoke them — including me."
Smoking in a public room is not allowed at the St. Regis, according to hotel officials.
But such legal niceties were the details for another day: Wall Street's titans had gathered for a night of racy fun.
Among the inductees, or "neophytes" in club parlance, was Diana L. Taylor, the banking superintendent for the Pataki administration and the companion of Mr. Bloomberg.
Which could have been why Mr. Bloomberg, whose Wall Street bona fides go back to his days as a hot-shot salesman on the Salomon Brothers trading desk, was in the audience.
Mr. Grasso did not return calls to his lawyer seeking comment. Mayor Bloomberg also declined to comment. Ms. Taylor could not be reached for comment last night.
January
29, 2004
U.S.
Arrests 10 as Members of Big Cigarette Smuggling Ring
By Eric Lichtblau
WASHINGTON — The cartons of cigarettes carried familiar brand names like Marlboro and Marlboro Lights, and would fetch as much as $70 each in New York City.
But in reality, federal officials charged Wednesday, many of the cigarettes were counterfeits, made in Asia for as little as $2 a carton and then smuggled into the United States.
In what they described as a major dent in the multibillion-dollar black market in tobacco products, officials on Wednesday arrested 10 people in five states who the authorities said had been running the biggest tobacco import smuggling ring in American history. The defendants are accused of smuggling more than 100 million cigarettes into the United States.
Among the prime destinations of the black-market cigarettes, officials said, were Los Angeles, western Texas and New York State, including an unidentified Indian reservation in upstate New York.
The victims, officials said, were not only the tobacco companies whose products were counterfeited but also the federal government, which estimates that cigarette smuggling costs it more than a billion dollars a year in lost fees and revenue, and New York, California and Texas, which together were cheated out of at least $8 million.
The smugglers operated "a vast criminal conspiracy" and "sought to exploit the U.S. economy" by evading taxes and duty fees, said Michael T. Dougherty, who oversees immigration and customs enforcement operations for the Department of Homeland Security.
Federal officials identified the leader of the ring as Jorge Abraham, 34, of Sunland Park, N.M., who is charged in a 92-count indictment with conspiracy to smuggle cigarettes, wire fraud, money laundering and other offenses. Nine other people, in New York, Texas, Florida and California, were also arrested, and officials said an undisclosed number had been charged in indictments that remain under seal.
If convicted, Mr. Abraham faces not only a prison term but also fines and restitution of about $30 million and forfeiture of his $545,000 house in New Mexico. A telephone call to his lawyer on Wednesday was not returned.
Lou Garthe, who oversees tobacco enforcement at the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said a three-year investigation had found that traffickers under Mr. Abraham's direction had used two main methods to smuggle cigarettes, in a scheme that began in 2000 or earlier.
In some cases, Mr. Garthe said, they bought low-grade cigarettes in China, Thailand and elsewhere, smuggled the cartons into the United States as boxes of toys or plastic products, and sold them on the black market as brand-name cigarettes. In other cases, he said, they imported authentic brand-name cigarettes into American ports but evaded taxes and duty fees by falsely declaring that the products were bound for Mexico.
Federal officials said that in the course of the investigation, they seized $18.1 million worth of counterfeit and brand-name cigarettes bound for the black market.
January
24, 2004
Dare
to Smoke? The Guy Behind You Is the Mayor
By Sabrina
Tavernise
It would have been a delicate question under any circumstance. But the surprise presence of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg turned it into a New York farce.
At a table in the plush, quiet bar of The Mark hotel on the Upper East Side, a woman asked fellow drinkers if they minded her lighting a cigarette. She leaned from a perch on an armchair toward well-dressed diners at four tables near her. In the dimly lighted room, where about seven small groups sat sipping wine and cocktails, most guests simply muttered that they were not opposed.
But Richard Medley, out for a drink with friends, spotted an important reason to say no. He had watched as Mr. Bloomberg entered the bar earlier. The city's antismoking champion had taken his seat behind the unsuspecting smoker.
"She turned to me and said, 'Do you mind if I smoke,' " Mr. Medley recalled. "I said, 'I don't mind, but he might,' " he said, loudly enough for the room to enjoy the joke, and he pointed to Mr. Bloomberg.
The woman, dressed in jeans and a sweater, swung around to face him, and began to laugh. She then asked him if he minded her smoking. Mr. Bloomberg, laughing, expanded the joke. It was the bar owners who would be offended, he said. They stood to pay a fine for her indulgence.
"It was a very New York thing," Mr. Medley said. "It was all in very good humor."
Mr. Bloomberg remained unfazed. He even offered the woman a lesson in how to quit. Some time later, in a charm offensive, he bought her table drinks. The guests laughed at the joke. But in a New York minute, the room went back to nursing their drinks. The woman, ultimately, was not won over.
"I don't think she was going to follow his advice," Mr. Medley said. "I think she just dropped the subject."
A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg declined to comment on the incident.
Yesterday morning, Mr. Bloomberg gave a glimpse into the pressures of being the city's smoking conscience. On his radio show on WABC-AM, he was asked by a caller whether he would crack down on energy waste, like air-conditioners that blast in stores in the summer.
"I took on the smoking," he said. "I'm not sure I want to take on air-conditioning this year.''
January
18, 2004
Mayor
and Editor, Fussing Over Fuming
By Jennifer
Steinhauer
It would seem that Vanity Fair, the breathless chronicle of all things glamorous and shiny about New York and Hollywood, would be in love with the 108th mayor of New York City.
For years, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg seemed to embody the same qualities found in many of the magazine's subjects — a love of fancy restaurants, deep pockets for the charity circuit and real estate of considerable size in requisite tropical, European and urban locations.
Further, the editor of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter, runs in similar social and professional circles as Mr. Bloomberg did in his pre-mayoral, media mogul days, before he began choosing meatloaf on Staten Island over cheese courses at expensive Midtown restaurants. The two share a certain number of accouterments: Manhattan town houses, finely tailored suits and fat Rolodexes. Each has been known to be long on lady friends.
They were, in Mr. Carter's estimation, friends. But that was before Mr. Bloomberg imposed an almost total ban on indoor smoking in public places in New York City, infuriating Mr. Carter, who enjoyed lighting up in restaurants, bars and, according to three summonses he has received from city inspectors, his office at the sleek West 42nd Street headquarters of Condé Nast. Mr. Carter has called the enforcement of the new law harassment, among other things.
"It is an important issue," said Mr. Carter. "It is about freedom and your own civil liberties, and it is about the city. This is not Denver, it is not Seattle, it is a big rough turbine that is fueled by cigarette smoke and food and liquor. People want to go out at night. If your best friend smokes, it makes it very awkward."
Over the last six months, Vanity Fair has been ripping into Mr. Bloomberg on almost a monthly basis, vexing the mayor's staff and angering Mr. Bloomberg at times, too. In September, the magazine ran a lengthy profile of Mr. Bloomberg that was far from flattering, referring to him as "waiflike."
Mr. Carter has also devoted no fewer than three editor's letters to criticizing the mayor. In the latest, in the February issue of the magazine, Mr. Carter says the mayor is "like a husband who returns home after the honeymoon and announces to his new bride that he has decided that henceforth they will be vegans."
For that same issue now on newsstands, Mr. Carter commissioned an article by Christopher Hitchens in which Mr. Hitchens chronicled his minor crime spree throughout the city — feeding pigeons, smoking in a luxury car — painting Mr. Bloomberg's New York as something just short of a police state.
"I did it because I thought it would be fun journalism," Mr. Carter said. "It was to explain something."
He said, "I see some 86-year-old man getting a ticket for feeding birds in the park and I don't get it."
But Bloomberg administration officials say Mr. Carter has crossed a line. "It certainly raises the question of whether it is ethical journalism for an editor to use his magazine to push his agenda," said Edward Skyler, the mayor's press secretary, who last week accused Mr. Carter of ordering up a series of hatchet jobs on his boss.
Buzz Bissinger, who wrote the lengthy profile of Mr. Bloomberg, believes the administration protests too much.
"The piece was generally positive," Mr. Bissinger said. "I concluded that in his own idiosyncratic way, he's been an effective mayor." If the mayor's staff believes otherwise, he said, "It's pathetic."
A seminal song from the 1970's performed by the band War comes to mind: "Why Can't We Be Friends?" A sample verse: "I seen ya around for a long long time. I really remember you when you drank my wine."
Indeed Mr. Carter has drunk Mr. Bloomberg's wine, and snacked on his potpies as well. The two met several years ago when Mr. Bloomberg invited Mr. Carter to lunch near Mr. Bloomberg's corporate headquarters. Mr. Carter was later invited to dinner at Mr. Bloomberg's London and New York homes.
The two shared an affinity for social cachet, with Mr. Bloomberg at points embracing Mr. Carter's endeavors.
When Mr. Carter, 54, stopped playing host for dinner for the Serpentine Gallery in London, Mr. Bloomberg, 61, moved to quickly take it over. When word got out that Vanity Fair would no longer be holding the annual party after the White House Correspondents' dinner, Kevin Sheekey, an aide to Mr. Bloomberg at his company and in the administration, hopped in a cab and rushed to the Russian Federation Trade Ministry with a check to secure that party for Bloomberg L.P.
They have had their little jokes. Just last year, Mr. Bloomberg sent Mr. Carter a mock proclamation for a local law affecting "middle-aged men with long hair," stating that they ought to "cut their locks immediately." (Mr. Carter's coif is Baldwinesque: pick a brother.) "Regular inspections will be led by the Office of Emergency Management to begin at Da Silvano restaurant," the proclamation read.
And then the smoking ban came last spring.
Mr. Carter's resistance to the mayor's mandate has become so well known around Condé Nast that when the sprinkler system went off last year, the rumor mill immediately concluded that it was activated during another act of rebellion.
Mr. Carter denies it. "There was a fire in a fashion closet," he said. "I never set off the sprinkler system." He said that he does not smoke much in his office these days — "Not really."
However, Mr. Carter continues to light up in public spaces from time to time, as if he just wanted to vex the mayor. He once lit up not far from the mayor at the Four Seasons.
Mr. Bloomberg maintains that most New Yorkers support the smoking ban, and said pointedly on his weekly radio show on Jan. 9 that there was only "one magazine editor who's apoplectic about this."
He added, "His own people turned him in because he was breaking the law."
Mr. Carter insisted that he thought Mr. Bloomberg was a good mayor, and that he would vote for him in a re-election.
"He's rich; I'm not. He doesn't smoke; I do. But we have common interests," Mr. Carter said. "He is an interesting guy — he is great enjoyable company — but we just disagree on this one issue. I would be very happy to see him in a room."
January
14, 2004
A
Smoke-Filled Room Without the Politics
By Florence
Fabricant
Taking pity on desperate smokers, Joseph Franco, the owner of Caffé on the Green, 201-10 Cross Island Parkway in Bayside, Queens, has set up a tent, the Butt Hut, outside his restaurant and catering hall, once the home of Rudolph Valentino. It has heat, lights and seats. "But I never go in there," Mr. Franco said. "I'm not a smoker."
Smokers can also take shelter in a stretch limo parked in front of the David Burke & Donatella restaurant on East 61st Street. Stickers on the windows say "Smoking Room."
January
13, 2004
Upstate
Bar Wins Reversal of State's Smoking Ban
By Michelle
York
CICERO, N.Y., Jan. 10 — Decades ago, David A. Damon Jr. used to come to his father's bar and banquet hall to spin records, the vinyl kind, for the regulars.
It was a place where people stopped after fishing on Oneida Lake. Or for banquets celebrating another year of bowling competition. For nine years, the Elks ran the hall, about 10 miles north of Syracuse, as their private club. But in 1996, when the club could no longer afford the mortgage payments, the son took it back as his retirement venture.
Mr. Damon never meant to make much money. His business, Damons, was just a place where the memories were as old as the chairs (also the vinyl kind).
But he never meant to lose money, either. And he did after the state's smoking law went into effect last July. "I got killed," said Mr. Damon, 69, a retired engineer. "I didn't just lose the smokers; I lost the friends of the smokers, the nonsmokers, who didn't want to hang out without them."
"People used to come in after golfing," he added. "I stopped seeing fishermen, too. I used to have bowling banquets, but people decided they'd rather shake hands at the last game and go home. They changed their lifestyles."
When the weather began to turn last fall, even the bar's loyalists dropped off after growing tired of tramping out to the gravel parking lot in the cold for a smoke. Mr. Damon said his receipts were down by $1,000 a week. He laid off his only employee, a part-time bartender, and was using his retirement savings and Social Security checks to keep the bar open.
"There used to be 15 to 20 cars in the parking lot, and now you see two," said Michael Smith, a regular who gave up smoking years ago.
Alarmed, Mr. Damon went to Onondaga County officials to exercise a provision in the smoking law intended for just such a predicament. After he proved his economic hardship, and demonstrated that the bar had a separate room suitable for a smoking lounge, the county granted a waiver. Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, a trade group, said he thought the waiver for Damons was the first in the state.
Apparently it will not be the last. "There's going to be a few more that meet the criteria," said Gary R. Sauda, the director of environmental health for the county, which is considering 24 other applications.
The association believes that 10 percent of the state's 16,000 restaurants and bars that are licensed to sell alcohol will ultimately find ways around the tobacco law. How they do so will vary.
When smoking restrictions in the state Clean Indoor Air Act were tightened last year, the state law superseded local smoking laws. But it allows New York City and those counties with full-service health departments to decide whether they will grant waivers and under what conditions. In rural counties without full-service health departments, the state policy for exemptions takes over, said Claire Pospisil, a State Health Department spokeswoman.
Some places, like New York City, and Westchester and Suffolk Counties, do not offer waivers, health officials said. Nassau County recently decided to offer them. "It's happening as we speak," said Cynthia Brown, a spokeswoman for the county's Health Department.
Other counties decided to offer waivers but did not establish guidelines for applications, a situation that has stalled the process.
Some counties may have been waiting for direction from the state, which issued guidelines just in December suggesting that bars that lose 15 percent of their business may be eligible, said Mr. Sauda, the Onondaga environmental health director. Onondaga decided to not require a certain percentage, only a substantiated drop.
Two "economically depressed" counties in the state may try to give waivers to any bars that ask for them, Mr. Wexler said, though he declined to name the counties.
The delays and different rules have led to confusion, frustration and perhaps action, Mr. Wexler said. "News that a bar in Cicero is getting a waiver has stimulated the effort for a level playing field," he said. "The smoking ban will be a major topic in the Legislature this year. I just don't think it's going away."
Since news of the waiver broke, Mr. Wexler said, his office has been getting about a dozen calls a day from bar owners who feel hopeful for the first time since the law was passed.
Even in counties that have guidelines in place, like Onondaga, bar owners face a lengthy approval process. Mr. Damon said the paperwork took weeks, "not including thinking time," he said, "because I guess thinking time doesn't count." He turned over financial records comparing receipts from August through October over a three-year period, and they showed a 40 percent drop in business last year, after the ban took effect. He escorted county inspectors through Damons, showing them a separate banquet room and ventilation system.
His application was approved and the waiver was hand-delivered during the holidays. "Now I have to see if I can get customers back," he said.
As reports of the waiver have spread, he has picked up some new patrons. "I saw it on the news," said Shawn Prell of North Syracuse, "and I said, `Good! We're going to this place.' " Ms. Prell stopped in for a drink on a recent afternoon with her husband, Ed. "We even called our friends."
The Prells confirmed what Mr. Damon believed: that smokers cut down on the number of times they went out to bars or restaurants, but not on their cigarettes, after the ban took effect. "We used to go out every week, but now we go out once a month," Ms. Prell said. "We're saving money."
Mr. Damon clearly hopes to change that. He pointed the Prells toward the smoking lounge and poured their first drink.
January
4, 2004
Waiting
to Inhale
By Michael
Brick
Quietly, and without the contraptions or planning of Prohibition, the cigarette smokers of New York have created their own modern rendition of the speakeasy, where their outlawed pleasure can be enjoyed once more. There are no passwords. You just have to wait.
The proper hour can be 11 p.m., or midnight or later still in places where the patrons do not like to go home. There is no schedule, no phone call, no listing in The Village Voice. The moment comes by common assent, by a shared appraising of all the people remaining in the bar and all the forces around them — the darkness of the windows, the breath of the staff.
"I hear from lots of people, especially in the four outer boroughs," said Audrey Silk, a leader of a group that seeks to repeal the city's smoking ban. "They're letting you smoke."
When the ban took effect nine months ago, disagreements over the public health and economic implications prevailed. Some establishments searched for loopholes in the law, like the Oak Bar at the Plaza Hotel, which sought to present itself as a cigar bar exempted from enforcement. In large measure, these efforts failed, and smokers moved to the streets, the warm weather making the ban's first months somewhat easier on them.
Open resistance to the ban has been muted, coming mostly in the form of lawsuits, including one filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan just before Christmas by the Players Club, seeking to overturn the city and state antismoking laws. As the weather has turned, though, smokers have taken up secretive civil disobedience.
In the past few weeks, it has happened in about half a dozen bars that were visited over five or so nights. Smokers themselves discussed the phenomenon freely; bartenders were interviewed with the assurance that they would not be named and that identifying details of their establishments would not be revealed.
In each place, it was clear when the moment to light up had arrived. It was preceded by a sensation of being unmasked — a relief, of sorts — the kind that comes of knowing one is among friends.
It is a phenomenon not unlike what happened to Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's crackdown on jaywalking, when police officers working the streets seemed to decide that, you know what, some New Yorkers were just going to jaywalk at some intersections.
With smoking, too, the setting can be almost as important as the hour of the night. The occasional sudden transformation into a smoking club does not happen in every place. Stay late on a temperate night at Union Pool, a shiny pickup joint in Williamsburg that offers pictures of naked women on the walls and the rattle of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway overhead, and it is likely the moment will never come. There are too many people, and too many windows, and besides, outdoor space is ample.
The opposite also holds. Setting can trump the hour of the night, and smoking can start before 9 p.m., but usually only when the nature of the place is so entwined with notions of decadence and indulgence that few behaviors are questioned. At the Buzzcocks show at Irving Plaza last month, for instance, even the uptight young woman who turned her head to shush other patrons (apparently she was having trouble hearing the punk rock music) held a lighted cigarette.
Ordinarily, though, even in the bars most amenable to smoking, time is the common controlling factor.
There is, for instance, a bright and festively ornamented bar in Brooklyn where a tight group of regulars gathers nightly to drink away the day's frustrations, to work crossword puzzles and argue word derivations. Among other attributes, the place is perhaps the only etymology bar in the city, and its character changes depending on the hour of the day. After a certain point, when only those well-known customers remain, the bartender, who has long since forsworn smoking and drinking, will sometimes lock the door.
And all who remain know the significance of the turning of the bolt.
What happens after the silent declaration that the rules have been lifted is the same wherever you go.
In the far East Village on Christmas night, a silvery Zippo lighter rested on a pack of Marlboro Lights, right there on the bar just a short walk from the Ms. Pac Man machine. The sight was jarring in its familiarity. What bar did those same items not decorate just a year ago?
The smoke that filled the air announced itself, if only because it had been gone long enough to let eyes and noses forget its taste. The smoke-filled bar, it said, was back.
"It never really left," the bartender said, "depending on the time of night or what the clientele is."
Over in a corner, Michael Reiss, of Brooklyn, sat talking with friends. They arranged themselves loosely around a table by a window.
"Smokers in New York City are going to find what they need to do, what they want to do," Mr. Reiss said. "Here, even if you have an outdoor patio, you're going to freeze. You have bars that are going to let it go."
So, knowing that the moment will come, the smokers sit inside these days, and they hold off their cravings as long as they are able. They may even bundle up and go outside once or twice for a light, putting napkins over their drinks like Southern Californians.
In between trips, they wait.
And then the moment comes, and it is like dancing — it is shared and exuberant and wild. It came after midnight one night last week to a dark and narrow room the shape of a railroad apartment in south Brooklyn, where Christmas lights and candles flickered. A sign on the wall announced that smoking was disallowed. Bodies were sloped lazily on couches. A man on a bar stool had his hand inside the low-slung waistline of his date's jeans.
Boots and Converse All-Stars slapped the floor as the revelers negotiated one another, moving and talking and yelling and smoking. They were in for the night. Long after 3 a.m., a bartender out from his post flicked lighted matches at his customer's feet, laughing and watching the matches expire on the wet floor.
"Dance," the bartender cried.
Up and down the bar from the door to the back wall, the air grew thick and tight and noxious and hazy.
"O.K.," said Matt Taylor, 23, a tourist visiting from Texas. "Everyone's smoking cigarettes. I'm just making sure. . . . "
He let the thought trail off, and was quickly reassured that despite what he had read about New York, smoking was permitted in this bar, on this night, at this hour.
His verbal reaction was overwhelmed by the magic of jukebox speakers, through which Joe Strummer announced from somewhere beyond the great divide that he was still, in fact, the all-night drug-prowling wolf who looks so sick in the sun, and furthermore that he was only looking for fun. His voice faded out and Paul Westerberg's replaced it, reminding a flight attendant who once told him not to smoke that she ain't nothing but a waitress in the sky.
"Who's got an extra cigarette?" called the bartender, and it turned
out that just about everybody did.
1996 Thru 1999
Archives | 2000 Archives
| 2001 Archives | 2002
Archives |
2003 Archives | 2005
Archives | 2006 Archives
| 2007 News | Top
June
20, 2004
DR.
BLOOMY IS IN
Nosy
Health Dept.'s Personal Health Quiz
By Jeremy
Olshan
Asia Friedman discovered that a trip to Dr. Bloomberg is a far more probing encounter than a visit to her family doctor.
The 29-year-old Park Slope student, who signed on to take part in a city Health Department medical survey, was peppered with dozens of questions on topics ranging from her sexual preferences to her phones and to recreational drug use when she showed up for her "check up" last week.
Friedman was among the first of 2,000 guinea pigs, randomly selected from all five boroughs, that Health Department officers plan to poke, prod and question as part of the first citywide study to physically measure residents' health conditions.
Participants are being paid $100, and the city has given assurances that information will be treated confidentially.
While the study will help assess the rate of diabetes, high cholesterol and depression, it will also give city officials a data pool covering many aspects of New Yorkers' personal lives.
The Post accompanied Friedman on her trip to a medical clinic in Downtown Brooklyn, where she was tested and interviewed for two hours.
Health officials began by thanking her for agreeing to take part and asking her to sign a waiver allowing her blood samples to be frozen for future study.
She provided blood — three small vials and two super-sized ones — and urine samples before being ushered into another room.
Friedman, completing her doctorate in sociology at Rutgers University, was introduced to a nurse, who began reading questions from a laptop computer.
Topics ranged from diet, nutrition and exercise to what kinds of phone lines she uses in her home.
Questioned about her smoking history, Friedman said she was confused about the limited choices she was offered as possible answers.
The nurse told her she was not allowed to diverge from the script to interpret.
"I told her that I used to be a social smoker," Friedman said. "But the minimum choice I was given was a pack a day — and I never smoked anywhere near that much."
After an hour of interrogation, the nurse stopped to measure Friedman's weight, height, waist, arm and bicep, and took her blood pressure three times.
Next, Friedman was left alone in the room to answer the sex and drugs portion of the study on a touch-screen computer.
The first question popped up. "Have you ever used cocaine?"
After going through a laundry list of drugs, the questions shifted to number of sexual partners, sexual orientation — and history of imprisonment.
Finally, Friedman was told she would receive a full health report in a couple of months and was given two $50 postal money orders.
"I'm not sure how much they're going to learn from this," she said. "But I think it was worth the money."
June
17, 2004
SMOKE
BAN STAYS: SHELLY
By Ken Lovett
Albany -- Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver yesterday snuffed out the hopes of bar owners who want the Legislature to ease the tough statewide anti-smoking law this year.
Silver says he opposes legislation that would allow smoking sections in bars and taverns that install ventilation systems.
"I think the law works well," Silver said.
"I don't believe that there has been a significant loss of business."
He said the Assembly would not act on the bill, despite support from at least 25 Democratic members.
Bar and tavern owners say they are being hit hard financially because of the law.
June
13, 2004
BARS
THAT BLOW OFF BAN MAY LOSE LIQUOR LICENSE
By Kenneth
Lovett
ALBANY — Bars owners have been warned in threatening government letters that they'll be stripped of their state liquor and lottery licenses if customers continue to smoke, The Post has learned.
The state Health Department, state Liquor Authority and some local county health departments have sent letters to several upstate bars believed to be flouting New York's smoking ban.
"All other business licenses be revoked or suspended, including your liquor and/or lottery licenses," warned Health Department principal sanitarian Leonard Arias in the letters.
Among several bars in Hornell that received warnings were The Angel and Codder's sports bar.
The Liquor Authority, which can suspend liquor licenses when a business is in violation of any state or local ordinances, has also sent out warnings.
Bars owners, already struggling financially because of the law, were outraged to learn they can lose their licenses over the issue.
"The smoking ban itself is putting enough people out of business," said Robert Bookman, counsel for the New York Nightlife Association.
"[Now] the state is threatening to put them out of business for the alleged violation of an ill-considered law."
In the city, bars face closure if they breach the smoking ban more than three times, but it has not been enforced to date.
City health officials say they do not "routinely" refer violators to the Liquor Authority.
June
13, 2004
PUFF
OR SNUFF
By Sam Smith
Merav Brooks' cigarettes have been snuffing themselves out, and she doesn't know why.
"I keep thinking it's because my ashtray is wet," she said, taking a smoking break outside her job at HBO.
But it's not her ashtray, and soon every New York smoker will notice the same problem.
By June 28, all cigarettes delivered to the state must be self-extinguishing, using new "banded" paper that kills the flame at intervals if it's not puffed.
Some of the new cigarettes, like the Kent brand that Brooks was smoking, have already made their way into the city.
"No wonder they keep going out on me," said Brooks, who was less than elated with the new smokes.
"You don't want anyone else putting out the cigarette for you — there are enough people in the city trying to stop you smoking."
Lorillard, which produces brands such as Kent, Newport and True, is the first tobacco company to ship the new cigarettes to New York.
The other major tobacco companies — R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and Brown & Williamson — say their products will be ready by the deadline.
New York is the first state in the country to adopt a safe-cigarette law, which passed last December.
The state's Office of Fire Prevention and Control developed the safety standards, which it hopes will cut down on the 100 to 200 people killed in cigarette fires in the state each year.
"Fires usually start accidentally," said spokesman Peter Constantakes. "These [new cigarettes] will reduce the risk and hopefully save lives."
Cigarette companies, which maintain cigarettes don't cause fires; careless smokers do, say the state should not get its hopes up.
"Just because these cigarettes are produced to self-extinguish, they are not 'fire safe,' " said R.J. Reynolds spokesperson Ellen Wallace. "We don't want adult smokers to be lulled into a false sense of security."
Some of those adult smokers who tested the new Lorillard cigarettes had mixed reactions.
Sadia Zafar, a smoker in Midtown, said she welcomed the new feature. "If you're on the phone and you forget your cigarette, you know it's going to die out," she said. "It's safer."
Tracey Florio, a 37-year-old bookkeeper, said she doesn't care, but her husband will. "I could be cooking and I leave a cigarette in the ashtray, and it burns down to the filter," she said. "My husband has a problem with that."
Tobacco companies say the new cigarettes cost more to produce, but that they won't pass on the added expense to customers.
June
9, 2004
SILENCING
A CITY
Editorial
Mayor Bloomberg says 1,000 noise complaints a day — from offenders like Mister Softee ice-cream trucks and yelping pooches — justify a major overhaul of the city's noise code.
What he doesn't say is how many kids brighten up at the sound of the Mister Softee jingle, which he'd curb. Or how many ice-cream-truck drivers rely on it for their livelihoods.
Mayor Mike gives no figure for the number of dog owners who rely on the companionship of their pets — but would be hard-pressed to keep their barking within Hizzoner's short time limits.
He makes no mention of the sometimes life-saving benefits of the air conditioners he'd outlaw, the social pleasures at the bars and nightclubs he'd muffle or the economic boost from sometimes loud development and repair work he'd regulate.
Nor does he speak much of the cost to bring such activities into compliance.
Let's get real here: New York is a city.
A large, vibrant and, yes, noisy city.
"Noise disturbs our sleep, prevents people from enjoying their time off . . . [and] often leads to altercations," argues Hizzoner. But if it's quiet he seeks, well . . . that's why God made Montana.
OK, some noise regulation is not entirely ludicrous, even in hustle-and-bustle New York.
And after three decades, it's probably time to revisit the code.
Nor is it clear that Mayor Mike intends to play Mommy Mike in regulating noise as he has with smoking.
Rather, he may have learned from the uproar over his tobacco ban and his shelved plan to license late-night clubs.
Indeed, joining Hizzoner to present the noise-code plan were two potential foes on this issue — Robert Bookman of the New York Nightlife Association and Francis McArdle of the General Contractors Association. Even City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a likely mayoral challenger, joined in.
Clearly, Mayor Mike wants to skirt confrontation this time around.
But achieving "balance" won't be easy. One idea, for example, is to give cops more discretion. Will that mean more harassment of businesses and individuals — a la the city inspectors who raid shops in search of contraband ashtrays?
Will it mean Mayor Mike has a new revenue-raiser to help plug budget gaps?
Of course, if all of this sounds petty, maybe it's because Gotham is used to far weightier woes — like, say, drive-by shootings and 2,000-plus murders a year.
Such horrors seem to be history now: The murder toll has been less than 600 for two years running.
But overregulation — noise cops on top of health-care monitors and ashtray police — will create its own blight.
Gotham is again a great city.
But it's a city; let it live as one.
June
3, 2004
SMOKE
BAN HITS 'HOODS
By David Rabin
David Rabin,
co-owner of Union Bar and Lotus, is president of the New York Nightlife
Association
THE City Council has granted development rights to 16 sites in Soho and Noho, provided that no liquor licenses of any kind — not even restaurants — be granted in those new buildings.
Meanwhile, Manhattan Community Board 3 has declared a moratorium on the consideration of all liquor licenses within its borders. That's only advisory — but it sends quite a message to local politicians and to the State Liquor Authority. Similarly, residents of St. Mark's Place (that quiet, suburban oasis) have threatened to sue the SLA to halt the granting of any further licenses on their block.
Every single article on these developments mentions one thing — the increase in street noise since the passage of the smoking ban.
The exact same conversation goes on at Community Boards 2, 5 and others. New applicants in residential areas are grilled mercilessly: What time do you plan to close? What are you going to do with your smokers?
And the answer is . . . "Nothing." It has to be — because there is nothing we bar owners can do under the current law, except put our smokers out in the street and hope not to stir up justifiable community resentment and even noise tickets, or let them smoke inside and risk summonses that could put us out of business.
All our residential neighbors want is a good night's sleep. It's hard to fault them for not seeing the future and the multiplier effect on the city economy if restaurants and bars are phased out of many neighborhoods.
The only real answer is to get the smokers back inside the bars, where they belong. The Meier/Destito bill pending in the state Legislature does so in a way that should answer all factions in a satisfactory manner.
In a nutshell, if food revenues are less than 40 percent of a bar, tavern or club's business, and it's willing to install the same kind state-of-the-art air filtration equipment that's used in hospital infectious-disease wards (which can make the air in the bar far cleaner than that in the street), it would be allowed to permit smoking once again.
If that bill carries in Albany, we'd still have to work to change the New York City Smoke Free Air Act. But it would be a start.
We're not talking about family restaurants or fine dining establishments. Even though the city Health Department and smoking-ban supporters desperately try to treat restaurants and bars as one, we're only talking about bars, taverns and clubs. That's where the economic damage of the ban has been done. Those are the places that stay open late enough to be forced to keep their neighbors awake by obeying the law and putting their smokers outside.
If, as government officials allege, business has improved so much since the ban, why would any operators even bother to install the technology? The supposedly improved market should lead them to stay "smoke free."
No organization supporting changes to the smoking ban is pro-tobacco. None of us doubts the dangers of being a smoker. But the real issue is the cloudy one of second-hand smoke — and the answer is filtration.
Summer is upon us; the social scene will once again shift outside to the sidewalks in front of our bars. The Legislatlure should pass this bill, which takes the employee health issue out of the equation and gives operators and customers a choice once again.
May
16, 2004
PIPE
DREAMS
By Chris Bunting
New York pub owners are pinning their hopes on a 90-pound gadget to put butts - and cash - back into bars.
It's called the Airistar 1000, an air purifier that removes dangerous microscopic contaminants - like germs, fungal spores, even anthrax - from the air.
Spurred on by bar owners who say the smoking ban has extinguished their take by as much as 40 percent, two Albany lawmakers are finalizing identical bills that would permit smoking where filters like the Airistar 1000 are installed.
The $3,500 gizmo - so named because it cleans 1,000 cubic feet of air per minute - can eliminate 99 percent of cigarette smoke in a matter of minutes.
Manufactured by Illinois company Airistar, it's equipped with wheels for mobility and can blend into the background of a bar as a table.
"These state-of-the-art filters make room air cleaner than what you breathe outside," New York Night Life Association spokesman Basil Anastassiou said after a recent demonstration in the office of Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito (D-Rome). State Sen. Raymond Meier (R-Western) is also sponsoring a similar bill.
According to he company's advertising manager, Sean Burke, 115 Airistar 1000s have been sold around the country since they went on sale eight months ago, and 19 were bought by restaurants and bars.
Sam Pappas, owner of Market Square, a bar 20 miles outside of Chicago, installed the gadget to quell customers' complaints about smoky air, despite the fact that Illinois hasn't imposed a smoking ban.
"We hold events ranging from birthdays to Super Bowl parties, and I'd get complaints about the mist of smoke," Pappas said. "Now the place is crystal clear."
Even if Albany's new laws are passed, the Big Apple won't be immediately inhaling the benefits.
"New York City's laws are more stringent than the bill I'm proposing - and the city's law would preempt it," Meier said.
"However, passage of my bill might persuade city council members to follow suit."
The New York Night Life Association is armed with a petition addressed to Gov. Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno signed by 40,000 from bar patrons and workers - one-quarter from New York City - asking that smoking be permitted in air-filtered bars.
Almost a year after Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban went into effect on July 24, 2003, New York City bars are still feeling the economic burn.
"The city's bars lose on average an estimated 15 to 19 percent in revenues because of the ban," said Brian Nolan, executive director of United Restaurant & Tavern Owners of New York, Inc.
Interviews with more than a dozen bar owners and managers conducted by The Post show the revenue loss is often even more extreme.
Fiddlers Green, a bar on West 48th Street, shut down April 1.
"Sales were down 25 percent," said Eugene Wilson, the bar's manager. "Three of our waitresses left because they weren't making enough in tips."
Sandee Wright, the co-owner of Whiskey Ward on Essex Street, said she was battling a 30 to 40 percent drop in sales.
"I've had to lay three people off, starting with my doorman - my husband does it for free now," she said.
May
15, 2004
ONE-THIRD
BLOW OFF CITY CIG TAX
By David Seifman
A third of smokers here aren't paying the $1.50-a- pack cigarette tax - leading the city health commissioner to warn that smuggled smokes are "the single biggest threat" to the city's tough anti-smoking law.
"There has been a substantial increase in the purchase and consumption of nontaxed and smuggled cigarettes in New York City and other high-taxed jurisdictions," Thomas Frieden told a Crain's New York breakfast forum.
"This is probably the single biggest threat in progress to tobacco control in New York City."
Cigarette sales in the five boroughs collapsed after the city increased its portion of the tax from 8 cents to $1.50 a pack on July 2, 2002.
In the next 12 months, 182 million packs were sold - compared to 342 million in the previous 12-month period.
Sandra Mullin, a Health Department spokeswoman, said two-thirds of smokers who responded to a recent survey said they are buying their cigarettes legally.
"Others are purchasing cigarettes from sources such as Indian reservations, through the Internet, outside the U.S., from other states, through the mail," she said.
A pack of Camels was selling for $6.75 yesterday at the smoke shop across from City Hall.
But on the Internet, the upstate Seneca Indians were peddling a carton of 10 packs for $30.75 - less than half the regular retail price.
Frieden called on the federal and state governments to enforce the law on Indian reservation sales. By law, city residents can purchase only two cartons of untaxed cigarettes at a time for their personal use.
"The state does have the implementation authority," declared Frieden. "They went to the Supreme Court to get it and they're not using it."
May
13, 2004
SMOKE
SCREENING
By Brooks
Boliek and Russel Scott Smith
AUDREY Hepburn did it. So did Humphrey Bogart, Bette Davis, Nicole Kidman and, famously, Olivia Newton-John. But you'll never see another movie star smoke on screen if the anti-smoking lobby has its way.
Critics of the tobacco industry want Hollywood to treat on-screen smoking the same way it treats indecent language and nudity - with an R rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
It's a change that would effectively ban smoking from many movies, since an R rating hurts a movie at the box office, and producers regularly demand that directors deliver a crowd-friendly rating.
Congress is listening to the activists: On Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Committee invited anti-smoking witnesses to testify on Capitol Hill.
"When are we going to treat smoking as seriously as we treat the word 'f - - - '?" Dr. Stan Glantz asked the panel. Glantz, a leading tobacco-industry opponent, is a professor of medicine at the University of California.
"If you use the F-word once in a sexual context, you get an R rating."
Glantz's salty language wasn't appreciated by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who reminded the professor of the Senate's standards of decorum.
But while Glantz apologized for using the word, he said he used it to make a point.
"I did it quite deliberately," he said. "The use of the word will get you an R rating. It doesn't kill you."
Glantz and other anti-smoking activists say that giving an R rating to movies that contain smoking would prevent 200,000 children a year from lighting up. They argue that 390,000 children develop a tobacco habit because of what they see on the big screen.
Though there is no legislation pending that would force the MPAA to modify its ratings system, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said the movie industry has to step up or it might face such a law.
MPAA chairman Jack Valenti testified in defense of the current system.
"I am opposed to smoking on the screen and off," he told the Senate panel.
"But if the director feels it's essential to the time and place, or a quick way to identify a character's traits, it's his right to tell the story as he sees fit."
It's hard to imagine countless classic movies without those smoking scenes, say experts.
"Cigarettes can instantly convey what a character is like," says Martin Grove, on-line columnist for the Hollywood Reporter.
"Think of Lauren Bacall in a '40s movie like 'The Big Sleep.' When she lights up, it shows that she's a liberated woman, and you don't want to fool around with her."
Cigarettes can indicate elegance - like a tuxedoed Fred Astaire pulling a smoke from a shiny case in one of his '30s musicals - or desperation, like in "Casablanca," when Humphrey Bogart's ashtray fills with butts as he tries to drink away thoughts of Ingrid Bergman.
But according to the anti-smoking lobby, it's not art that Hollywood is after in these scenes, but cash.
At the Senate hearing, Glantz suggested that "product placement" money was changing hands somewhere, even though that would violate the national accord reached by the states and the tobacco industry on advertising.
"If they're getting paid, then they are corrupt," Glantz said. "If they're doing it for free, then they're stupid."
Valenti said that was ridiculous.
"I have been unable to unearth one jot of evidence of product placement with cigarettes," he said.
"The MPAA doesn't want to make smoking one of the triggers for a film rating or to add a T for tobacco designation because that would open the door for everyone's pet causes.
"Alcohol abuse, murder by gun, unsafe driving, smoking, obesity . . . To start talking about things that kill people, the rating system isn't capable of bearing that burden."
May
13, 2004
NYERS
KICK 'BUTT'
By Stephanie
Gaskell
New Yorkers smoked 700 million fewer cigarettes last year, health officials said yesterday.
Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, who drafted the city's tough smoking ban, touted the new figures - released as part of a Baruch College poll of 10,000 residents - at a budget hearing at City Hall yesterday.
"This is extraordinarily good news for the health of New Yorkers," he said.
The poll showed that 19 percent of New Yorkers smoked in 2003, compared with 22 percent in 2002.
The city's original ban, which prohibited smoking in virtually all public places but allowed for some exceptions, was replaced with a much stricter statewide ban in July.
A critic charged the city isn't measuring how many New Yorkers are illegally buying their butts outside the five boroughs to evade a $1.50-a-pack tax enacted in July 2002.
"While the mayor and the health commissioner are praising the drop in cigarette consumption, no one has lifted a finger at the devastation caused by the transfer of sales from legitimate store owners to street-corner hustlers," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance.
"Bodega owners, green grocers and newsstand dealers are losing $250 million a year."
May
12, 2004
MIKE
HAILS BID TO RAISE CIG AGE
By Stephanie
Gaskell
Mayor Bloomberg supports a move to raise the legal tobacco- buying age to 19.
"I certainly would not be opposed to raising the age," the mayor said yesterday during a press conference in Chelsea. "Anything you can do to keep children from smoking is probably a very good thing."
Under current law, tobacco products can't be sold to anyone under 18. But earlier this week, two state legislators introduced a bill to hike the minimum age to 19.
Bloomberg banned smoking in virtually all public places in the city last year. He allowed for some limited exemptions, but those were wiped out by a much stricter statewide ban. The mayor also increased the city's tax on cigarettes to $1.50 a pack.
"I've done what I think I can to discourage smoking in this city," Bloomberg said.
But apparently, he didn't think about raising the age limit.
"It hadn't occurred to me that they would raise the age," he said.
May
11, 2004
MEASURE
WOULD UP CIG AGE TO 19
By Kenneth
Lovett
ALBANY - Get set for the next big cigarette fight: Lawmakers yesterday announced a push to raise the legal tobacco-purchasing age to 19.
The current age to buy tobacco products is 18.
Bill sponsors Assemblywoman Sandra Galef (D-Westchester) and Sen. James Alesi (R-Rochester) said the idea behind the bill to raise the legal age is to cut down on smoking among high-school kids.
Many students get their cigarettes from 18-year-old classmates who can purchase them legally, the two said.
"Just bumping it up a year will make it more difficult for kids to get their hands on cigarettes, and hopefully reduce the number of underage smokers who become addicted every year," Galef said.
Alesi said he would prefer to raise the legal age to 21, but felt 19 would give the measure a better chance of passage.
Anti-smoking groups like the American Cancer Society back the bill, which has already moved through the Assembly Health Committee.
About 30 percent of New York's high-school age students are regular smokers, said Donald Distasio, Eastern Division CEO of the American Cancer Society.
But others, including the New York Public Interest Research Group, called on the Legislature to leave the law in place as it is.
"Eighteen-year-olds are adults," said NYPIRG's Blair Horner. "If you're old enough to vote, there's no reason why as adults you should be restricted" from having the choice to smoke.
Horner also said "there's no proof that raising the age will do anything other than increase illegal sales of cigarettes."
In recent years, the Legislature has taken aim at smoking, substantially raising the taxes per pack while also banning all smoking in bars, restaurants and other public areas.
The state Conservative Party yesterday renewed its push for lawmakers to amend the smoking ban law to allow for the creation of separately ventilated smoking areas.
Such a change has been deemed a long shot this year.
April
22, 2004
CITY
PUFFED WITH PRIDE OVER CIG-PATCH SMOKING 'CURE'
By Stephanie
Gaskell
One in three New Yorkers who received nicotine patches from the city were still not smoking after six months, officials said yesterday - raising eyebrows with a figure that's double the norm.
Health Department officials attributed their success to three key factors - the patches were free, the cost of cigarettes has soared and the city has banned smoking in indoor public places.
"There were few, if any, barriers," said Dr. Nancy Miller, assistant commissioner for tobacco control.
Previous studies have shown success rates half of what the city had.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1999 found 16.4 percent of smokers who used the patch stopped smoking over roughly the same time period.
A similar 2003 American Cancer Society study shows a 17.7 percent quit rate among smokers who used the skin device.
"From general real-world experience, this doesn't happen that often," said Joel Spitzer, a Chicago-based smoking prevention and cessation consultant.
"Even the patch companies don't report those sort of results."
Last April, the Health Department handed out free patches - worth up to $100 for a six-week supply - to nearly 35,000 people. Health officials called nearly half the participants after the first three to four weeks to see how they were doing. Another call was made after eight weeks.
After six months, officials called some participants and asked if they had lit up in the past seven days.
Nearly 33 percent of those contacted said "no," including 69-year-old John Mackin of Chelsea, who smoked a pack a day for 45 years.
"I tried to stop four, five, six times . . . nothing was working," Mackin said. "Without the patches I couldn't do it."
City officials estimated the free patch program saved 1,700 lives.
[NYC C.L.A.S.H. Note: They called SOME participants (out of a total of near 35,000) and asked if they had lit up IN THE PAST SEVEN DAYS. Of those "some," 33% REPORTED "no" (to the people who they got free stuff from. Do they show their gratitude by telling them their gift was a dud?). Apply the magic of extrapolation to the unknown number of people they DIDN'T SPEAK TO and the "some" that they did (33% of 35,000) and voila!..... you get the "over 11,000" that the other articles report DOH Commish Frieden says quit. Then you have to scratch your head at how Frieden pulls out from his hat the number 1700 lives saved of the over 11,000 that quit due to the use of the patch. Why isn't it the entire 11,000?? Doesn't quitting smoking immediately return immortality?? Frieden should quit his day job. He's got promise in Coney Island as the next fortune teller.]
April
9, 2004
SMOKERS
LOSE ANOTHER ASH FRAY
By Stephanie
Gaskell
New York's smoking ban does not violate the Constitution, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
NYC CLASH, a smokers-rights group, filed a lawsuit last year against the city and state arguing that the ban violates several constitutional rights.
But U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled yesterday that "New York state's and New York City's stated basis for enacting the smoking bans - protecting its citizenry from the well-documented harmful effects of [secondhand smoke] - provides a sufficient rational basis to withstand CLASH's constitutional challenges."
CLASH - Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment - also argued that the scientific data used in passing the law was flawed.
April
8, 2004
POL
WANTS CIG-VOTE REDO
By Stephanie
Gaskell
City officials aren't listening to bar owners who say business is down because of the smoking ban, according to a City Council member who voted for the measure.
"I always said that if the ban was hurting business we should take another look at it," said Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens). He wants the council to hold hearings on the economic impact of the year-old ban.
City officials released data earlier this month showing that bar and restaurant business is up 8.7 percent in the past year. Critics, however, say that figure is flawed because it includes non-bar restaurants and fast-food joints.
Avella said he believes there's a lot of support in the council for revisiting the issue.
April
4, 2004
MIKE'S
BAN, OUR PAIN
By Brian Nolan
Brian Nolan
is executive director of United Restaurant & Tavern Owners of New York.
THE Bloomberg administration's much- reported statement on the healthy state of New York's hospitality industry is a complete distortion of the facts.
The combined effort by four of city agencies indicated in no uncertain manner that business is booming under the mayor's strict smoking ban: Spending in restaurants, bars and taverns is up by 8.7 percent since the imposition of the smoking ban on March 29, 2003, the report claimed. Revenues were up and taxes were up and workers were happier and healthier.
Here's the truth: What was up was the collection of the General Corporation Tax and the Unincorporated Business Tax from the entire hospitality sector. But that is not the sales tax - it's no reflection of how much business bars and restaurants are doing on a daily basis. That picture is not so rosy.
That 8.7 percent increase reflects many things - new fast-food franchises and big-box chain restaurants, for starters. Existing bars and restaurants? Many have been surviving since 9/11 by raising food and drink prices, laying off or restricting employment and cutting costs - running meaner and leaner while the economy recovered. Some bar owners have even foregone salary in order to increase cash-flow.
Furthermore, when calculating these taxes, depreciation allowances on recently purchased equipment is taken into account. If less money is invested, as has happened since 9/11, the potential exposure to these taxes is increased.
Starbucks is doing well, but your neighborhood tavern is not. What has been the backbone of New York's social scene for generations is losing its vitality in a bad B movie called "Gone with the Smoke."
Customers don't like standing out in the cold - and when they do, they're not refilling their glasses. That's Business 101. (Forgive me, Mr. Mayor, you'll have to stay back a year and repeat the course.)
Our mayor said that "only a small handful of bars have been adversely affected by the smoking ban." He must have very large hands: In a December survey by the state Restaurant Association, 76 percent of responding New York City bars and restaurants said their sales had dropped by an average of 25 percent since April 2003. Even Dr. Thomas Frieden just admitted that free-standing bars are suffering economic hardship.
Here's another measure: The city's Wholesale Beer and Liquor Distributors admit privately that on-premise deliveries (which is basically sales to bars and restaurants) are down by as much as 20 percent since April 2003.
Bartenders and waitresses who were the intended recipients of a safer workplace now find themselves outside the bars - having a smoke themselves, or looking for a second job. Tips are down even in the best restaurants, since the single-malt and designer-vodka crew abandoned their after-dinner drinks in favor of a cigar outside.
The smoking ban was rushed through without due consideration of its negative impact on the small business owners who operate bars, taverns, clubs and restaurants. If a Starbucks outlet suffers a drop in business, it is a small drop in a very large bucket. When the neighborhood "local" or a family-owned restaurant loses business, it goes out of business.
The state Liquor Authority awarded 1,416 new licenses in 2003 in New York City compared to 1,361 in 2002. Most of those new licenses went to replace bars and restaurants that had gone out of business. No prizes for guessing why.
What is needed is a compromise to protect the thousands of small-business owners who make New York City the undisputed hospitality capital of the world. This is the city that never sleeps, because New Yorkers always had places to go to relax, converse, eat, drink - and, for many, enjoy a smoke. Disrupting that social rhythm may well make New York the city that yawns and goes to bed.
The mayor must stop his self-serving allegations of prosperity for the hospitality industry and realize he is driving small business owners and entrepreneurs out onto the street, just where he sent their customers.
Do you know the difference between politicians and golfers? Golfers can't improve their lie.
March
30, 2004
MAYOR:
MY SMOKE BAN IS POPULAR
By Stephanie
Gaskell
Mayor Bloomberg has a warning for anyone thinking about running against him in 2005: don't try to reverse the smoking ban.
Several potential candidates for mayor have told The Post they favor some sort of change in the year-old law, which bans all smoking in bars and restaurants.
"Those who want to run against it, good luck having a campaign on bringing back smoking," said Bloomberg. "This will turn out to be one of the most popular things that the administration has done."
One potential rival said it's exactly that attitude that will hurt Bloomberg's chances of getting re-elected.
"It should come as no surprise that the mayor doesn't seem to hear the voices of a lot of small businesses and an overwhelming number of New Yorkers who think that the bill went too far," said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens).
"If the mayor wants to know how this is going, he shouldn't look at the polls - he should visit the bars," he added.
March
29, 2004
MOTHER
BLOOMBERG
Editorial
Don't take it personally, but Mayor Bloomberg thinks you smoke too much, eat too much and drink too much.
That is, you take lousy care of yourself.
But don't fret.
Mama Mike is here.
He knows best.
And he'll make it all better.
Like it or not.
That's the message behind a huge expansion the mayor plans for city government's role in maintaining the health of every single New York resident.
The plan, announced last week, focuses on 10 areas of health care. It's so extensive, intrusive and government-centered, it'd make Hillary Clinton blush.
Its overriding goal: To have government intervene in the health care of everyone in the city whenever officials believe they can make a difference.
No one opposes better health care, of course. But plenty of New Yorkers will resent Mama Mike looking over their shoulders - telling them what to eat and drink, to quit smoking and to get regular medical checkups. All of that's part of the mayoral plan.
It may all be good advice. But it's grossly inappropriate for government to be playing Mommy in such a way. (Plenty of folks don't like to be told what to do by their real moms.)
Think about it: One day you have a baby; the next day there's a knock on the door - from a city bureaucrat.
That's right: Bloomberg & Co. want to begin home visits to every new mother in select neighborhoods.
Nor is it certain the harping will prompt desired action: After all, if New Yorkers don't care enough to see a doctor on their own, why expect them to suddenly change their lifestyles on the basis of a flier they get in the mail?
Besides, health advice is notoriously muddled (if not wrong): One day, for instance, you're told to eat margarine; the next day - butter's actually better.
Similarly, while Mike claims his near-blanket smoking ban saves lives by protecting folks from second-hand smoke, there's no scientific evidence to back him up.
Meanwhile, Gotham already offers more government services than any other big city in America. And taxes more than any other city to cover the cost.
Where will the money come from to pay for this big nanny-state expansion?
Yes, many of Bloomberg's ideas amount to merely "advocating" for this or that - or educating the public through fairly cheap ad campaigns.
But some of the programs might cost plenty.
How much?
Bloomberg hasn't said.
And one part of the plan speaks volumes about the mayor's concern (or lack of it) for fiscal probity: Even as he complains that Albany has saddled him with a budget-busting Medicaid bill, City Hall intends to step up its efforts to recruit new Medicaid patients.
Which will send costs soaring.
The fact is, Mike really doesn't want to contain Medicaid's growth so much as he wants someone else - namely, the state - to pick up the tab.
Which will make New York's already anemic economy even sicker.
Whatever happened to chicken soup, anyway?
March
29, 2004
BIZ
IS $MOKING
By Stephanie
Gaskell
Business is "thriving" a year after Mayor Bloomberg banned smoking in bars and restaurants, health officials said yesterday.
City officials will formally present "The State of the Smoke-Free New York City: A One-Year Review" today.
The rosy report shows that bar and restaurant owners reported an 8.7 percent increase in tax receipts last year; about 10,600 new jobs were created; and 97 percent of bars are complying with the law, which was passed March 30.
"The law has not hurt the bar and restaurant industry," Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said. The report includes two recent polls showing that most New Yorkers like the ban. But many bar owners disagree.
"If the ban was good for the bar business, why has no one ever built a nonsmoking bar before the ban?" asked David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association.
Rabin said the city's data is flawed because "they lump bars and taverns in with fine dining and with Starbucks and fast-food restaurants."
Rabin also questioned whether the new jobs were created "because people in the service industry have taken second jobs to make up for lost tip income."
March
28, 2004
THE STATES' TOBACCO SLUSH FUND
Editorial
Remember that humongous cash settlement that 46 state attorneys general reached with the tobacco industry way back in 1998?
The $206 billion collected from so-called Big Tobacco was to reimburse the states for increased health-care costs inflicted by the noxious weed.
Now the General Accounting Office has uncovered the truth behind the tort-bar's biggest legal victory ever: Little of the money is going to health care.
A comprehensive audit by the GAO, Congress' investigative arm, shows that state lawmakers across the nation are using more and more of the funds to plug holes in their budgets.
Nationwide, the figure was 36 percent of all settlement funds last year - and will rise to 54 percent this year.
In contrast, just 24 percent of tobacco settlement earnings was spent on health-related programs. And that figure will plummet to just 17 percent this year.
What gives?
Turns out the much-ballyhooed settlement had a dirty little secret: For all their solemn promises and pledges, the states were never legally obliged to spend a dime of their windfall on health care.
"There was no obligation in the settlement to do it, and that was one of the weaknesses of the settlement," admitted a spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Yet recovering the costs of treating sick smokers was the whole justification for this legal broadside against the tobacco industry.
Indeed, the tort lawyers and attorneys general realized they'd be on shaky legal ground should they sue on behalf of individual smokers - who'd been warned for 40 years about the dangers of smoking.
Instead, they sued on behalf of taxpayers, citing the burden of increased health-care costs. (The lawyers, of course, made tens of millions for themselves.)
From the outset, lawmakers had their own ideas on how to spend the money. Locally, Sen. Charles Schumer thought it should be used to reduce property taxes, while state Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno wanted it to pay for local tax cuts. Then-Mayor Giuliani thought it would be a great way to pay for renovating old schools and building new ones.
So much for the health-care "crisis."
In fact, the GAO has merely confirmed what an American Cancer Society official said more than five years ago: "Everybody is like vultures over this money."
Remember that when those same birds start circling over the fast-food industry.
March
22, 2004
PUFF
PATROLLERS BURN MIDNIGHT OIL AS CIG LAW HITS MILESTONE
By Stephanie
Gaskell
A year after Mayor Bloomberg banned smoking in bars and restaurants, health officials are now working "late nights" trying to catch illegal puffers, The Post has learned.
Shortly after the ban was put in place a year ago, health officials told The Post that the inspectors would call it quits after 11 p.m.
But last Friday, inspectors made a sweep of several bars on Avenue A after midnight.
"He came in a little after midnight, looked around and left," said Harold Kramer, who owns the Raven bar on Avenue A. "They visited every bar on the block."
"They're just doing it because it's the one-year anniversary."
During the first year of the ban, many bars turned a blind eye to smoking after 11 p.m. But Health Department spokeswoman Sandra Mullin said yesterday that inspectors "will inspect places late nights into the morning, especially when we receive complaints related to violations at those times."
Mullin said the recent spate of late-night visits wasn't part of a crackdown but "we certainly do get after-hour complaints."
Even though health officials said 97 percent of bars and restaurants are complying with the law, the city's 311 line got 2,833 complaints about illegal smoking at bars and restaurants in the past year.
Those that were fined paid a total of approximately $217,000.
"In many parts of town, places have to choose between risking a ticket for allowing smoking inside or getting a summons for the noise of their patrons out front smoking - it's one more catch-22 for the nightlife industry," said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association.
Bloomberg's landmark ban on smoking in bars and restaurants is still causing a stir a year after it was enacted. But New Yorkers on both sides of the issue seem to agree on one thing: New York City after dark is different.
The tough ban, which took effect March 30, was aimed at protecting bar and restaurant workers from secondhand smoke - but has had an impact that's gone well beyond that.
"It doesn't seem like the city it once was," said Michael Musto, the veteran nightlife columnist for The Village Voice. "But the bright side is that I don't come home smelling like smoke anymore."
Social critics said outlawing smoking never made sense in the Big Apple and believe the last year has proven them right.
Here's social satirist Fran Lebowitz: "It's riddled with hypocrisy . . . If you're really concerned about air quality and you're living in New York City, then you're an idiot."
Anti-smoking advocate Joe Cherner has a comeback: "[The law] is a matter of dignity and respect for workers."
But some proprietors said they've reluctantly had to take on a new role that their customers don't appreciate: smoking cop.
"It's forced us to become police when what we are trying to do is welcome our guests and pamper then - not scold them," Rabin said. "It's made it very difficult for people in the hospitality industry to be hospitable."
"Europeans come over here and they laugh at us," said Gregory de la Haba, a bartender at the 150-year-old McSorley's in the West Village. "They question the democracy of it."
But Bloomberg told The Post that he believes New York "is the same culturally and financially vibrant city it has always been."
So is the ban saving lives? "There's no question about it," said Bloomberg, who predicts it will save 1,000 lives a year.
While the city hasn't yet been able to effectively measure the health effects, city Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden said the ban helps smokers kick the habit.
"The fact that most places are smoke-free makes it easier for smokers who want to quit," he said.
But former Mayor Ed Koch - who supports the ban - said there may have been less resentment among smokers if Bloomberg had "done it in a more understanding way to the people who are smoking, to say, 'I want to help you quit.' "
March
22, 2004
FEWER
TIPS ON TAP THESE DAYS
By Stephanie
Gaskell
Bartender Shawna Wright's days of breathing in secondhand smoke are gone thanks to the smoking law, and that's fine by her.
But something else is disappearing as well - her tips. And that's not OK.
She said her tips have been down because people are spending less time at the bar and more time outside smoking.
"It was literally like a light switch went off the minute the ban went into effect," said Wright, who has worked at the Whiskey Ward on the Lower East Side for more than four years.
"I'm a nonsmoker," she said. "But I think that in a bar, that's the atmosphere that they're looking for."
Wright said her job has changed over the past year. She's spending less time pouring drinks and more time monitoring patrons who step outside to light up.
"When they go out for a smoke, it's hard to tell whether they left - especially in the wintertime, when they take their coats with them," she said.
"There have been times when I've been the only one at the bar because the customers are outside smoking."
Wright, who is a full-time student, said the drop in her tips has forced her to cut back on her spending and how often she goes out.
"I absolutely agree that smoking shouldn't be in a work environment, but I think a bar is a very unique work atmosphere," she said.
"If I was really concerned about my health in the workplace, I'm a smart woman - I would not work in a bar."
March
22, 2004
ONCE-THRIVING
BIZ IS INSIDE-OUT
By Stephanie
Gaskell
Lee Seinfeld owns three bars on the Upper West Side - and each one has been affected by the smoking ban.
"They're spending two hours at the bar, but now 25 percent of that time is spent smoking outside," he said of patrons at his bar Broadway Dive, at 101st Street and Broadway. "That's time that could be spent drinking."
He said business at Broadway Dive is down at least 30 percent since the ban kicked in.
"That's where I got affected the most," Seinfeld said of Broadway Dive, which he describes as a "down-to-earth, working-man's bar," although it is also frequented by Columbia University students.
"A lot of those customers like to smoke, even if they are just recreational smokers."
Seinfeld's bar on Amsterdam and 96th Street, called Dive Bar, has done better because food is served there.
"People are eating out more because it's less smoky, but I'm selling less alcohol," he said. "I'm in the liquor business - not the food business."
At his third bar, Dive 75 on Amsterdam and 75th Street, business is holding up, but Seinfeld said he had to hire extra staff to keep patrons under control when they spill outside to smoke.
"My evenings are now spent sweeping the street," he said.
Seinfeld said he has a better way: a law that allows for the establishment of smoking and nonsmoking bars.
"I'm upset with the mayor and his insensibility in this whole situation," he said. "There might have been an easier way to do it."
March
22, 2004
IT'S
LIKE A BREATH OF FRESH AIR
By Stephanie
Gaskell
Count Patrick Peduto among the fans of Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban.
Dining recently at the lower Manhattan restaurant City Hall - not far from the real City Hall, where the tough law was approved a year ago - the advertising-company owner took time to hail the cleaner air.
"It's much more pleasant in restaurants," Peduto said.
"You go home and your clothes don't smell. If you're not a smoker, you really notice the smoke. Especially when you get home, all of a sudden, your clothes reek of smoke. So that's more pleasant."
Peduto, who lives in Manhattan, said he travels often to other cities where smoking in bars and restaurants is legal - and notices the contrast with New York more than ever.
"It's annoying," he said of the smoking in other cities, adding that he's never been shy about asking someone to put a cigarette out. After all, "I'm a New Yorker."
Peduto dismisses claims that the ban has been bad for local businesses, saying that's not what he sees around town.
"I think we're in a transition period," Peduto said. "At some point, the business will come back for everyone. What are the people that smoke going to do? I mean, they're not going to eat anymore?
"I think there's other things that are hurting the economy."
While he enjoys his meals in a smoke-free environment, Peduto said he still has some sympathy for the exiled smokers.
"Although I don't smoke, I feel sorry for people who do," he said. "It would be nice if there was some compromise."
March
22, 2004
INDUSTRY'S
HEALTHIER - AND SO ARE NYERS, MIKE INSISTS
City Hall reporter Stephanie Gaskell conducted an e-mail interview with Mayor Bloomberg about the impact of his anti-smoking law. Here are excerpts:
Q: How has the ban changed New York City in the past year?
A: Besides cleaner air, healthier waiters and bartenders and a growing hospitality industry, New York is the same culturally and financially vibrant city it has always been.
Q: Is it working?
A: Absolutely. Employee safety has increased and bars and restaurants are now smoke-free. It has been largely self-enforcing. We have inspectors to do random checks and respond to complaints, but people respect the law.
Q: Are people coping with it?
A: Opponents of the legislation thought the sky was going to fall, but smokers are dealing with it, and polls show a strong majority of people support it and are eating out more because of it. Some people feel inconvenienced. I understand that, but that's outweighed by the health needs and rights of nonsmokers, who vastly outnumber smokers.
Q: Are people healthier?
A: There's no question about it. Restaurant workers are no longer exposed to cancer-causing cigarette smoke and New Yorkers now enjoy cleaner air when they go out to eat and drink.
Q: How do you feel about the number of people going out into the streets now?
A: There was an adjustment period in the beginning, but it seems to be working a lot better now. Keep in mind that there are always complaints about people outside of bars, for noise and other things, so this is nothing new. That being said, only 0.2 percent of noise complaints have to do with bars.
Q: Are restaurants and bars doing OK?
A: I go by the numbers: Employment in bars and restaurants is up 8 percent, so the city's hospitality industry has actually grown significantly over the last year. That doesn't mean every bar has done well, but the industry as a whole is strong and getting stronger. Anecdotally, you would be surprised how many bar and restaurant owners have told me that their businesses have thrived.
Q: What do you say to critics who say the ban is making the city boring and suburban-like?
A: New York is the world's second home, and people come here from all over. Other states, cities and jurisdictions have enacted similar bans - it happens to be the direction everyone is going right now, so I am not worried about us suffering because of it, reputation-wise or financially. Our nightlife, which New York has and will always be famous for, has grown. It seems like every week there's another new bar or club opening - at least according to Page Six.
March
21, 2004
STATE
OKS SMOKING IN BUTT ONE EATERY
Just one restaurant has been spared from New York's smoking ban in the 21 upstate counties where state government enforces health rules.
The state Health Department rejected the exemption applications of 13 other bars, restaurants and businesses, including several from the Adirondacks and two from the Finger Lakes region, according to a report yesterday on the department's Web site.
The lone waiver went to Stella Luna, a restaurant in Oneonta.
"This is the first round of determinations and should not necessarily be viewed as a bellwether for applications still under review, since each application is reviewed individually," department spokesman William Van Slyke said.
Businesses proving they lost 15 percent of their profits to the smoking ban can apply for waivers. They also must protect workers and patrons from second-hand smoke.
Antonio Avanzato, co-owner of Stella Luna, said he's a non-smoker, never allowed it in his bar and restaurant, and spent $45,000 when it was built four years ago to create a separate smoking lounge off the bar, a 20-by-40-foot room with comfortable furniture and humidors.
His employees don't serve in the room, which has its own ventilation system.
"July 24th we had to put up the no smoking sign. Basically my $45,000 room turned into a coat room for the winter," Avanzato said. "The state should have used me as an example as the right way to do it. I'm sorry that it took so long."
The 41 counties with full-service health departments - including New York City's five boroughs - can establish their own waiver rules under the law.
March
19, 2004
MIKE'S
NO DRAG ON BRAZEN ST. PAT'S PARTY PUFFERS
By Stephanie
Gaskell and Rita Delfiner
It was shamrocks and stogies for some guests at a St. Patrick's Day gala who illegally fired up their cigars during the black-tie event at a Midtown hotel.
That took McChutzpah since butt-buster Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Pataki, who signed the state's anti-smoking law, both were seated on the dais at the Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick's dinner at the Sheraton New York Wednesday night.
"There were plumes of smoke everywhere," said one person who attended the black-tie dinner in the Imperial Ballroom.
"After dinner, guys usually light up and listen to the speeches," said a guest who reported seeing 10 or 15 smokers.
Wednesday night's cigar-smoking came two months after an uproar about stogie smoking at a Jan. 15 black-tie event at the St. Regis Hotel attended by Bloomberg.
It was not known how many men lit up or where they were seated in the large ballroom. One guest who described himself as "very sensitive" to smoke said he wasn't aware of anyone puffing.
Pataki "did not see or smell any smoke at the event," said spokesman Kevin Quinn.
Bloomberg left during the speeches to rush to Jamaica Hospital after getting word that two police officers were injured - but while he was at the dinner, he didn't see anyone smoking, said mayoral spokesman Ed Skyler.
"There's 3,000 people at this dinner, and the mayor is on a dais in the front, and it's a huge, humongous room," he said. "And certainly no one was smoking around the mayor.
"If people want to smoke in his presence, no matter how loose that definition is, in order to try to embarrass him, then my reaction to them is unprintable," Skyler said. He added that the hotel and event organizer "should make sure their guests follow the law."
A hotel spokesperson did not return a call for comment, nor did anyone return a message left for the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick's society at its office.
The Health Department had not received any smoking complaints related to the dinner as of yesterday, said spokesman Sid Dinsay.
March
4, 2004
S-S-MOKIN'!
By Tom Sykes
THE word on the street - and in backrooms around town - is that the smoking ban is losing its teeth.
If you use a little discretion, puffing is increasingly likely to be quietly ignored - especially after the mayor's butt patrol goes home at 11 p.m.
"I have noticed more flare-ups taking place, especially later at night," says Michael Musto, the veteran night-life columnist for the Village Voice.
"Certain establishments are . . . turning a blind eye, and I think they're seeing their business going up as a result."
When I confessed to one bar owner I'd been lighting up in his club in the wee hours, he admitted looking the other way. "People out late expect to be able to smoke - and they do," he said. "And you know what? There aren't a lot of 311 callers around at 1 a.m."
To test that theory, I lit up in 10 Manhattan night spots.
WEST VILLAGE PUB
Time: 8 p.m.
Sitting at a table in a popular pub, I openly light a cigarette.
Within seconds a barmaid pounces on me. "What the hell are you doing?" she screams. "This is New York City! You can't smoke inside! Get out!!"
I ham up my British accent and eventually she lets me back in the bar
- sans smokes.
WEST VILLAGE RESTAURANT
Time: 9 to 10 p.m.
Ah, the joy of private rooms!
Sitting with my group in a little booth at the back of this trendy restaurant, no one bothers me when I light up. A friend tells me a week later that when her friends started smoking there, the waitress told them to go ahead and smoke.
The truth is, if you smoke, you should already know a place where you
can have a cigarette along with your drink. And if you don't, it's not
that hard to find one.
CHELSEA LOUNGE
Time: 10 p.m.
As a hostess leads me to my table, she says sweetly: "Please don't smoke" - a blanket warning she hands out to everyone who walked in.
"If you do I will be forced to get very, very angry. The smoking lounge," she says, pointing at the door, "is that way."
By 11:15 p.m., so many people are smoking around us, my pal and I decide to risk it.
After our second cigarette a burly bouncer appears and demands the cigarette
be extinguished.
EAST VILLAGE MUSIC CLUB
Time: 10:30 p.m. to midnight
I risk a cigarette on the dance floor, hidden from detection by the crowd. Then another sitting down, where I can hide it beneath a table.
As the beers go down, I get bolder and start smoking right at the bar. On smoke No. 2, a bouncer taps me on the shoulder.
"I don't want to have to throw you out, so please put the cigarette out," he says.
It's gone.
MIDTOWN PUB
Time: 11 p.m.
One of my regular smoking haunts, this place benefits from having two rooms. In the back room, there will always be a few people smoking a sly cigarette or two over the course of the night.
I'm usually one of them - and I have yet to be asked to stop.
WEST VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB
Time: 11:30 p.m.
Quite a few people are smoking, so my friend and I light up ourselves.
When a hostess comes to ask what we'd like to drink, she doesn't mention
the smokes, which we hold under the table.
MIDTOWN PUB
Time: Midnight onwards
I've known about this smoke-easy since the ban kicked in.
There's a routine here: Around midnight, someone will produce a pack of cigarettes, take one out and casually play with it - maybe even hold it between his or her lips.
The bartender will usually offer a few words of consent.
And when he puts out a few glasses half-full of water (ashtrays, as smokers now know, are what attract the wrath of the smoking police) and the first cigarette is lit, within minutes the place turns into one great cloud.
The bartender says he lets his clients do it for the tips.
"Who's going to stay here till 3 a.m. if they can't smoke?" he said, pointing to his pile of singles.
It's just like 2002 all over again.
MIDTOWN NIGHTCLUB
Time: 12:15 to 1:45 a.m.
The smell of smoke assails us as we walk in. Plenty of people are smoking
shamelessly at the bar. I puff away until we leave - and no one says a
thing.
CHELSEA LOUNGE
Time: 1 to 2 a.m.
It looks pretty smoke-free in here - until I discover a room in the back from which the tell-tale smell of smoke emanates. I park myself in an unobtrusive corner and light up. No one bothers me.
When I ask the owner about it a few days later, he says: "Look, I don't
want people smoking here because I could get shut down. But it's unenforceable.
Either I have my staff run around all night and fight with them, or you
just deal with it. To be honest, it's a complete nightmare."
CHINATOWN PARTY
Time: 11:30 p.m. to 3:45 a.m.
This party, which I heard about over e-mail, is on the fourth floor of a tenement building and costs 10 bucks to get in. There is a license pinned to the walls but otherwise, it looks like a gathering of dubious legality.
Quite a few people are smoking so I figure it's safe to light up.
Suddenly I'm the most popular guy there. So many people ask me for cigarettes that at 1 a.m. I have to run out to the deli to restock.
March
1, 2004
CIG
BAN LETS BARS OFF THE HOOKAH
By Stephanie
Gaskell and Heidi Singer
The city isn't enforcing the smoking ban against Middle Eastern hookah bars - even though they don't qualify for an exemption under the new law, The Post has learned.
The city has only a handful of hookah bars, a Middle Eastern version of cigar bars where patrons smoke fruit-flavored tobacco called shisha. Many of them have been ticketed for allowing illegal puffing since the city's tough anti-smoking laws went into effect March 30.
But the city has thrown out several of the tickets because, as one administrative judge wrote, "shisha [is] no longer enforced against," according to records obtained by The Post.
Cigar bars can allow smoking if they earn at least 10 percent of their revenue from the sale of tobacco. But hookah bars don't qualify for this exemption because, under the law, they don't serve alcohol.
"These bars would fit into the tobacco bar exemption if they served alcohol. They should be commended for that and not punished," said City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr.
February
16, 2004
CIG-BAN
BURNS
By Des O'Brien
Des O'Brien
is the president of the United Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association
of New York.
KAPPA Beta Phi, whose motto is "we sing, we dance," should now be changed to "we sing, we dance, we smoke" - after recent published reports outed the esteemed society's blatant disregard for Mayor Bloomberg's silly smoking ban, and in his presence no less.
We should fear for Bloomberg. After all, by virtue of his own reasoning, the mayor put his life and well-being on the line, by subjecting himself to what he sees as the detrimental and life-threatening effects of that group's second-hand smoke - and from cigars, to boot!
Bloomberg, remember, proclaimed that such smoke kills up to 1,000 people a year, in New York City alone.
Fortunately for him, however, there is not one shred of scientific evidence to back that claim (or for that matter one signed death certificate anywhere that cites the cause of death as second-hand smoke).
On the other hand, the smoking ban that went into effect last March has brought about much distress to our industry and those who work in it.
In a recent statement by the New York City chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA), Executive Vice-President Chuck Hunt noted that "the city's bar, tavern and nightlife operations have suffered mightily as a result of the smoking ban."
In a membership survey the group conducted in November and December of 2003, 76 percent of the respondents reported a decline of 25 percent or more in bar sales and 15 percent or more in food sales.
NYSRA's statement is significant for two reasons.
* It is the first acknowledgement from NYSRA that the law hurts the hospitality industry. Before its passage, NYSRA had supported the law.
* It clearly refutes the mayor's much-hyped assertion that people would dine out and drink more as a result of the ban.
The ban also has resulted in an epidemic of quality-of-life complaints that have maligned our trade ever further. Ironically, we warned our political leaders of these issues before the ban became law, but to no avail.
Quality-of-life problems have grown because, under the law, hordes of smokers are forced out onto the sidewalks, particularly at late-night establishments, including in residential neighborhoods.
That, in turn, has prompted Bloomberg to call for new legislation to require establishments to be licensed if they're open and make noise past 1 a.m. Such legislation, which the mayor now says he may not pursue in earnest until next year, would severely curtail post-1 a.m. social activity - and business.
There is a clear danger to the city's multi-million-dollar hospitality industry in this proposed legislation, with many places forced to close down at 1 a.m.
And this is supposed to be the city that never sleeps!
Our industry agrees that that we need to provide a safe and secure work environment for our employees. And we sympathize with our residential neighbors over the stress and frustration that they are suffering as a result of the noise levels on our streets at night.
The simple solution is to get people back inside the bars and restaurants, and off the streets. To achieve this, we must have reasonable amendments to the current law. These might include:
* Permission to create smoking rooms, equipped with hospital grade air-filtration systems.
* A tax credit of some sort for places that choose to remain entirely non-smoking.
The New York State Smoke Free Air Act allows for waivers to the smoking ban, based on state-audited proof of economic hardship. Several upstate bars have already received those waivers, and many more applications are being considered.
Unfortunately, despite the now obvious drop in business here, the New York City Department of Health will not issue any waivers whatsoever.
This is an outrage. Several state senators, assemblymen and City Council members support such relief and amendments. It is time for our political leaders to listen to their constituents and take corrective measures.
February
14, 2004
CHUCK
LIGHTS INTO SMOKING BAN
By Jeane MacIntosh
Sen. Chuck Schumer wants to snuff out Mayor Bloomberg's strict smoking ban.
For the first time publicly, New York's senior senator has come out against the controversial anti-smoking law - deciding to speak out about what insiders say has privately been his position from the get-go.
"Chuck works well with the mayor on a host of issues, but on this one they'll just have to disagree," Schumer spokesman Pete Singer told The Post.
Schumer's position that the city's law should be softened came in response to questions from The Post after the senator recently blasted the recent statewide smoking ban.
Speaking of the separate statewide law, Schumer told an upstate newspaper that he hoped to find some ways to amend it.
The same goes for the New York City law, Schumer's office confirmed. "His feelings about it are consistent across the board," Singer said.
As in the city, many upstate bar and restaurant owners are complaining the law is hurting their business.
"This [state] law just came out of Albany like a bat out of hell," Schumer told the Oneida Dispatch. "There might be some ways to amend it, I hope.
"I couldn't believe the state passed it," Schumer added. "The original law that New York had wasn't bad with the requirement of separate seating."
Schumer's position on the city ban should score him points with New York City bar and restaurant owners pressing for repeal of the law.
"For a significant portion of our industry, the ban isn't working," Chuck Hunt, head of the city chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association, wrote in a recent editorial of the group's in-house magazine.
February
14, 2004
PATAKI'S
INGLORIOUS SURRENDER
Editorial
[NYC C.L.A.S.H. Note: While we certainly DON'T agree with the following, we've promised to publish tobacco/smoking related stories that are in conflict with our position and let the reader decide the merit of the content]
Last year, when the Albany Legislature ordered the state to begin collecting cigarette and gasoline taxes from upstate Indian reservations, leaders of the upstate tribes vowed to resist the effort as they did a similar attempt back in 1997 - with violence and mayhem.
It worked then.
So what did Gov. Pataki do in the face of such threats?
Why, he capitulated, of course.
State Tax Commissioner Andrew Eristoff announced this week that the state would delay indefinitely the collection of such taxes, which analysts say could be costing the state $400 million a year.
And he made no bones about what was behind the state's surrender.
"I'm extremely concerned about the possibility of violence," said Eristoff after testifying before the legislative hearing on the state budget.
"It's a huge concern for any New Yorker. . . . I think it would give anyone pause."
Actually, what gives us pause is the way that the Pataki administration has now emboldened the tax resisters by sending the unmistakable message that threats of violence will always pay off.
Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Albany had the legal right to collect taxes sold on cigarettes and gas sold to non-Indians by businesses on Indian territories.
But when the state tried to enforce that right in 1997, several Indian tribes responded with an orgy of tire-burning that led to partial closure of the State Thruway and other major upstate highways, as well as violent confrontations with State Police along Seneca reservation land.
Local non-Indian merchants rightly complain that they're being driven into bankruptcy because of the huge competitive edge that the tax-free tribes enjoy.
Once again, this time around, a number of the more militant tribes had threatened "resistance and protest" if the state tried to take the money.
The chief of the Onondaga tribe even threatened to build a toll booth on Interstate 81 and charge a fee to anyone who crosses into their territory.
And, once again, the Pataki administration backed down.
And violence isn't the only thing of which Pataki is afraid.
He said last fall he feared any confrontation with the Indians would endanger any moves to enrich them further by letting them open new casinos - which the governor hopes to use to help reduce his budget deficit.
The governor believes he can cut some side deals in which the Indians - in return for not having to pay taxes - would agree to make their prices more comparable to those of non-Indian businesses.
But several tribes have vowed to resist this move, too.
No one wants to see another outbreak of violence, but the Pataki administration has all but ensured that any group with a grievance - Indian or not - can get its way if it can show that it will make good on violent threats.
Rather than appeasement and capitulation, it's time the governor showed some backbone.
Enforce the law, Mr. Pataki.
February
11, 2004
BLOOMBERG
BACKPEDAL: OH, THOSE SMOKERS
By David Seifman
He may be the most fervent anti-smoking advocate in the city, but that doesn't mean Mayor Bloomberg is going to call the tobacco police if he sees someone lighting up.
During an appearance on WLIB radio yesterday, the mayor conceded that perhaps there were some people puffing illegally at The St. Regis hotel last month during a dinner he attended for the Kappa Beta Phi society.
"The bottom line is I don't really remember anyone smoking. Most people weren't. If there were some people in the corner smoking, they were smoking," Bloomberg said.
"What do you want me to do? Call the cops? I mean, c'mon."
Actually, that's precisely what the Health Department - which enforces the city's tough smoking ban - is counting on.
Its Web site includes a complaint form to report smoking violations.
Officials said inspectors would be visiting the St. Regis soon, probably at another dinner where they can see for themselves if smoking is being permitted.
Bloomberg said the publicity over the St. Regis incident shouldn't obscure the importance of the smoking ban.
"We're trying to save lives here," he said. "We have an obligation to provide a safe workplace."
February
10, 2004
MIKE:
SMOKERS? WHAT SMOKERS?
By Stephanie
Gaskell
Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday he didn't know people were illegally smoking cigars at a Wall Street gala he attended - even though a witness revealed partygoers were lighting up right at Hizzoner's table.
"I didn't see anybody when I was there," Bloomberg insisted, responding to a story in The Post on Saturday about "Cigargate."
The Post reported the rabidly anti-smoking mayor did nothing while numerous guests attending the annual gathering last month of the exclusive Kappa Beta Phi society at the St. Regis Hotel puffed away on stogies.
"I arrived late. I stayed for about an hour and a half and it very well could have been and I know the Department of Health is investigating."
Of the 130 who attended the Jan. 15 event, dozens lit up - possibly as many as 50, one guest said.
An eyewitness told The Post yesterday that Bloomberg had to have been aware people were smoking stogies - since some were doing it right at Bloomberg's table while the mayor was sitting there.
"He's reconstructed the past," the source said when informed that Bloomberg claimed yesterday he was unaware of anyone puffing in the ballroom.
"He condoned it," a source who saw Bloomberg while the cigars were being smoked told The Post in Saturday's editions.
The mayor's inaction in the face of a mass violation of the smoking law infuriated some New Yorkers, who charged there's one standard for the mayor's rich friends and another for regular bar patrons.
But the billionaire mayor insisted, "We have one standard. It should apply to everybody whether I'm there or not."
The Kappa Beta Phi society has a secret membership estimated at more than 250 of the financial industry's current and former executives, including disgraced former New York Stock Exchange head Richard Grasso.
On Friday, a City Hall aide acknowledged that Bloomberg - who calls the strict anti-smoking law one of his signature achievements - was aware that people were smoking and didn't take any action.
"The mayor has seen violations before and doesn't take it upon himself to report them," the aide said at the time, adding that enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the city Health Department.
Mayoral spokesman Ed Skyler said yesterday that the aide "either misspoke or was misinterpreted."
"I don't know how anybody can speak for anybody else . . . as to what a person saw," Skyler said.
Bloomberg said the Health Department is investigating the St. Regis.
February
8, 2004
ASH
FRAY: CLUB BIG BLASTS MIKE
By Stefan
C. Friedman
The president of the New York Nightlife Association yesterday accused Mayor Bloomberg of using a double standard when it comes to enforcing the smoking ban after it was reported that Hizzoner sat idly by as dozens of people puffed cigars in his presence.
David Rabin, owner of West Village hot spot Lotus, found it odd that the mayor would allow the smokefest to take place right under his nose, considering Bloomberg's insistence that secondhand smoke is such a killer.
Rabin and other bar owners were outraged after reading that Bloomberg witnessed up to 50 people smoking at a gathering of Wall Street's exclusive Kappa Beta Phi society at the St. Regis Hotel last month, and did nothing about it.
"Does the wait staff of the St. Regis have a special immune system that combats the supposed ill effects of second-hand smoke?" Rabin asked.
February
7, 2004
MAYOR
MIKE'S MYOPIA
Editorial
Was Mayor Bloomberg an accessory before, during and after the fact to an offense that he himself helped make illegal - smoking in public?
Seems so.
As The Post reports today, Hizzoner sat by while dozens of fat cats dragged on even fatter cigars right before the mayoral eyes last month in a public ballroom where smoking is prohibited by law.
Bloomberg's law.
According to one source, Bloomberg basically "condoned" the smokes.
Tsk, tsk.
Public puffing is OK by Mike, it seems - if you're a fellow gazillionaire.
Just a measely bodega owner or a lowly saloonkeeper? Mayor Mike's tobacco troopers are just waiting to hit them up with fines.
Hey, even possession of empty, unused ashtrays has drawn citations - never mind that the "contraband" was hidden from sight.
Meanwhile, bar and restaurant owners fume over business killed by the ban. Patrons are forced outdoors, making not only their lives miserable, but also those of nearby residents and passersby, who face added pedestrian traffic, noise and, of course . . . smoke.
The law's for thee, says Mayor Mike - but most certainly not for me!
What hypocrisy.
February
7, 2004
CIGAR
PARTY MIKE
MAYOR
BUTTS OUT AS PALS SMOKE
By Marsha
Kranes, Stefan C. Friedman and Tatiana Deligiannakis
[Picture: Mayor Bloomberg turned a blind eye to widespread stogie-puffing at a black-tie gathering of Wall Street's exclusive Kappa Beta Phil society on Jan. 15.]
It's hard to imagine - butt-banning Mayor Bloomberg sitting passively at his table during a black-tie dinner while all around him smokers puff away on stogies.
But that's exactly what happened one recent evening in Manhattan when Hizzoner attended the annual gathering of Wall Street's exclusive Kappa Beta Phi society at the St. Regis Hotel.
The private event was held in the hotel's top-floor ballroom, which quickly became smoke-filled after cigars were passed out among the assembled titans of finance.
Of the 130 who attended the Jan. 15 gathering, dozens lit up - possibly as many as 50, one party-goer told The Post.
And Bloomberg - whose smoke police have cited Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter and others for simply harboring empty ashtrays, and who boasts he regularly calls 311 to report potholes and litter-strewn lots - didn't raise a finger in protest.
"He condoned it," said a source who saw Bloomberg while the cigars were being smoked.
At the event, once described as "closer to La Cage aux Folles than a bankers convention," newly inducted members - including Bloomberg's companion, state banking superintendent Diane Taylor - performed raucous skits, making fun of themselves and the investment industry icons in the room.
Many spoofed disgraced former New York Stock Exchange head Richard Grasso, who was on hand laughing it up.
A City Hall aide acknowledged that Bloomberg was aware of the cigar-fest around him and didn't take any action, noting, "The mayor has seen violations before and doesn't take it upon himself to report them."
The aide said, "It's the Health Department's responsibility to issue tickets based on complaints and random inspections."
The mayor's apparent indifference to the mass violation of the city's tough anti-smoking law - which he considers one of his crowning accomplishments - drew outrage around the city. At the Drini Café on Arthur Avenue in The Bronx, customer Jerry Ahmetaj fumed, "It makes me mad to know he's partying with smokers while the rest of us have to stand outside and freeze just to smoke a cigarette."
Nearby, at Enzo's Café, bartender Anna Gjegji called the mayor's inaction "very hypocritical."
"What a role model!" she grumbled.
At the Four Seasons in Manhattan, co-owner Julian Niccoli said, "It's the same old story - we cannot smoke, but they can. Different rules apply to different people."
City Health Department spokeswoman Sandra Mullin said the St. Regis "can expect an inspector in the near future."
Asked about the Kappa Beta Phi event, St. Regis spokeswoman Teresa Delaney said hotel officials had "no knowledge of smoking going on" at the dinner.
February
1, 2004
SMOKIN'
JOE
Page Six
ROCKER Joe Jackson is just as tired with Mayor Bloomberg's anti-smoking law as the rest of us. He's even penned a song against the ban. Jackson premiered his protest tune, "In Twenty-Oh-Three (You Can't Smoke at the Bar)," on WABC Radio's "Steve Malzberg Show." "If you smoke, that sign that's in the window of your favorite bar that says 'no smoking' might as well say, 'f- - - off,' " Jackson told Malzberg. "Even the bartenders whom this law is supposed to protect don't like it. It just means that we're unwelcome and put out onto the street."
January
29, 2004
TRUMP
BLASTS MIKE ON SMOKE
Page Six
DONALD TRUMP doesn't smoke or drink, but the teetotalling tycoon has no patience with Mayor Bloomberg's inflexible anti-smoking ban.
"I'm a non-smoker - and I love that the tobacco companies are getting their asses sued off - but New York nightlife has been impaired by the new cigarette laws," Trump vented to Steve Garbarino, who wrote a cover story on the real estate developer and TV star for next week's TV Guide.
"Very few people have died from second-hand smoke," Trump told Garbarino. "I know bartenders who are 100 years old, and they are breathing and still tending bar. The Europeans won't even come to New York because they can't smoke in restaurants and bars. So I think they've taken it too far."
Even so, Trump is disdainful of smokers so hooked on "the stupid, terrible habit" that they "have to leave Le Cirque to go out in the rain to smoke for 10 minutes."
He went on, "Never had a drink. Never had a cigarette. Number one, I don't like the taste [of alcohol]. Number two, my brother [Fred Trump] died of alcoholism. I saw what alcohol did to him."
Trump continued: "He was a great teacher in a sense. He was 12 years older than me. He would lecture me incessantly: 'Don't smoke, don't drink.' I've never had a cup of coffee either. Fred drank coffee, smoked and drank alcohol. But alcohol ultimately killed him.
"Most people that drink, I've found have a problem with it. I had a friend who I respected, but who would get totally bombed, and I'd be carrying him out by his arms and legs. He'd make a total jerk of himself.
"I've never had an employee with a drinking problem. Subconsciously, I think I'm not into people who drink."
Tell that to some of the female contestants on Trump's "The Apprentice." One of them, Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, told Garbarino: "I was surprised at how drunk everyone got. I was in awe that they would behave that way.
"Every time there was a break, they'd be out smoking their Marlboros. Unfortunately, it was off my [Trump Plaza] balcony that they went to have cigarettes. I'm not a drinker or a smoker. I was amazed that in preparing for the job, they wouldn't have known Trump is [against both]."
January
20, 2004
MIKE:
SMOKE OUT CIG-TAX DODGERS
By Kenneth
Lovett
ALBANY - New Yorkers can earn cash rewards for ratting out bodegas, groceries and individuals selling bootlegged cigarettes if a bill supported by Mayor Bloomberg wins approval.
Under the bill, the city would give a "suitable" reward to anyone who provides information that leads to the detection of violations of the cigarette tax.
Under the legislation, a person "generally" could receive up to 15 percent of the owed taxes that are eventually collected, meaning someone responsible for a bust leading to $1 million in tax collections could reap a $150,000 reward.
City and state officials believe more people are turning to bootlegged cigarettes after the city and state dramatically increased their cigarette taxes two years ago.
They see the new law as "a valuable enforcement tool."
"Revenue, revenue, revenue," said the Senate bill's sponsor, Frank Padavan (R-Queens), on the intent of the bill.
"There's a tremendous amount of revenue from this underground economy, and cigarettes are a big part of it."
The bill passed the Republican-led state Senate last year but died in the Assembly, where it is sponsored by Assemblyman Jeff Klein (D-Bronx).
It has been reintroduced in both houses this year and Klein said he thinks chances for approval in the Democratic-controlled Assembly are better this year.
"The mayor urges the earliest possible favorable consideration of this proposal by the Legislature," according to a bill sponsor memo.
Klein - who estimated smuggling is costing as much as $80 million annually in lost tax revenue - says the bill would give more incentive to wholesalers to inform on stores that suddenly drop their orders, a possible indication they are getting their cigarettes from another source.
"If a store buys less from the wholesaler, the wholesaler knows that something is up and will respond because they will lose money," Klein said.
The bill, he added, will raise revenue for the city and state and could keep lower-priced cigarettes out of the hands of children.
"It's something we're interested in doing," Klein said.
A Bloomberg spokesman did not have an immediate comment.
The city in July 2002 raised its cigarette excise tax to $1.50 a pack, up from 8 cents. The state in April of that year also dramatically raised its excise tax to $1.50, up from $1.11.
The increases pushed the price of cigarettes in the city to more than $7.50 a pack.
Smuggling was believed to have increased dramatically since then, with bootleggers making hundreds of thousands of dollars on every truckload of cigarettes brought illegally into the city.
With the increased smuggling have come beefed-up enforcement efforts from both the city and state.
During the first six months of last year, cops from the NYPD's Cigarette Interdiction Group arrested 44 bootleggers and confiscated 12,018 cartons of untaxed cigarettes.
January
7, 2004
SMOKIN'
CRIME WAVE
By Harry Siegel
FOR years, New Yorkers associated the hushed, rhythmic call of "Smoke, smoke" with hustlers peddling pot and worse in the city's streets and parks. But while the Giuliani war on crime thinned the dealers' ranks, Mayor Bloomberg has opened the door to a new generation of hustlers who have taken up the cry to hawk Marlboros and Newports.
And these new smoke peddlers are fast proving far more ambitious and, in many cases, violent than their predecessors.
The motive? Exorbitant new local taxes created an opportunity for huge "buttlegging" profits. With a 75 percent sales tax, cigarettes here are far more expensive than in other cities and states. Legal sales have plummeted and some vendors have taken to pocketing the $3-a-pack of sales tax.
But there's little evidence New Yorkers have taken the mayor's patronizing suggestion to quit complaining about a tax that's good for them and kick the habit. Instead of frequenting local retailers, middle-class smokers have been buying cigarettes online and out of state.
But that requires a credit card and an Internet connection, or a car and time. So this regressive tax has had the biggest effect in poor and working-class neighborhoods - where $300-plus a month to support a pack-and-a-half-a-day habit can hardly be dismissed as a marginal expense.
It has, though, created a fantastic business opportunity for those not too concerned with the fine points of tax law - a market with high demand, readily available low-cost supply, a low threshold for entry and easily circumvented government-imposed price controls that place legal competitors at a huge disadvantage.
And just before the New Year, New York Secretary of State Randy Daniels announced that only so-called "fire-safe" self-extinguishing cigarettes can be sold in New York as of June 28. This will serve as yet another market-distorting sales incentive for reselling out-of-state cigarettes, since no one wants their smoke constantly going out on them.
In the short run, consumers in New York's less-well-off neighborhoods see the smugglers as providing a service. But these same areas bear the brunt of the crime these men bring with them. As The Post put it in an editorial last month, dealers "seldom limit themselves to fair business practices to eliminate the competition."
At about $40 profit per carton, there's a real incentive for rough play: Just 50 cartons a week nets six figures tax-free annually.
This math has added up to some very nasty characters. The city is being divided into turf - Russians gangsters in Brighton Beach, the Flying Dragons and Ghost Shadows in the city's Chinatowns, Bloods in Harlem. They've all been competing with smaller gangs and self-employed entrepreneurs to cut out a piece of the action. (And a Michigan cigarette-smuggling ring is suspected of having funneled millions of dollars to Hezbollah.)
And even when caught, street-level dealers face little more than a summons for hawking what is, after all, a legal product.
Increasingly, they have resorted to public violence - including at least four homicides last year.
In November, Cody Knox was stabbed to death in Fulton Mall in the middle of the day by competitors, punishment for underselling them by about a dollar a pack. The same week, Sherwin Henry - who had been netting over $1,000 a week reselling packs purchased from a reservation - was shot in the head on a Brooklyn rooftop in what appears to have been a robbery. Two other men have been shot in separate incidents linked to buttlegging.
The New Prohibition has been a predictable disaster. As the new tax kicked in last July, the NYPD formed a new unit, the Cigarette Interdiction Group, to handle the expected upturn. Yet 146 arrests, and the seizure of $250,000 and some 6 million cigarettes, seem to have had little deterrent effect. In the outer boroughs, upper Manhattan and Chinatown, it's easy to find $5 packs.
Presumably, violence short of murder has not been reported to the police by the criminals involved - the old rob-the-drug-dealer syndrome.
One Prospect Heights-based man I spoke with switched from nickel bags to packs of Newports he carries in a plastic shopping bag. He claims to make about $500 a week and to have developed a number of regular customers, a couple of whom came up and made small talk while I followed him on his rounds. He's been stopped by the police once, he said, but got off with a summons.
He's trying to make what he can before getting pushed out by organized concerns, but doesn't plan on stopping just yet: "Think about crack, man, how raw that got back in the 1980s. This ain't that bad yet, but there's easy, almost make-believe money to be made hawking smokes, so it don't matter what the police do . . . you're going to have crews setting up franchises, cutting up the city, and deading the competition."
January
6, 2004
MIKE!
ARREST THIS COLUMNIST!
Page Six
VANITY Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens has launched a one-man crime spree to protest some of Mayor Bloomberg's more overbearing ordinances.
In the space of a few hours, Hitchens managed to break a slew of New York's pettier laws: He sat on an upended milk crate, took his feet off bike pedals, put his bag on the subway seat next to him, fed pigeons in Central Park and sat on a subway step. He also smoked in a bar and in a restaurant.
While Hitchens emerged from his "orgy of lawlessness" unscathed, he recounts tales in Vanity Fair of New Yorkers victimized by Bloomberg's bureaucratic bullying:
* Jesse Taveras, who sat on a milk crate outside the Bronx hair salon where he works and was fined $105 for "unauthorized use" of the crate.
* Kim Phann and Bruce Rosado, fined for "loitering in front of a business" while taking a smoke break outside the Bronx barber shop where they work.
* Pedro Nazario, 86, of Morningside Heights, whacked with a summons for feeding pigeons.
* Yoav Kashidia, an Israeli tourist, fined $50 for falling asleep on the subway and occupying two seats during his slumber.
* Crystal Rosario, a pregnant Brooklynite, ticketed for resting on a subway step.
* Brian Bui, owner of Mekong restaurant in SoHo, twice fined $200 for allowing a customer to smoke under a retracted awning. Bui fought the second ticket and won, but only after spending $3,000 in legal fees.
Hitchens writes: "The law these days . . . states that New York City is now the domain of the mediocre bureaucrat, of the inspector with too much time on his hands, of the anal-retentive cop with his nose in a rule book, of the snitch willing to drop a dime on a harmless fellow citizen, and of a mayor who is that most pathetic and annoying figure - the micro-megalomaniac.
"Who knows what goes on in the tiny, constipated chambers of [Bloomberg's] mind? All we know . . . is that one of the world's most broad-minded and open cities is now in the hands of a picknose control freak."
Mayoral spokesman Ed Skyler shot back: "Ninety-nine percent of the laws mentioned were on the books before the mayor took office, which makes this so-called story nothing other than the latest hit piece commissioned by [Vanity Fair editor in chief] Graydon Carter."
January
2, 2004
PAINTER
SHOWS MIKE THE MAT
Page Six
ANGRY-man artist Scott LoBaido is once again turning his paintbrush on his nemesis, Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
LoBaido, who protested the shuttering of a Williamsburg firehouse last August by painting a mural of a smiling mayor shooting a man in the back, has been asked by the National Arts Club to show his latest Bloomberg-bashing - a rendering of a cigarette-puffing Frank Sinatra giving him a bloody beating.
The painting, titled "Black Eye, Bloody Nose and Fat Lip Courtesy of Frank Sinatra," shows a battered Bloomberg sprawled in an alley next to a "No Smoking" sign, as Sinatra walks away trailing a plume of smoke.
"Bloomberg is destroying the romance of the city," LoBaido fumed to PAGE SIX. "If Sinatra was sitting in bar having a cocktail with two lovely ladies and Bloomberg walked in to hang up a no-smoking sign, then what do you think Frank would do? That's exactly what the painting is about."
National Arts Club president Aldon James, who invited LoBaido to show his "American Pride" exhibit at the club's Trask Gallery beginning Jan. 6, defended the provocative painting.
"Politics has always been bloody," James said. "It's not that the National Arts Club is against Mayor Bloomberg. We don't have to always agree with what our artists are saying, but we feel they have a right to be shown. I'm sure even Mayor Bloomberg would respect the artist's right to express himself." A Bloomberg spokesman did not return calls.
LoBaido claims his "Angry American" style - other works depict President Bush on horseback holding the head of Osama bin Laden and a stars and stripes-covered anvil falling on Saddam Hussein - has kept his work out of most galleries.
"I'm very patriotic and I use my artwork as a soapbox," LoBaido said. "For years, galleries have shunned me because of my political ideology. Just because I vote Republican, I wave my flag and I love my veterans, they don't want me. But I think I'm finally getting a little respect."
This isn't the first time the Staten Islander has caused a commotion.
He is on probation for hanging oversize American flags on the façade
of the French Consulate. He also painted a flag on School District 3 headquarters
after it ruled against requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
1996 Thru
1999 Archives | 2000 Archives
| 2001 Archives | 2002
Archives |
2003 Archives | 2005
Archives | 2006 Archives
| 2007 News | Top
June
29, 2004
'Safe'
cigs shot down in flames
By Tamer El-Ghobashy
and Alison Gendar
Only two of 40 'self-extinguishing' cigarettes snuffed themselves out in a Daily News test. Pictured here is one of the cigs that self-extinguished.
Even when smokers stop huffing and puffing, most so-called "self-extinguishing"
cigarettes remain lit, Daily News tests show.
New York became the first state in the nation yesterday to require
tobacco companies to sell only "low-ignition" cigarettes that are supposed
to snuff themselves out - potentially cutting smoking-related fire deaths.
But in our admittedly unscientific survey, The News found the newfangled smokes kept burning to the filter most of the time.
"That's not what I would call a fire-safe cigarette," said Brooklyn smoker Lisa Wilton as she bought a pack of the new-styled cigs in Manhattan. "Sounds like some kind of marketing hoax to me."
The cigarettes, which were still hard to find in many local stores, use special paper that is meant to stop burning once a smoker stops inhaling.
The News conducted some common-sense tests, one with 40 cigarettes taped at their filters to the edge of a wooden board.
Only two of the "self-extinguishing" cigarettes stopped burning. The rest burned down to the filter and many scorched the wooden plank.
In a second test, 10 cigarettes were laid flat on a paper-covered board. Just two went out. The rest burned through the paper and scorched the wood.
A spokesman for the state Office of Fire Prevention and Control said The News' tests did not meet scientific standards and would not provide accurate results.
Fans of the new cigarettes said they have been rigorously tested and will cut smoking-related fire deaths by up to two-thirds. Smoldering cigarettes are the leading cause of fire deaths in New York City.
"These new cigarettes are designed not to ignite like regular cigarettes when they land on clothing or furniture," said Andrew McGuire of the Trauma Foundation in San Francisco, a leading voice in the push for fire-safe cigarettes. "We will save lives."
Assemblyman Pete Grannis, (D-Manhattan), who sponsored the legislation, predicted other states will follow New York's lead. "New York is the gold standard in this area," Grannis said.
"The next time someone dies in a cigarette-caused fire, the tobacco company is going to have to explain why the cigarette that started the fire wasn't made in the same way as what's sold in New York," he added.
But officials with three of the nation's largest tobacco companies warned that smokers still must be wary.
"These cigarettes are more likely to self-extinguish when measured against this lab test than others, but we don't know how that compares to real-world conditions," said Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA Inc.
Stores are allowed to sell off the remainder of their old cigarettes.
The new style is marked by an asterisk, a dash or a diamond next to the bar code, or by a slash next to the manufacturer's code on a pack.
"I never understood people who smoke in bed, but if this saves even one life, it is worth it," Manhattan smoker Stella Williams said.
May
21, 2004
Smoke-free
N.Y.C. a clear winner
By David Saltonstall
New York City - clean-air capital?
It is now, at least when it comes to bars and restaurants.
A new study released yesterday found that of seven major cities, breathing is easiest in New York's smoke-free bars and restaurants. In fact, air quality in New York establishments was a whopping 15 times cleaner than joints in Washington, which ranked last on the list.
"The bottom line is that cities that implement comprehensive smoke-free laws quickly and effectively protect the health of both their employees and patrons," said Bill Corr, executive director of Campaign for Smoke-Free Kids, which conducted the survey.
The study - the largest ever of its kind - looked at three cities with strict workplace smoking bans: New York, upstate Buffalo and Los Angeles.
It also looked at four cities where smoking is still allowed in restaurants and bars: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Hoboken, N.J., and Washington.
Testers prowled through at least seven establishments in each city on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night, armed with a high-tech aerosol monitor that measures pollution in micrograms per cubic meter.
The result? Establishments in cities with smoke-free laws had average pollution levels 82% lower than cities that don't.
The nation's capital was by far the worst, with 392 micrograms of pollution per cubic meter compared with New York's average of 25 micrograms.
Researchers said the study offered clear evidence that bars that allow smoking are unhealthy - for both smokers and nonsmokers.
"It isn't a secret that second-hand smoke is bad for you," said Dr. Fred Jacobs, chairman of the Medical Society of New Jersey's Council on Public Health. "Even the tobacco companies don't argue about that anymore."
The study was greeted like a breath of fresh air by Mayor Bloomberg, who pushed through the city's ban on smoking in April last year despite stiff opposition from many bar owners.
"If you want to smoke - smoke. You can smoke outside. It's not forcing anybody else to smoke," Bloomberg told reporters. "If you smoke inside, you are. I'm just glad that the air is clean."
May
16, 2004
Bootleg
cig biz red hot
Daily
News goes undercover to learn true cost of city's high-tax war on butts
This story was produced by the spring investigative techniques class at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism:
Ericka Blount Danois, Brian Boyd, Suleman Din, David Epstein, Mark Fass, Deborah Finestone, Barbara Fleck, Julia Glick, Claire Hoffman, Megan Holland, Reshma Kapadia, Kavita Kumar, Thomas Meagher, Suzanne Nam and Johanna Piazza with supervision from Daily News staff writer Bob Port, a Columbia adjunct professor.
They linger outside storefronts or sit on fire hydrants and whisper as you walk past, "Newports, Newports, Newports."
Some carry their merchandise in black plastic bags. Others stuff their pockets.
After two years with the highest cigarette taxes in the nation, bootlegging is a growing New York City profession that easily pays $40,000 a year - tax-free.
On Friday officials acknowledged that a third of the city's smokers buy from bootleggers, the Internet or Indian reservations.
The Daily News sent a crew of Columbia University journalism students to investigate. They found bootlegging thriving across the city, an underground economy that robs the city of tens of millions of dollars in revenue each year.
Day and night, bootleggers blend with crowds on 125th St. in Harlem. They hustle tourists in Times Square. They ply their trade from shops, apartments and offices off Flatbush and Atlantic Aves. in Brooklyn. They work throughout the Bronx and Queens.
One salesman, who refused to give his name, said he sells about five cartons a day, making between $100 and $150 profit. It's easy to find buyers at $5 a pack with smokers facing a typical $7.50 store price that includes city and state taxes of $3 per pack.
"The system deserves to be robbed," declared Eyes, a twentysomething salesman found sitting on a milk crate in Harlem last month. "The system is robbing you by charging $7.50."
Eyes, who buys legally in Virginia or Delaware at $20 to $25 per carton, shares his block peacefully with two competing dealers. "In Brooklyn, kids will knife each other over cigarettes," he said. "Harlem is a free world."
Three Brooklyn men, ages 17 to 23, were killed last December in a cigarette bootleg rivalry. Bootleggers see their chances of jail time as slim. Eyes said the legal risks pale next to those of his former career as a drug dealer and thief.
"Cigarettes," he said, "have the least amount of consequences."
Possessing 20,000 or more illegitimate cigarettes is a felony that can bring only a four-year prison term. Counterfeiting tax stamps carries a 15-year prison term.
The city's revenue from cigarette taxes peaked last year and is now in decline. It's an open question what role bootlegging has played. Some smokers buy through the Internet or travel long distances to stock up.
The city's record-high smoking tax took effect in mid-2002. By the end of its budget year in July 2003, the city had collected $158 million in cigarette tax, a huge jump from $27 million collected the prior year.
Through this March, the city had collected $114 million more in cigarette tax, $7 million behind projections by the mayor's budget office. The city expects to finish its budget year in June having collected $139 million.
Sam Miller, spokesman for the city's Finance Department, attributed dropping revenue to smokers quitting and young people choosing not to smoke.
A city survey released last week said the number of adult smokers declined by 100,000 in more than a year, dropping from 21.6% of adults to 19.3%.
City officials don't track taxes lost to bootlegging; rather, they work with the police and district attorneys to crack down on illegal sales, Miller said.
Before the 2002 cigarette tax hike, Mayor Bloomberg had pegged cigarette bootlegging's cost at $40 million in lost city taxes annually.
The loss may now be 10 times as much, some experts believe.
Within four months of the city's record tax hike in July 2002 — from $.08 to $1.50 a pack - sales of taxed cigarettes here fell by more than 50% compared with the previous year, according to Patrick Fleenor, a senior economist for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.
That drop was because of bootlegging, he contends.
Ever since New York State imposed its first cigarette tax in the 1920s, black markets and related criminal activity have plagued the city, Fleenor said in a study last year prepared for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
It's simple: Entrepreneurs travel to a place with low taxes and fill their car trunk with smokes. A 1960s state commission found one lone bootlegger then earning what would be $5.5 million annually in today's dollars.
Organized crime joined cigarette bootlegging in the 1960s, and violence rose even as legal penalties increased. In recent years, terrorists have harvested cash from cigarette bootlegging.
Indeed, millions of untaxed cigarettes pour into New York each year, said Tony Communiello, bureau chief of special proceedings for the Queens district attorney. His office pursues distributors while police chase street peddlers.
A small-scale player can make $100,000 a year, Communiello said.
He worries that organized crime could renew its interest because penalties for cigarette bootlegging are less severe than for narcotics.
Bootlegging has hurt convenience store and bodega owners who used to rely on cigarette sales to bring in customers.
Nasser Othman, 32, owner of Around the Clock Market and Deli in Park Slope, Brooklyn, said he sells half as many packs as he once did. When a pack cost $4.25, he sold 10 cartons a day, he said. Now, with a pack of Newports priced at $6.65, he sells four or five cartons a day.
"I don't believe it when they say that they raise the price to get people to stop smoking," Othman said. "It's just an excuse to raise taxes."
Gilbert Cedeno, 33, one of Othman's former customers, has cut back. Tax hikes made his habit superexpensive until he found a 70-year-old woman in his building who bootlegs cigarettes to support herself.
From her apartment, she sells at $4 a pack, but only to people she knows.
"We've got more people selling it in the streets than drugs," Cedeno said. "Cigarettes are a big deal. Everyone smokes. Not everyone does drugs."
One cigarette bootlegger wanders Harlem crooning, "Marlllllborrows . . . Nuuuuuports" just loud enough for customers to hear.
The murmuring and constant moving throw off police, said Daniel Rivera, 35, who sold bootleg cigarettes while walking with his wife and pushing a stroller with his two daughters through the intersection of 125th St. and Lenox Ave.
Bootlegging supplements his regular income.
"Work I got — it's not paying me much," he said. "I have to take care of my family of five kids, my wife. ... I have to buy diapers, milk, so for the side, this is okay."
He said he makes about $15 from each carton sold. He and about 50 local bootleggers buy from one man who drives to Delaware or Virginia, loads his van and delivers the goods.
Rivera said he has been caught three times but has yet to serve any jail time. A judge warned him that next time, he will.
"You know, I got a family to care for, they come first," he said. "But I gotta do what I gotta do, you know?"
May
15, 2004
Bootleg
cig sales fired up
By Paul H.B.
Shin
New Yorkers can't resist black-market smokes.
One in three city smokers bought bootleg cigarettes for their nicotine fix in 2003, dodging hefty taxes that were supposed to nudge people into kicking the habit, the city Health Department revealed yesterday.
In the wake of a series of state and city tobacco tax hikes - now totaling more than $3 a pack - a third of city smokers admitted in a Health Department survey they are buying cigarettes from Indian reservations, through the Internet, by mail, from other states and even from abroad.
"We have seen an increase in the sales of nontaxed cigarettes," Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said yesterday.
The agency had claimed a major victory in its anti-smoking campaign this week, pointing to results from the same survey that showed the number of regular smokers had plummeted 11% between 2002 and 2003.
That dramatic decline came after the city raised its tobacco tax on July 1, 2002, to $1.50 from 8 cents, and implemented a tough smoking ban in bars and restaurants on March 30, 2003.
The survey also found cigarette consumption had dropped 13%, hinting that even those who did not kick the habit were smoking less.
Even as smoking declined, the revelation showed that a huge chunk of puffers are avoiding city and state taxes.
"If people can take advantage of an illegal outlet, you're defeating the purpose of raising the taxes," said Assemblyman Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx), who sponsored legislation that now bans Internet sales of cigarettes.
Klein is preparing to sue certain Native American tribes that have refused to levy tobacco taxes. A carton of cigs that costs $75 in the city can cost a mere $25 on an Indian reservation.
Jose Fernandez, president of the Bodega Association of the United States, blamed lax enforcement for the rampant bootlegging. Cigarette sales have plummeted by 40% at local convenience stores, he said.
Sam Miller, assistant commissioner at the city Finance Department, conceded the city needs more help from state and federal law enforcement.
But the city has taken several measures to "ratchet up the pressure" on smugglers, he said.
A city lawsuit led to the shutdown of three Internet-based cigarette merchants, Miller noted, and the NYPD also made 700 arrests last year related to bootleg tobacco.
May
13, 2004
Tax,
ban slash city smoking - poll
By Paul H.B.
Shin
Faced with a tough new smoking ban and a large hike in tobacco taxes, New Yorkers kicked the habit in record numbers in 2002-03, according to a city survey unveiled yesterday.
The percentage of smokers in the city dipped from 21.6% of adults in 2002 to 19.3% in 2003 - meaning about 100,000 fewer people were lighting up.
"For the first time ever, there are more former smokers than there are smokers in New York City," Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said.
He credited the drop to the city's double-barreled assault on smoking - a tobacco tax hike on July 1, 2002, from 8 cents to $1.50, and a smoking ban in bars and restaurants starting March 30, 2003.
But some experts were skeptical of the survey's methods.
"I would not put too much credence in these new studies," said Robert Levy, a smoking policy expert at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank.
The Health Department's survey was based on two polls of random groups of people, taken one year apart. The more accurate way to gauge the impact of policy on smoking patterns, Levy said, would have been to select a group of smokers and follow their habits over time.
But Dr. Farzad Mostashari, the city's chief epidemiologist, said the city employs the same method used by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He added that the survey's large sample size, 10,000 people, ensures a relatively accurate snapshot.
Mayor Bloomberg's critics also raised doubts about the survey's dramatic results.
"I really have a hard time believing it's 100,000 people," said Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens). Avella pointed to a recent city survey that showed local merchants have not been significantly affected by the smoking ban but failed to make a distinction between bars and restaurants.
"I am very skeptical these days of figures that the administration puts out because I suspect they're geared to supporting their agenda," Avella said.
May
13, 2004
Quitting
time
Editorial
Puff-ertarians, the bunch who believe smoking is an inalienable right, have been wheezing about Mayor Bloomberg ever since he jacked up the cigarette tax and banned butts in bars and restaurants. Some seem determined to go to their graves coughing "Live Free and Die," but many others are doing themselves the favor of quitting.
A Health Department survey, involving interviews with 10,000 New Yorkers, has discovered that the number of adult smokers in the city dropped by 11% from 2002 to 2003. That is a precipitous decrease, the steepest in the city in a decade and the fastest recorded in the nation. While the figure is not scientifically verified, it signals that Commissioner Thomas Frieden's drive against smoking, the leading cause of preventable deaths, is paying off, big-time.
Frieden, a physician and public health crusader, signed on with Bloomberg 2-1/2 years ago on the condition that the mayor back an assault on smoking. Thus the bar ban. Thus the tax hike that boosted the cigarette levy to $1.50 a pack from 8 cents after the state also had increased its tax to $1.50. Thus the distribution of free nicotine patches to New Yorkers who cannot afford them.
The 11% drop is equivalent to about 100,000 fewer smokers, almost enough to fill Yankee and Shea stadiums. The department's survey did not delve into why people quit, but it stands to reason that economics played a big role. An extra $1.50 a pack is likely unaffordable for many folks, and paying for the privilege of contracting lung cancer or heart disease makes no sense.
May
11, 2004
Pols:
Up age to buy cigs
By Joe Mahoney
ALBANY - It might be a drag for some 18-year-olds, but two lawmakers want to raise the legal age for buying cigarettes by a year.
The two state legislators, Assemblywoman Sandra Galef (D-Westchester) and Sen. James Alesi (R-Rochester), are both ex-smokers who say they want to stop kids from getting hooked.
"It's very hard to stop smoking after you get addicted, so we want to stop young people from getting started," Galef said.
All 50 states set the smoking age at 18 in 1992. But since then, three states - Alabama, Alaska and Utah - have raised the bar to 19.
A proposal that would have pushed the smoking age even higher in New York - to 21 - was bottled up in the state Senate last year.
But Assemblyman Pete Grannis (D-Manhattan), an anti-tobacco crusader for nearly two decades, said he believes the call for boosting the smoking age has a strong chance of advancing this year amid the state's tough new smoking law.
"This is an industry that preys on young people," said Grannis, who contended a higher age would make it harder for youngsters to find "role models" who smoke at school.
But the idea was trashed by the 5,000-member New York Association of Convenience Stores and the pro-tobacco New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment.
The groups contend 18-year-olds can make their own choices, and that there are enough laws in place to keep cigarettes away from minors.
Aides to Gov. Pataki had no immediate comment on the proposal.
April
13, 2004
Beer
ads frost mayor
By David Saltonstall
and Lisa L. Colangelo
Mayor Bloomberg got downright frosty yesterday with Rheingold.
With the brewer set to air ads today dousing the mayor's smoking ban, Bloomberg blasted Rheingold as a bad corporate citizen that long ago abandoned its Brooklyn roots.
"Rheingold is a company that walked out on this city 30 years ago," said Bloomberg, referring to the 1974 shutdown of the beer's Bushwick plant that cost the city 1,500 jobs.
In an image that broke beer lovers' hearts, the brewery - too broke to bottle its last tanks of beer - let 62,000 gallons of suds flow into city sewers that day.
The mayor's comments came as Rheingold is due to start airing 30-second
ads today on cable TV that poke fun at Bloomberg's smoking ban, cabaret
laws and silly summonses. The spots will run despite an angry phone call
from Deputy
Mayor Daniel Doctoroff to Rheingold execs.
In one ad, dancers shake their booties until a banner appears on screen warning: "No Dancing. Fine: $300."
The most controversial spot, "Ashtray," shows several people striding down the street with ashtrays in their pockets.
They pop into a bar, slam down the trays and are served a Rheingold before the screen fades to the message: "No Smoking in Bars. Fines issued: $200 and up."
"It's all about freedom of choice, which is one of the things that makes this city so great," Rheingold President and CEO Tom Bendheim said of the ad campaign.
April
12, 2004
Beer
ads full of boos for Bloomy
By Tracy Connor
You can bet they won't be serving Rheingold at Gracie Mansion anytime soon.
The brewery has declared war on City Hall with a series of in-your-face television ads attacking the smoking ban, cabaret laws and silly summonses.
"This is New York, and we can't sleep till we take it back," the narrator declares in the three commercials, which start airing Wednesday on cable.
Each 30-second spot tackles a different enforcement issue.
In "Cabaret," actors are seen break dancing all around town until a banner comes up on the screen announcing: "No Dancing. Fine: $3,000."
Another features a montage of people sitting on milk crates - a reference to Daily News stories about a man getting ticketed for turning a crate into a chair.
But it's the "Ashtray" spot that's sure to be the most controversial, depicting hipsters striding down city streets with ashtrays in their pockets.
They march into a bar, pound down their ashtrays and are served ice-cold Rheingold before the screen fades to this message: "No Smoking in Bars. Fines Issued: $200 up."
The message had anti-smoking activists fuming.
"It's as close to encouraging breaking the law as you can get," said Gene Borio, who runs the Web site www.tobacco.org and supports the city's ban on smoking in bars.
Mayor Bloomberg's office dismissed the ads as a cynical ploy by Rheingold, which closed its Brooklyn doors in 1976 and started brewing again in upstate Utica five years ago.
"When times were tough, Rheingold abandoned Brooklyn, laying off 4,000 New Yorkers," said Jordan Barowitz, a spokesman for Bloomberg.
"Now that times are better, they want to exploit the city to sell their product. They have as much of a connection to New York as Heineken does."
Rheingold chief executive Tom Bendheim said he went after the smoking ban and other issues because they're important to the bars and consumers who buy his beer.
"We're trying to impress on people that the foundation of what the city was built on was Bohemia, and every one of these laws ... just begins to erode the foundation of what makes the city great," said Neil Powell, the ad's creator.
Powell put together a list of topics for future ads, including the restriction on feeding pigeons, a ban on bikers lifting both feet off the pedals, and a ticket given to a pregnant woman who stopped to rest on subway steps.
But what does any of it have to do with beer?
"It should appeal to the people that enjoy nightlife in New York City," Powell said. "And drinking beer is part of that."
April
9, 2004
City-state
cig ban suit flames out
By Robert
Gearty
Breathe free.
A federal judge yesterday snuffed out a lawsuit seeking to overturn the controversial city and state bans on smoking in bars and restaurants.
City officials hailed the ruling by Manhattan Federal Judge Victor Marrero who rejected a sweeping constitutional challenge brought by the group NYC CLASH - Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment.
"The Smoke-Free Air Act was enacted to protect workers from the adverse health impact of second-hand smoke, and we are pleased with the court's decision," said city Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden.
Among other things, CLASH claimed in its lawsuit that the butt ban violated the free speech rights of smokers. But Marrero said CLASH was just blowing smoke.
"Mere conduct, such as smoking, is not generally considered speech," the judge said in an 83-page decision.
He stubbed out another CLASH argument that smoking was a form of political protest.
In their suit, the plaintiffs also tried to cast doubt on two decades of evidence tying health risks with second-hand smoke.
But Marrero said that argument was "akin to trying to scale Mount Everest with a ball of string."
He said the smoking bans were "a valid exercise of the [government's] police powers over the health and welfare of its citizens."
CLASH's attorney, Kevin Mulhearin, said the organization plans to appeal. "The plaintiff is obviously disappointed but resolute," he said.
April
8, 2004
Barkeeps
call rosy biz stats smoke screen
By Lisa L.
Colangelo
Bar and tavern owners, charging that Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban is a business buster, accused the city yesterday of fudging numbers to support the controversial law.
In a recent report, the Bloomberg administration crowed that business at bars and restaurants increased 8.7% in the year since the ban went into effect.
"It's baloney," said Lee Seinfeld, owner of the Dive Bar and two other bars on the upper West Side, and one of more than a dozen suds slingers who appeared outside the Health Department's Worth St. offices.
Bar owners, who were met by counterprotesting anti-smokers, have repeatedly said that it's unfair to lump them with restaurants, which already had a partial smoking ban.
"They mix bars, restaurants, Starbucks, McDonald's, ice cream parlors - anything you want to put in, that's what they've done. ... It's not reflecting what's happening in my business," Seinfeld said.
Bar owners also take issue with the Health Department's contention that 1,000 people die of secondhand smoke exposure a year. "This is a made-up estimate," said Danny Frank, executive director of Amusement and Music Owners of New York.
The Health Department defended its statistics.
"The most objective data available on employment and tax receipts in the bar and restaurant industry have shown that smoke-free workplaces have not had a negative effect on business," the department said in a statement. "Moreover, 150,000 workers are no longer subjected to secondhand smoke, exposure to which leads to an estimated 1,000 city deaths a year."
March
30, 2004
Smoking
ban lucky strike for elex: Mike
By Lisa L.
Colangelo
Mayor Bloomberg boasted yesterday he will kick the butt of any contender who tries to use his smoking ban against him during next year's election.
"This will turn out to be one of the most popular things that the administration has done," Bloomberg said yesterday, one year after the ban went into effect. "And those who want to go and run against it - good luck having a campaign on bringing back smoking."
A report released yesterday by several city agencies showed business is up 8.7% in restaurants and bars during the first year of the ban.
Bloomberg said he's not worried about any political fallout, even though the ban has many patrons and owners of bars and clubs grumbling.
"I can't go into a bar or restaurant where I don't have people come up to me who work in the restaurant and say, 'I want to give you a kiss, you have saved my life,'" Bloomberg said.
The mayor's likely opponents are keeping a low profile on the debate.
"If that is his belief, more power to him," said ex-Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, who has said he thinks the law needs to be reexamined. "I don't think [the smoking ban] will have a large impact on the next election."
Controller William C. Thompson Jr., who has expressed concerns about the ban's effect on business, declined comment.
"The speaker favors the anti-smoking legislation that the city passed that would have allowed for some exceptions," said Fred Baldassaro, a spokesman for City Council Speaker Gifford Miller (D-Manhattan). "But we were superseded by the state."
March
29, 2004
Take
that butt outside...to the limo
By Alison
Gendar
Smoking car has taken on new meaning in the year since Mayor Bloomberg stubbed out cigarettes in restaurants and bars.
"Car? This ain't no car," said Owen Chambers as he gazed at his 41-foot stretch Ford Excursion idling in front of davidburke & donatella, a posh upper East Side restaurant. "It ain't no car, but it is smoking."
Since January, Chambers and the sparkling white stretch have parked outside the E. 61st St. eatery providing a lush, slightly decadent place for customers to light up from 7 p.m. to midnight.
Bloomberg's edict - a year old tomorrow - banned cigarettes in bars, restaurants and clubs, pushing puffers onto sidewalks.
"I couldn't have people standing out in the rain and snow to catch a smoke," restaurant co-owner David Burke said. "So we rented the limo."
Other bars and restaurants have been equally inventive.
Caffé on the Green in Bayside, Queens, set up tents known as the Butt Hutt. The West Village club Luke & Leroy installed a fake sidewalk fireplace.
These zones do more than remove the taint of lighting up: They have become hot spots in their own right, reminiscent of where the cool kids hung out in high school, smokers say.
"Smoking has become a nasty habit, so having some place to go, instead of standing on the street, is great - sort of an in-club for outsiders," said a bottle-blond as she got out of the davidburke & donatella stretch.
"You can enjoy a cigarette and not feel ostracized," added photographer Josh Azar, as he and a friend took a smoking break before their meal.
With the weather getting warmer, Burke is considering a change. He might trade the stretch for a horse and buggy this spring - and maybe a boat on a trailer for late summer. "A taste of the ocean," he said.
But half the fun of the limo is the privacy of the 20-seater's tinted windows, smokers say.
"Some women have gotten frisky back there," said Chambers, a veteran limo driver.
"There was a time when one of the owners [of the restaurant] opened the limo door and there was a woman inside with her, well, her skirt up around her head," he said. "She was reminded the limo is supposed to be just for smoking."
Neighbors have called the police and Health Department on Chambers, complaining the limo is an illegal smoke-easy.
Chambers gives the same explanation to inspectors and customers: As a private vehicle that doesn't pick up passengers off the street, it's exempt from the ban. City officials agreed the limo is not breaking any laws.
Smokers say they need their hideaways because even at places like davidburke & donatella, the hostility can be pointed.
"A smoking limo is fine by me as long as I don't have to smell it," said comedian Carol Burnett as she wrapped up a six-course meal.
One of her party was more direct: "Why not just take the exhaust pipe and run it in the back of the limo? That way, they don't have to buy cigarettes."
March
29, 2004
Ban's
foes blow smoke: study
By Lisa L.
Colangelo
The city ban on smoking in restaurants and bars is good for the lungs - and for business, according to a Health Department report released yesterday.
A year after the controversial law went into effect, business in restaurants and bars is up 8.7%, according to the report.
The study - done by the same department that advocated the ban in the first place - compared tax receipts, employment and business openings and closings in 2002 and 2003.
"The bottom line is that New York City a year later is a healthier place to work, eat and drink," said Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. "And 150,000 people don't have to go into work every day and be smoked on by other people."
Of the 22,003 establishments inspected from April 2003 to February 2004, 97% were deemed "smoke-free." Inspectors saw no ashtrays at these locations, no one was spotted smoking and cigarette warning signs were hung properly.
The state Liquor Authority awarded 1,416 new licenses in 2003 in New York City, compared to 1,361 in 2002, according to the report.
Mayor Bloomberg risked heavy political fallout when he pressed the ban, which continues to anger smokers who resent being sent to the sidewalk for a cigarette.
Despite the rosy numbers, many bar and club owners complain business has suffered.
Using 2002 - when the economy plummeted after the 9/11 terror attacks - as a baseline for comparison is unfair, bar owners say.
"Why don't they just compare job stats to 1929 - it's about as relevant," said David Rabin of the New York Nightlife Association, co-owner of Lotus. "Two thousand two was probably the worst year to compare to in 20 years. And they simply refuse to separate out bars, clubs and taverns [from restaurants]. They know numbers are bad there."
Rabin said bar and club employees have taken second jobs to make up for lost tip income.
"Is that an increase in jobs?" he quipped.
Frieden said opponents falsely predicted doom and gloom when they warned employment and revenue numbers would drop 30% to 50%.
"They were wrong," Frieden said. "That doesn't mean there aren't businesses that are hurting for a whole variety of reasons. Around the country, stand-alone bars are not doing well."
March
28, 2004
Smoke
ban a hit - even outpolls Yanks
By Lisa L.
Colangelo
What do New Yorkers like more than the Yankees or a Coney Island hot dog?
The smoking ban.
Or at least that's the conclusion of a poll of 500 registered voters for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
According to the poll, 61% of people strongly support the ban on smoking in workplaces, including bars, restaurants and offices. That's up from 55% in a similar poll conducted in August.
Another 14% said they "somewhat" support the ban.
"Those are amazing numbers," said Josh Isay, a spokesman for the campaign. "People should know that contrary to some press reports, this law is very popular ... it's a vocal minority that opposes the law."
By comparison, 46% of respondents reported a "very favorable" view of the New York Yankees, and 39% were big fans of Coney Island hot dogs.
And 70% of people said the rights of customers to be in a smoke-free restaurant or bar is more important than the right to smoke.
Bob Zuckerman of the New York Nightlife Association questioned the validity of the results.
"When you group bars and restaurants together, you get a much different result than if you just ask about bars," he said. "We continue to hear from members and even nonmembers that the smoking ban has hurt business and curtailed the bar business."
About 80% of the women surveyed support the ban while only 19% opposed it. Meanwhile, 70% of men supported the ban and 29% opposed it.
The poll had a margin of error of 4.5%.
March
25, 2004
Mike's
run may go up in smoke
By Sidney
Zion
Mayor Bloomberg could be run out of City Hall by the smokers he ran out of bars and into the streets.
This will sound funny to those who read polls that say Bloomberg's smoking ban is popular. But it's very serious to the politicians who have their eyes on Gracie Mansion - and their ears to the bitterness of smokers and the business blues of saloon keepers and restaurateurs.
I spoke yesterday to three of the Democrats who are considering making the run for mayor: Rep. Anthony Weiner, Controller William Thompson and Fernando Ferrer, the ex-Bronx borough president who nearly won the nomination in 2001. All three, in varying degrees, say they will make the smoking ban a serious issue in their campaigns.
"It has to be," says Hank Sheinkopf, the savvy New York political consultant, "because to many smokers, this is a one-issue deal, like abortion and gun control. If they're with you on everything else but this, you're dead. It could lose Bloomberg north of 400,000 votes."
Weiner is easily the most articulate on the issue, which, on the face of it, is surprising because he is a nonsmoker. "If you want to see just how much Bloomberg misunderstands the DNA of New York - what sort of a condescending patrician he is - look at the way he handled the smoking business," says Weiner.
"He rammed it through without ever having campaigned for it. He did it without considering what it would do to the small bars in the city, particularly the outer boroughs, what it would do to the soul of New York, which to me is libertarianism, the right to live your life without onerous government intervention. I sum it up this way: New York does not want or need Nurse Ratched as mayor."
Weiner represents parts of Queens and Brooklyn, the last gin-mill neighborhoods of the city, where smokin' and drinkin' are an integral part of the life of working men and women.
"Exactly where Bloomberg is most vulnerable," says Sheinkopf. "Add Staten Island, where his Republican base threatens him on real estate taxes as well as smoking, and the mayor is in big trouble."
So, too, may be Gifford Miller, the speaker of the City Council, who pushed through Bloomberg's smoking law. Miller wants the Democratic nomination for mayor, and now Weiner, Thompson and Ferrer will challenge him.
Thompson told me yesterday: "I'm concerned that the blanket application of the smoking ban has had a negative financial impact on bars, and I would look to create exceptions for these establishments."
Ferrer says: "We definitely need to reexamine this law and see if we can come to a reasonable way to both protect health and business."
Make no mistake about it - the restaurants and bars are getting killed by this Bloomberg-Miller law that has nothing but fake science to support it.
Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden insisted to me that 1,000 bartenders and waiters die each year of secondhand smoke. I didn't bother to argue with him about this nonsense. I simply warned him that he could cost Mike the election.
Hearing that, he took notes and said, "I wish I could take the heat instead of him. Maybe we should put me on a dartboard."
Too late, buddy. Too late.
March
20, 2004
All
puffed up over cig law
By Lisa L.
Colangelo and Alison Gendar
A year after Mayor Bloomberg stubbed out smoking in all restaurants, nightclubs and bars, officials are calling the ban a burning success.
Health Department officials said yesterday that 97% of restaurant, bars and clubs have "substantially" complied with the ban by booting smokers, posting "No Smoking" signs and ditching ashtrays.
"If success is defined as 100%, then this is pretty darn close," said department spokesman Sid Dinsay.
The city has investigated 3,500 smoking complaints and issued 3,300 violations since the law took effect March 30, 2003.
Dinsay could not say how the city determined that 97% of the spots are complying.
But random spot checks by the Daily News of 35 establishments found one in three bars and clubs, and one in five restaurants, still turns a blind eye to the law.
"If you want to smoke, just go in the back," a Williamsburg bartender told patrons as they stood under a "No Smoking" sign in a pub on a recent Thursday night.
The findings mirrored a similar News review of 46 bars last April.
Bar owners and their patrons said the past 12 months have been an economic disaster: Bar stools and cash registers are empty, clubs break the law just to survive and smokers are pushed into the street to puff.
"New York City has gone from the city that never sleeps to Sleepy Hollow," said Tom Carrube, manager of Sharkey's Sports Bar and Grill on Staten Island. He estimates that revenue has plummeted 60% as regulars stay home or head to nearby New Jersey for a beer and a smoke.
Two-thirds of the clubs blamed the ban for lost business and a third for payroll cuts, according to a fall survey of 300 area bars and nightclubs by the Vintners' Federation of Ireland.
Anti-smokers, however, say the gloomy reports are just empty huffing and puffing.
Stanton Glantz of the University of California-San Francisco, who has studied the economic impact of smoking bans, says bans don't hurt the industry.
And the state Liquor Authority reported no drop in the number of city owners seeking liquor licenses in the year following the ban.
With the ban here to stay, the mayor may earn another legacy from it that he hadn't counted on: The little huddles of smokers outside bars have been tagged "Bloomberg lounges."
"It's horrible," said Vikki Barbero of Community Board 5, which covers prime party zones between 14th and 59th Sts. between Lexington and Eighth Aves. "People in the neighborhood are sick of it."
March
18, 2004
Club
satisfying burning desires
Lowdown -
By Lloyd Grove
The glitzy "gentlemen's club" Scores - for more than a decade a hangout for name-brand celebs and well-endowed young ladies who like to get almost naked and writhe in male laps - staged a grand opening for Scores West on Tuesday night.
Gentlemen of all ages, including yours truly, converged on the spanking-new $10 million club on W. 27th St., where strippers in G-strings gave customers lap dances and cigarette and candy girls sold their wares.
And where cigar and cigarette smoke rose to the ceiling.
Smoke.
Wafting.
Indoors.
Almost a year after Mayor Bloomberg launched his jihad against indoor smoking in public places.
Scores impresario Lonnie Hanover told me yesterday that despite the smoking ban, puffing on the premises is permitted at the East Side club. It is classified as an "existing tobacco bar" under New York State law, so the city granted it an exemption from the ban.
Hanover added: "Scores West features a cigarette and candy girl. We have a license to sell tobacco, including our own brand of Scores cigars ... On the East Side, there is smoking all through the main showroom. We have never stopped smoking on the East Side."
Hanover says Scores is negotiating with the Bloomberg administration to allow legal smoking on its West Side premises as well. All of which was alarming news to Sandra Mullin, communications director for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
"We're certainly eager to inspect both places and we will do so," Mullin vowed yesterday, insisting that smoking is against the law at both Scores venues.
She said the exemption at the East Side club was rescinded in February, because the club was never eligible for one under city regs. As for the West Side club, "If smoking is going on there, we will cite them," she said.
Scores attorney Marvin Mitzner, of the well-connected law firm Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding, claimed that "we are properly complying with the statute. We welcome the Health Department to send us a formal notification of what they believe the problems. We welcome the opportunity to address these issues with the city."
Smokin'!
February
11, 2004
Mike
huffs & puffs over bash
By Michael
Saul
Is the smoke clouding Mayor Bloomberg's memory?
Bloomberg initially told reporters he did not see anybody smoking at a high-flying dinner for Wall Street executives at the St. Regis Hotel last month.
Yesterday, he said he doesn't "really remember."
"The bottom line is, I don't really remember anybody smoking," Bloomberg said in a radio interview. "Most people weren't, and if there were some people in the corner smoking, they were smoking. What do you want me to do? Call the cops? I mean, come on!"
On Monday, Bloomberg unequivocally said: "I didn't see any smoking when I was there."
According to published reports, a number of executives puffed cigars in Bloomberg's presence at the Jan. 15 black-tie dinner sponsored by Kappa Beta Phi, an exclusive secret society for financial bigwigs.
As a result of the incident, health inspectors are scheduled to visit the St. Regis Hotel in pursuit of current smoking violations.
Saying, "Smoking kills," Bloomberg vehemently defended the city's smoking ban yesterday.
"We would do a great service for society if we stopped kids from smoking and stopped each other from smoking," he added.
"You can smoke outside. You just can't smoke where somebody else is forced to breathe the air, particularly people that work there. That's the key."
February
10, 2004
Mike
blows smoke about bigs' bash
By Michael
Saul
Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday he didn't see - or, presumably, smell - any smoking at a fat-cat event for Wall Street executives at the St. Regis Hotel last month.
According to published reports, several of the execs puffed cigars in Bloomberg's presence.
The mayor, who was the driving force behind legislation to ban smoking in most public places, said he arrived late at the Jan. 15 black-tie dinner sponsored by Kappa Beta Phi, an exclusive secret society for financial bigwigs.
He said he stayed only 90 minutes. There "very well could have been" smoking, he said, but he didn't detect it. "I didn't see anybody smoking when I was there," Bloomberg said.
The dustup has led to allegations that the city has two standards for enforcing the new law - one for Bloomberg and his wealthy friends, and another for everyone else.
Bloomberg insisted yesterday he wasn't turning a blind eye to protect his pals.
"We have one standard," he said. "It should apply to everybody, whether I'm there or not."
January
13, 2004
Mike
burns both ends
By Lisa L.
Colangelo
Mayor Bloomberg has taken heat from smokers angry over his sweeping ban on butts.
But now it is members of the anti-smoking brigade who are giving Bloomberg grief.
The American Cancer Society is miffed the mayor didn't mention the smoking ban in his State of the City address last week.
"We've talked about it before," Bloomberg told reporters yesterday. "I'm not walking away from it. Quite the contrary, I think there's nothing in my life that I will ever do that will save as many lives as doing that."
The cancer society sent both Bloomberg and Gov. Pataki letters last week asking them to "trumpet the smoking ban" and "remind New Yorkers of its benefits."
Neither did.
"While we are disappointed that he did not highlight the smoking ban as a major achievement of 2003 in the State of the City address, there is no doubt where the mayor stands in his support of the law," Donald Distasio, CEO of the American Cancer Society's Eastern Division, said. "We and our partners will continue to trumpet the smoking ban and encourage the mayor to remind New Yorkers of its benefits."
Bloomberg said, "What I'm trying to do is each time focus on new things. [With] the State of City, you're trying to say what the state is and what you have accomplished. What you really want to do is focus on going forward."
January
6, 2004
Vanity
Fair kicks Bloomberg's butt
The 411
By Rebecca
Louie, Suzanne Rozdeba, Zoe Alexander and Ben Widdicombe
Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter has burned Mayor Bloomberg in the latest round of their feud over New York's smoking ban. Two tirades aimed at the mayor appear in the magazine's February issue, on stands tomorrow.
"Under current New York City law, it is acceptable to have a loaded handgun in your place of work," Carter fumes in his editor's letter, "but not an empty ashtray."
The rant comes after city officials hit Carter with three separate summonses for having an open ashtray in his Conde Nast office on Times Square.
Carter also sics bad-boy author Christopher Hitchens onto Hizzoner. Hitchens writes about his efforts to break as many laws as possible in Bloomberg's New York, which he moans has become "the domain of the mediocre bureaucrat."
He lights up a cigarette in a bar, takes up two seats on the subway, even sits on a milk crate in broad daylight - all activities that have earned New Yorkers summonses in recent months, as first chronicled by The News.
"This current Niagara of pettiness and random victimization may well be Bloomberg's attempt at a wanna-be reputation as heroic crimefighter and disciplinarian," writes Hitchens. "Who knows what goes on in the tiny, constipated chambers of his mind?
"All we know for certain is that one of the world's most broad-minded and open cities is now in the hands of a picknose control freak," Hitchens concludes.
But Bloomberg spokesman Ed Skyler told Daily News City Hall bureau chief David Saltonstall that all of the laws Hitchens broke - with the exception of the smoking ban - have been on the books for years.
"This so-called story [is] nothing other than the latest hit piece commissioned by Graydon Carter," he thundered.
Who was it that said you can't fight City Hall?
NEW
YORK NEWS FROM OTHER SOURCES
1996 Thru
1999 Archives | 2000
Archives | 2001 Archives
| 2002 Archives |
2003 Archives |
2005 Archives | 2006
Archives | 2007 News
| Top
NY
Newsday - June 28, 2004
NY
ADOPTS 'FIRE-SAFE' LAW
Cigarettes
must have self-extinguishing paper
By Andrea
Baker
ALBANY - A long-awaited law requiring cigarettes sold in New York to be manufactured with paper that extinguishes itself takes effect today after years of delay.
Designed to prevent accidental fires, the law is the first of its kind in the nation and was supposed to begin last year.
"This is absolutely groundbreaking," said Russ Haven, legislative council for the New York Public Interest Research Group. "This will have a clear benefit in saving lives and preventing injuries. New York is way out in front on this."
The "fire-safe" cigarette law was signed by Gov. George Pataki in 2000 after an earlier veto, but became mired in bureaucratic hang-ups about promulgating the regulations and concerns by the tobacco industry that the technology was not ready.
The state Office of Fire Prevention and Control helped develop the final standards, which require manufacturers to mark cigarette packages with a symbol that they are "fire-safe."
Beginning today, retailers and wholesalers must sell the new products, though they can sell out existing stock. The office may conduct spot checks to ensure compliance with the law, said Peter Constantakes, spokesperson for the Department of State. Depending on the number of cigarettes sold, he said, store owners could be fined up to $1,000 for breaking the law.
Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, said the company began shipping the new cigarettes June 14. "Our focus now is on compliance," he said, adding that "we continue to believe a uniform national law is the best way to deal with this issue."
An average of 60 people die annually in New York from cigarette fires, according to Department of State statistics.
"While I'm not happy it took this long, I am pleased the lives of some New Yorkers will be saved by these new regulations," said Sen. Frank Padavan (R-Jamaica Estates), one of the bill's sponsors.
Advocates are now pushing for a national cigarette fire-safety standard. Eleven other states are considering similar legislation.
Associated
Press - June 28, 2004
New
Law for Cigarettes Takes Effect in NY
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Smokers who linger between drags on their cigarette may need to be a tad more careful in New York. Their smokes will self-extinguish if not puffed on regularly.
Beginning Monday, New York becomes the first state to require new ``fire-safe'' cigarettes to be sold. The law is meant to cut down on the number of smoking-related fires.
For the past several months, companies have rushed to meet the deadline to supply vendors with the new cigarettes, which are wrapped in special ultra-thin banded paper that essentially inhibits burning.
But manufacturers warn that though the new cigarettes go out on their own, they're not fireproof and careless handling could still lead to fires.
``It's up to individual smokers to make sure that they do not let these products lull them into a false sense of security,'' said Ellen Matthews, a spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the nation's No. 2 cigarette maker.
The lower-ignition paper does nothing to curtail the toxicity of cigarettes or reduce the health effects of smoking. About 900 Americans die each year and another 2,500 are hurt by fires started by cigarettes left unattended.
Customers can see if their pack of cigarettes comply with the new law by checking for a tiny mark next to the bar code -- an asterisk, a dash or a diamond.
Philip Morris USA, the nation's No. 1 cigarette maker, has marketed its Merit brand nationally with the banded paper since 2000, but it had to tweak it to meet New York's standards, said Brendan McCormick, a Philip Morris spokesman.
Lorillard Tobacco Co., maker of Newport and Kent, has been selling the lower-ignition cigarettes in the New York market since March.
Last week, anti-smoking advocates sent a letter to the major cigarette makers, urging them to use New York's standards to produce and distribute fire-safe cigarettes to other states. Tobacco companies have said there's no immediate plan to roll out the new cigarettes nationally.
New York retailers have not noticed any change in sales or excessive complaints from smokers, except for some who are annoyed when their cigarettes go out automatically.
``The change has been uneventful. We're hopeful that there won't be any need or cause for customers to seek out other sources of cigarettes,'' said James Calvin, president of the New York state Association of Convenience Stores, a non-profit group representing 5,000 mini-marts and corner stores.
But if smokers head to neighboring states or buy regular packs of cigarettes through mail-order or the Internet, there's not much New York can do.
``If people go outside, that's a little bit beyond our control,'' said Peter Constantakes, a spokesman for New York's State Department, which helped draft the fire-safety law.
Most popular brands will be available in New York with the lower-ignition paper, but some tobacco companies have abandoned converting lower-end brands due to costs.
Nikki Kane, 21, a smoker from Albany, applauded the change. A few years ago, she escaped a house fire that started when someone left a cigarette burning.
``They're good because if you leave a cigarette burning or you fall asleep, you don't have to worry about the mattress going up in flames,'' she said.
News
10 Now - June 25, 2004
The
other outcome of the smoking ban
By Nick Cowdrey
A St. Lawrence County bar is proving this week that the New York State Clean Indoor Air Act is hurting some bars and taverns.
The Web - a small tavern in Ogdensburg - will close its doors Saturday.
Owners Janet and Anthony Doerr say the smoking ban destroyed their business. Since it went into affect, the Doerrs says business has gone down hill.
"Who wants to go into a little room and smoke, they want to sit and talk to each other, they don't want to go into a little room,” said Janet.
The couple didn't apply for a smoking waiver, saying they didn't want to give the state more money.
Earlier this year the bar was cited for allowing people to smoke. They were fined four thousand dollars by the Health Department, but they are appealing the fine.
The couple plans to go out with a bang, with a party scheduled for Saturday.
"I'm hoping we'll have a good crowd here and a lot of the people are angry of the law, a lot of people, and I think a lot of people are going to speak out,” said Janet.
Regulars say they are sad to see the place close.
"We always like being here, coming here, they’re always friendly, they’re just great people, I wish they weren't leaving us,” said Linda Thompson.
During the bar’s stint, Janet has been active in fighting the ban, whether protesting to politicians or collecting signatures from thousands.
One person in particular has been with her every step of the way.
"They’re consenting adults, they know if they want to enter an establishment that has smoking in it. The state says, ‘Well, it’s for the employee's protection,’ well most of these bar owners are owner/operators so that throws that idea right out the window,” said Lee Monnet.
"New York State is the terminator, they terminated this business,” said Janet.
The Doerrs aren't just closing their bar, they are leaving the state.
They're asking $180,000 for their property, and plan to move to New Hampshire to live by the "live free or die" state motto.
So far, the Department of Health has granted smoking waivers to two businesses in St. Lawrence County.
Hornell
Evening Tribune - June 25, 2004
Hornell
OTB gains rare waiver to state smoking ban
By Kyle A.
Torok
HORNELL - Names like Smarty Jones, Secretariat and Seabiscuit have been reunited with Panatela, Camel Red and E-Z Wider.
The Hornell Off-Track Betting branch now allows smoking, one of a very few establishments in New York state to be granted a waiver to the smoking ban.
Patrons can play the ponies and puff on pipes, cigars and cigarettes as long as they remain tucked away in the parlor's 14-by-18 foot corner room. Whether the waiver has made a difference since it went into effect a month ago is unknown.
"So far, I haven't really seen an increase," said Peggy Tobin, Hornell branch manager, of patronage. "I don't think people really know about it yet."
Waivers have rigid requirements of applicants. They must demonstrate a significant loss of revenue directly related to the ban, and also meet strict regulations for separate designated smoking areas.
Signed into effect on May 28, OTB's waiver states that the room must create and maintain a negative air pressure and that employees may not be in the room when patrons are smoking.
A handful of patrons made use of the room Thursday afternoon, some settling in for a long haul with a pack on the table, and others just popping in on the way home from work. Regulars said they were uncertain whether the waiver would help business at OTB, saying they had not noticed an increase in traffic, either.
Dale Tormey of Westfield, Pa., travels to the Hornell branch about once a week to play the ponies.
"Why do I come here? Why do you think?" Tormey said, waving at the bank of race monitors with a cigar in hand and several stubs in the ashtray. He said he came even when there was no smoking allowed, and did not have an opinion about the waiver.
"They don't just have to bet on races, they can also play QuickDraw and smoke," Tobin said.
Bars and restaurants have been pushing against the ban since it was enacted last summer, citing losses from decreased patronage and lottery ticket sales and claiming it infringes on their rights as business owners.
Tobin was not sure whether other OTB branches have been given waivers. She speculated that more may start coming through to bars and restaurants.
"I think (Joseph) Bruno is pushing against the ban," Tobin said. "I think the state has lost a lot of money."
Associated
Press - June 21, 2004
Assembly
committee kills expansion of smoking ban exemptions
ALBANY, N.Y. -- A state Assembly committee voted Monday night to block a bill that would have provided further exemptions to the ban on workplace smoking the Legislature imposed in New York state in 2003.
The Assembly Health Committee voted 16-8 to hold a bill that would have allowed smoking in bars that have air filtration systems, as well as let people smoke in separately ventilated rooms inside bowling alleys and billiard halls.
"Well, we tried," said state Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, an Oneida County Democrat who sponsored the measure in her chamber.
A member of the Health Committee, Democratic Assemblyman Robin Schimminger of Buffalo, said the bill deserved to be "ventilated and aired" before the full Assembly. He said it gives some businesses relief from the impact of the smoking ban in an "intelligent, careful way."
Critics of the legislation contend that air filtration systems fail to remove some harmful air particles from spaces where people are smoking. They argued that the employees of businesses where smoking is allowed would still be exposed to dangerous smoke.
"It's finally over and now we can go ahead with people adapting to the law," said Russell Sciandra of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York.
The 2003 smoking ban law allowed the state or local health departments to exempt businesses if they can show a loss in revenue of 15 percent or more due to the ban.
Associated
Press - June 17, 2004
Legislative
leaders all but snuff out expansion of ban waivers
By Joel Stashenko
ALBANY, N.Y. -- The state legislative leaders said Thursday they do not favor amending the state's 2003 workplace smoking ban to exempt bars equipped with air filtration systems.
"Why do you want to undo something that is in the public's best interests?" asked Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, who has become an increasingly vocal opponent of smoking.
In addition to the waiver for air-filtrated bars, the amendment proposed by state Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, D-Oneida, and Sen. Raymond Meier, R-Oneida, would permit smoking in separately ventilated rooms in billiard parlors and bowling alleys.
Bruno's counterpart in the state Assembly, Democratic Speaker Sheldon Silver, said he also opposed weakening the smoking ban.
Silver said he favors "some kind of compensation or some ways for those businesses to recoup their losses" for investments they made in their establishments, such as separately ventilated smoking rooms, before the ban. In the past, Silver has proposed tax credits to let business owners recoup their losses.
Bruno said a "loophole" was built into the 2003 legislation allowing businesses to apply for a waiver from the state Health Department or local boards of health in larger counties, if the businesses could show a loss of at least 15 percent in revenues due to the ban. A handful of waivers have been granted so far.
But Bruno said the motivation of the ban remains the same: to prevent people from smoking in the workplace or exposing others to their smoke.
"Cigarettes kill people," Bruno said. "Cigarettes make people sick."
Elizabeth Miller, CEO of the American Lung Association of New York state, said her group is delighted at the high-level opposition in Albany to creating new exemptions to the ban.
"The dangers of second-hand smoke are irrefutable and well established," she said. "Since the law took effect almost a year ago, predictions of doom and gloom from opponents and the tobacco industry have not materialized."
Buffalo
News - June 16, 2004
County
warned on tobacco fund
Naples
says pace of spending violates pact
By Matthew
Spina
Nancy A. Naples says county officials are breaking the rules.
Erie County's financial handlers have been warned, a second time, that they're breaking the rules on how to spend the county's more than $250 million in tobacco-settlement money, most of which is gone years earlier than expected.
In a report sent Tuesday, County Comptroller Nancy A. Naples tells the County Legislature and County Executive Joel A. Giambra that they've spent the money faster than anticipated and on items that often don't benefit the community over the long term, violating Internal Revenue Service standards and the county's own agreement.
An attorney for the county, however, calls some of Naples' findings subjective and says that if county officials were doing anything wrong, their advisers in New York City would have raised a warning flag.
"My guess is that as time went on, the need for spending this money became greater, and the administration chose to spend it faster," Naples said. "There was no rule. But it was a lot of money, and no one believed we would spend it quickly because it seemed like so much."
She said each item went through the appropriate review process - proposed by the Giambra administration and approved by the County Legislature.
Naples said the general plan had been to use the money over nine years, but 87 percent has been spent or committed after a mere four years, some of it on everyday government needs - new vehicles, furniture, personal computer upgrades, road repairs. In a similar report in May 2002, Naples said tobacco money had gone toward snow-removal supplies, auto repairs, toilet paper and cleaning products.
The tobacco money springs from the 1998 settlement of a national lawsuit brought against major tobacco companies by 46 states to recover tobacco-related health care costs. Ideally, it was to be used for health care concerns, but many communities are using it for long-term betterment projects, and some to meet the crush of general expenses.
Some of Erie County's money has gone toward long-term projects that meet or exceed its life-expectancy goal of 17.79 years. But when projecting the life of all the items purchased, Naples' staff arrived at an average 13.27 years, meaning the county hasn't met the rules drawn up when it borrowed the original $212 million that provided its tobacco money upfront four years ago.
Officials expected that by investing some of the money, the tobacco windfall would reach $256.2 million by 2009. The county agreed to use the cash for long-term projects, in part because the federal government and bond attorneys wanted to make sure that in 20 years, the county wasn't paying off money borrowed to buy items that lasted only five years, maybe 10.
But there was no hard rule on how quickly the money could be spent, said County Attorney Frederick A. Wolf.
"I'm not aware of any agreement that says we can't spend the money in six months or six years, so I would say that's a pretty subjective call," Wolf said of the Naples report.
The comptroller has asked Wolf to address the risks if the county doesn't meet promises to bond buyers on the "economic-life requirement." Wolf, however, said that if the county isn't spending the money on truly long-term needs, then its bond counsel, the New York City firm of Hawkins, Delafield and Wood, will raise concerns.
County Budget Director Joseph Passafiume said he will talk to lawyers with Hawkins, Delafield and Wood about making the changes they deem necessary. Meanwhile, Albert DeBenedetti, D-Buffalo, chairman of the Finance and Management/Budget Committee, said he and other lawmakers relied on information from the Giambra administration when deciding whether to finance a capital project with tobacco proceeds.
Times
Union - June 16, 2004
School
seeks smoking waiver
Albany--
Officials want to build concealed shelter outdoors for employees
By Carol DeMare
Bars, restaurants and bingo halls across the Capital Region and the state have lined up to apply for a smoking ban waiver, citing financial hardship.
Now add an educational facility to that list.
In a twist to those seeking relief from the ban, Albany County health officials received an application last week from Parsons Child and Family Center.
The school and child care facility on Academy Road wants to provide its employees with an outdoor designated smoking area, possibly including an open-air shelter, that is out of sight of kids arriving and departing on buses and the public in general.
"What happens now is we have about a 20-acre site and we have a school on it, but we also have our offices and other facilities as well," Parsons Executive Director Raymond Schimmer said Tuesday. "All our people right now have to smoke out on the sidewalk on Academy Road. It's just ugly. The kids in the school buses go in and out of the parking lot and the staff is out there smoking, and I don't think that's the spirit of the law."
The state Clean Indoor Air Act prohibits smoking in all schools, including on school grounds.
Parsons' application, received June 7, is pending before the Albany County Health Department's Division of Environmental Health Services, said county spokeswoman Kerri Battle.
If the school gets permission, the shelter "would be off in one of the corners of the campus," far from the school and the children's residence, Schimmer said.
Thomas Luzzi, Parsons' chief financial officer, said in the application that smoking in front of the facility, creates "an environment that many of the neighbors find objectionable. Furthermore, smoking on Academy Road is so highly visible that it is difficult to discourage the children we care for from smoking."
Parsons school serves about 160 special needs students in grades 3 through 12, of which 110 come on buses from various school districts. The rest live at the facility.
Parsons also provides foster care and adoption services and family mental health services. There are about 120 people on the educational staff and another 100 to 150 employed at the facility.
The smoking ban took effect last July 24. Since the county began issuing applications for waivers in February, Parsons is only the third site to apply.
VFW Oppenheimer Post 1019 applied in March for its bingo games, but the application lacked sufficient information, Battle said. The post hasn't reapplied.
In April, the Shell Inn in Rensselaerville applied but the documents didn't meet the criteria that called for a separate smoking room, she said. Shell Inn hasn't reapplied.
Irish
Echo - June 16, 2004
Survey
shows drop in N.Y. bar business
By Stephen
McKinley
A survey conducted by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association claimed last week that the smoking ban has devastated the New York City and state bar business.
The study, "The Economic Impact of the New York State Smoking Ban on New York's Bars," shows widespread job and earnings losses for bars and taverns across the state and was presented to Albany legislators during a lobbying visit last week.
"The findings of the analysis are clear," said Brian O'Connor of Ridgewood Economic Associates, which carried out the survey. "New York State has lost thousands of jobs and millions in worker earnings and productive activity as a result of banning smoking in bars. Those losses will grow if the smoking ban is left unchanged."
In its findings the survey reports 2,000 jobs, losses of $28.5 million "in wages and salary payments," and $37 million in gross state product.
"Empty barstools. Silent cash registers. Layoffs. Bars closing. That's our reality," said Brian Nolan, executive director of the United Restaurant and Tavern Owners.
The continuing debate over the smoking ban has generated vastly opposing claims and counter-claims by supporters and detractors.
In April, the New York City Department of Finance issued a report prepared to mark a year since the ban was imposed in the city at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The city survey claimed bar and restaurant business had grown by more than 8 percent, spurred by the smoking ban.
A Department of Finance spokesperson admitted that much of the survey included economic data gathered from establishments that did not have smoking permitted before the ban, such as Starbucks and McDonalds.
Groups lobbying in favor of a relaxation of the smoking ban, such as those associated with this latest report, have said that the impact of the smoking ban is not necessarily an obvious one, that it is neighborhood bars off the beaten track that are suffering the most.
"Beer sales to bars and nightclubs have definitely suffered because of the smoking ban," said Bill DeLuca of Manhattan Beer, one of the largest beer distributors in the Metropolitan New York area. "Comparing this year's first quarter to the first quarter of 2003, our restaurant sales are up 18 percent due to the upturn in the economy, but our bar sales are stagnant."
High-end restaurants have reported that while business is up, few smoking customers linger after dinner anymore, preferring to head home for their nightcap and nicotine fix.
The
Daily Star - June 15, 2004
Indoor
smoking ban costing bars millions, study says
By Amy L.
Ashbridge
William Wolfinger said he doesn't have a problem with New York's Clean Indoor Air Law, per se.
He said it's just that the law is a part of why he is closing his Delhi bar, Blinkey's.
"It's a lack of enforcement," Wolfinger said Monday. "You have one down the road that's still smoking and always has been since day one."
Blinkey's represents one of the bars in New York that has been negatively affected by the Clean Indoor Air Act, according to a study released by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.
According to the study, bars and taverns in the state have lost about 2,000 jobs, $28.5 million in salary payments and $37 million in gross state product.
Ridgewood Economic Associates conducted the study, which was released last week.
Jim Bredin, spokesman for the Oneonta Tavern Owners Association, said he thought businesses lost about 20 percent in revenues since the law went into effect last July.
"Business is down a bit in most places," Bredin said Monday. "It's hard to estimate."
Most people don't go into a bar or tavern because they care about their health, Bredin said.
"People would rather be in crowded bars with lots of people," Bredin said. "They're more interested in socializing than clear air."
Many bar owners oppose the smoking ban, Bredin said, because they resent legislators making the decision for them.
"Owners are the ones who are the best judge of what their customer base is," he said.
Bredin said he personally doesn't like smoking, but would probably offer a smoking bar if it were legal.
"What my customers want is smoking," he said. "We think the owners should make the decision — not Albany."
State Sen. Raymond Meier, R-Utica, and Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome, have proposed joint legislation to allow smoking in bars and taverns that have air-purification systems.
In March, the state Department of Health gave the first smoking waiver to Stella Luna, an Oneonta restaurant with a specially ventilated smoking room.
"It sounds like a good, happy medium," Bredin said of the proposed law.
There's no proof, however, that a high-technology ventilation system would completely protect bar employees and patrons, said Amy Morse, program director for the Rural Three for Tobacco Free Communities.
"Remaining smoke-free is the best," Morse said Monday.
Morse said the systems are very costly.
"Not all of them (bars) can afford to put them in," Morse said. "That's not fair. It just makes enforcing the law that much more difficult."
Morse said the point of the law was simply to protect employees.
"The Clean Indoor Air Act has impacted employees' health," she said. "They're safer and they're protected."
Owners should know that, based on surveys, about 70 percent of people in Delaware, Otsego and Schoharie counties support the smoking ban, Morse said.
What should be more persuasive to owners, Morse said, is that "people's health is much more important than money."
Associated
Press - June 11, 2004
N.Y.
Fire - Safe Cigarette Deadline Looms
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- Self-extinguishing cigarettes require special paper that one tobacco company is finding in short supply. They annoy some smokers by going out if you don't puff on them regularly. And they cost more to produce than regular cigarettes.
But major manufacturers Reynolds Tobacco, Philip Morris and Lorillard are scrambling to make and ship the special smokes to comply with a New York state law requiring that all cigarettes sold there after June 28 be self-extinguishing.
The state accounted for 4.3 percent of U.S. cigarette sales in 2002, making it too large a market to abandon. But the costs and drawbacks of the new cigarettes are sufficient that the companies say they do not plan to offer them in the other 49 states.
``This is an overwhelming concern right now for us,'' said Ellen Matthews, a spokeswoman for Reynolds Tobacco Co. of Winston-Salem, the nation's No. 2 cigarette maker. ``A tremendous amount of issues needed to be addressed, among them finding an adequate supply of banded paper. This is affecting everything we are doing.''
New York's regulations call for all cigarettes sold in the state to be wrapped in the special paper, in which ultra-thin bands work like speed bumps to slow the burning of cigarettes that are not being puffed.
A lit cigarette that is dropped onto bedding or a sofa can smolder unobtrusively for as long as 30 minutes before a fire erupts. Approximately 900 Americans die each year and another 2,500 are injured by fires started by cigarettes, according to the American Burn Association and the federal government.
In theory, if a smoker lights a self-extinguishing cigarette and falls asleep or leaves the cigarette unattended, it will go out on its own after a few minutes.
Greensboro-based Lorillard Tobacco Co. has been selling self-extinguishing cigarettes in New York state since March, company spokesman Steve Watson said.
``We haven't received any complaints, only a few inquiries from smokers whose cigarette self-extinguished while they were smoking them,'' he said.
For now, he said, the company's brands -- including Newport, Kent and True -- will be sold with the fire-safe paper only in New York.
Industry leader Philip Morris USA has been selling its Merit cigarette in self-extinguishing paper nationwide since 2000, during which time the brand's market share has shrunk.
Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Richmond, Va.-based Philip Morris, said the company initially got complaints from Merit smokers who didn't like the fact that their cigarette went out if they didn't take regular puffs.
But he said that was only one of several factors involved in Merit's decline.
While Matthews said RJR -- maker of Camel, Salem and Winston -- is having trouble finding enough banded paper, Philip Morris and Lorillard both said they have steady suppliers.
Industry foes argue that offering banded cigarettes only in New York could lead to lawsuits by fire victims in states where the cigarettes are not sold.
``It has huge liability,'' said Andrew McGuire, head of the Trauma Foundation at San Francisco General Hospital, who began crusading for fire-safe cigarettes in 1979. ``It's like they are saying they don't mind a little kid getting burned in Connecticut but it's OK to save them in New York.''
McGuire contends that the industry has a financial interest in non-banded cigarettes that burn on their own while unattended, forcing smokers to light up more often.
But the manufacturers question whether the new-style cigarettes are really safer.
Although they are shown to go out ``under very specific lab conditions,'' Matthews said, that does not mean that they should be considered incapable of starting a fire.
One reason companies have resisted introducing the cigarettes is fear that smokers who use them will become complacent, Matthews said.
``That is going to be our biggest challenge, that people are going to be lulled into a false sense of complacency'' when they smoke the self-extinguishing cigarettes and become more careless with them, she said.
Philip Morris is being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court by a woman who claims the paper used in Merits actually creates a greater risk of fire and injury.
According to the lawsuit by Leena Gurevitch, the cigarette's design causes clumps of partly-burned tobacco to fall from the ends, making it more of a fire hazard.
McCormick said he was aware of the lawsuit, which was filed last month, but said the company has received no ``reports about fires caused by the coal falling off the Merit brand.''
``We are optimistic that based on the facts and the law that the case will be dismissed,'' he said.
McCormick said supplying banded paper for all New York-bound cigarettes will cost Philip Morris several million dollars, which the company will absorb. Matthews was unsure how Reynolds would cover its increased costs. Both companies declined to be specific about exactly how much the new cigarettes will cost them.
Cigarettes in New York are already among the most expensive in the nation, averaging $5.66 per 20-cigarette pack, according to a January report by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Ultimately, all three manufacturers said they would prefer a national standard instead of as many as 50 different state laws that could present major production and marketing headaches.
That kind of national regulation could come under proposed legislation in Congress that would end the federal tobacco price support system and give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory power over tobacco.
Matthews said she knows of no other state with immediate plans to match New York's regulation. In Massachusetts, lawmakers have been trying for years to pass legislation that would mandate the sale of self-extinguishing cigarettes.
The
Saratogian - June 10, 2004
Local
bars still feeling some effects of state smoking ban
By Jerome
Burdi
SARATOGA SPRINGS -- According to a report conducted for bar owners in the state, the workplace smoking ban enacted last year led to the loss of 2,000 industry jobs and millions of dollars in wages.
Ridgewood Economic Associates of New Jersey conducted the study for New York Nightlife Association based in New York City, and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association based in Albany.
The report stated that since the state's Clean Indoor Act took effect on July 24 banning smoking in all workplaces, $28.5 million in wages and salary payments and $37 million in gross state product were lost in the industry.
Ridgewood, which used data from the state Department of Labor, also found that businesses that supply bars have also suffered losses to the tune of 650 jobs, $21.5 million in wages and $34.5 million in gross state product.
Saratoga County has shown little evidence of economic loss, though, according to the state Department of Health, which grants waivers to businesses that show a 15 percent decline in profits since the ban. Only two bars have applied: Connie's Roadhouse in Moreau, which was granted a waiver in April, and the Alley Bar in Saratoga Springs which was denied one.
Janine Stuchin, project coordinator with the Adirondack Tobacco Free Network's southern region base on Phila Street, said she's surprised at the compliance from bar owners.
'I think things are going very well,' she said. 'I continue to hear from the public of their support.'
Even if bars are hurting, she said, it's a public health issue. 'The ban is designed to protect workers from secondhand smoke,' she said.
Suzanne Dormandy, manager Tin & Lint on Caroline Street, said no one has lost their job over the ban, but business is hurting.
'It's supposedly for the employees' health, but now we can't afford health care,' she said.
Dormandy said in a tourist city like Saratoga Springs, when patrons go out for a cigarette, they drift like smoke into another bar.
A bill lingering in the state Legislature, sponsored by Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome, and Sen. Raymond Meier, R-Western, calls for pool halls, bowling alleys and bars (a business where food sale is incidental) to be allowed a separate room with air filtration for smoking.
Assemblyman Roy McDonald, R-Wilton, said he hadn't studied the bill yet, but that something had to be done to equalize waiver granting.
'It's got to be more structured,' he said. 'What do you say to the ones that don't get it?'
NY
Newsday - June 10, 2004
How
to light up local nightlife again
By Frank Calland
Frank Calland
is president of Amusement & Music Owners of New York Inc., a
regional trade group of electronic game and jukebox
operators.
For 35 years I have been a provider of electronic games and amusements, mainly to bars, taverns, restaurants, diners and entertainment centers. I have never seen such a drop in business like the one this past year. It is directly tied to the smoking ban.
I talk with other service providers (food, alcohol, cleaning supplies, even state-sponsored "Quick Draw" gambling). When it comes to bars, restaurants and other businesses they serve, they all have the same story: Many have closed.
Now several bills have been introduced to revise New York State's smoking ban, almost a year old. These proposals would exempt bars, taverns, clubs and entertainment centers that primarily do not serve food from the smoking ban and require them to install air-purification filtration systems.
Some kind of reason, common sense and accommodation must be brought to the financial crisis many are finding themselves in.
The state imposed the anti- smoking law, so it's only fair that it take over the measure's statutory authority, enforcement and administration. Right now, every municipality has its own approach to enforcing the ban, which has created a maze of confusion that turns innocent people into criminal violators.
Likewise, the waiver system intended by state lawmakers and state Health Department officials is unfair and not working. The waivers are meant to exempt any establishment from the ban if it can be demonstrated that it is adversely affecting business. Many municipalities have not set these standards or, if they have, they're unreasonable. In Suffolk, for instance, the county requires a $500 fee without any guarantee that a business will be granted a waiver. There needs to be one uniform standard, with an equitable policy.
In the meantime, local health inspectors are issuing summonses for violations such as having an ashtray on a bar or a table, or failing to post the legalese sign about the smoking law even though a "no smoking" sign is clearly displayed, or smoking under an outside awning or any "permanent outdoor structure."
A sorely needed correction would be to take the liability off the bar owner for a customer lighting up. If someone lights a cigarette on a bus or subway, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority does not receive the summons. So why should a summons be issued to a bar owner for the actions of a customer over whom he has no control? This undermines the integrity of the ban and creates contempt for government authority.
Many municipalities abandoned the "smoking permitted" pledges they made years ago that required businesses to install costly smoke-eater ventilators, now useless under the ban. Still, businesses that want to open their doors to smokers again are supporting state legislation that would require them to invest in expensive, state-of-the- art air filtration purifiers, the same ones used in hospitals and health facilities to prevent contagious germs and bacteria.
Despite the smoking ban, tobacco remains a legal substance. If government wants to get out from under the economic influence that tobacco represents, it should put forward some kind of financial subsidy. The concept of a financial incentive would enable businesses to taper off their operations, say, over five or 10 years.
Lawmakers and public interest activists who want to play social engineers by prohibiting smoking should not do this on the backs of the thousands of responsible, hard-working people who are stalwart contributors to the economy.
Times
Union - June 9, 2004
Debate
over smoking ban heats up
Albany
-- As exemption to Indoor Air Act shows signs of life, interested parties
show up to press their points
By Erin Duggan
Bar owners and health advocates fired up their arguments Tuesday over whether the state's Clean Indoor Air Act should be changed to exempt bars and taverns that install air purification systems.
About 75 people lined up outside a news conference held by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association in the Legislative Office Building. They waved placards urging the state to "Can the Ban," and booed loudly when anti-smoking activist Russell Schiandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, walked by.
Schiandra handed out opposing figures to reporters on job losses since the ban took effect.
A bill to amend the ban gained momentum in recent months, picking up majority sponsorship and 24 sponsors in the Assembly and 14 in the Senate.
Armed with a new study, opponents of the smoking ban blamed the law for a loss of 2,000 jobs, $28.5 million in wages and salaries, and $37 million in gross state production. That doesn't include losses from businesses that supply and service bars, they noted.
Actually, the study's author said, not all those jobs were lost, but many were not realized. Bar jobs declined only 401, from 19,158 in 2002 to 18,757 in 2003. But economic indicators show they should have been up more than 2,000, said Brian O'Connor, founder of Ridgewood Economic Associates.
But bar employment last year, which includes six months of the smoking ban that took effect July 24, was still higher than it was for almost all of the 1990s, according to the report. The number has been declining since it hit a 10-year high of 19,909 bar jobs in 2000.
Still, some bars say they're hurting. Michelle Dell, who owns Hogs & Heffers in Manhattan and came Tuesday to support changing the smoking ban, said she's seen a sharp decline in her afternoon crowd, made up mostly of blue collar workers who can easily go home to New Jersey and smoke in bars there.
"They don't come in anymore," Dell said. "And why should they?"
Smoking ban supporters, however, say employment in restaurants and bars was higher in 2003 than any year this decade, according to statewide figures from the U.S. Department of Labor.
Bar owners say restaurants should not be included in the figures because they are less affected by the ban and other outside factors and are more resistant to economic downswings.
With the Legislature set to adjourn in two weeks and no state budget deal in sight, it's unclear whether lawmakers will have the time or desire to revisit the ban.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, has no interest in changing it, his spokesman said. Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, is reviewing the legislation, said spokesman Mark Hansen.
"The (current) legislation included a waiver process for some establishments to apply for waivers from local health departments," Hansen said. "We're still monitoring how the law is working."
FOX
23 News - June 9, 2004
Bar
Owners Ask For Smoking Ban Amendment
“There has been an up-tick in the restaurant business in the last six or seven months. No one doubts that,” says David Rabin, New York Nightlife Association President. “But in the bar business, it’s gone down and has continued to go down all since the smoking ban.”
A report jointly commissioned by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Association says that 2,000 bar jobs have disappeared since the ban. In addition, $28.5 million dollars in wages and salary payments have been lost.
Michael Bopp, New York State Director Of Advocacy for the American Cancer Society, says while he hasn’t confirmed these figures one way or the other, to alter the ban would be a mistake.
“It’s not just about the money,” Bopp says. “They may have a case that they’ve taken some kind of a temporary hit. But you have to keep in mind the reason the law was passed was to help people’s health.”
Bar owners are asking for something of a compromise though. They want an amendment that allows smoking again in their bars where food is less than forty percent of business. But in return, they would install state-of-the-art air filtration systems.
Bopp, however, says such systems are not very effective in processing second-hand smoke.
The amendment is still in committee. It’s uncertain if it will come to a vote since this legislative session is ending soon
The
Business Review (Albany) - June 9, 2004
Bar,
tavern groups tout smoking ban study
Marco Leavitt
A new study paid for by an association representing New York City bars and clubs finds that the state's nearly one-year-old smoking ban has been bad for business.
The study, which was commissioned by the New York Nightlife Association, finds that 2,000 jobs, $28.5 million in wages and $37 million in gross state product have been lost since the ban went into effect on July 24, 2003.
"The Legislature said when they passed this law that it was not designed to put people out of business," said Scott Wexler, the executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, which co-sponsored the research.
The report cost $45,000 and was conducted by Ridgewood Economic Associates Inc. of New Jersey. Ridgewood based its analysis on employment, workers' compensation and other data collected by the state Department of Labor, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Labor.
The study also found that businesses which supply and service bars have lost 2,650 jobs, $50 million in earnings and $71.5 million in gross state product.
"Frankly, we don't think the numbers add up," said Michael Bopp, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society.
Figures showing the number of liquor licenses and total employment in the industry are up, Bopp said. In any case, the most important issue is employee health.
"This law isn't about how much money any given industry makes," he said.
Details of the report were released in Albany, N.Y., on Tuesday where joint legislation to allow smoking in bars and taverns that install air-purification systems has been proposed by Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito (D-Rome) and state Sen. Raymond Meier (R-Utica).
Under the legislation, bars could choose whether to invest in air-filtration technology, which industry officials say cost from $3,000 to $5,000 per unit, and permit smoking, or continue to prohibit smoking in their establishments.
The legislation would impose strict standards on the air filtration systems, according to Basil Anastassiou, a spokesman for the New York Nightlife Association. The systems would be on par with those used in hospital intensive care units, he said.
"These filtration systems would make the air inside the bar where people are smoking cleaner than the air on the street," he said.
Business
First of Albany - June 9, 2004
Trade
groups say study proves losses from smoking ban
The New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association said it now has some facts to back up its case of how the state's nearly year-old smoking ban has hindered business.
The trade group has released what it refers to as the first empirically-based, bar-specific economic impact study of the statewide smoking ban, which took effect July 24, 2003. The Economic Impact of the New York State Smoking Ban on New York's Bars study reveals widespread job and earnings losses for bars and taverns across the state including the loss of some 2,000 jobs, or more than 10 percent of bar employment and $28.5 million in wages and salaries.
The report cost $45,000 and was conducted by Ridgewood Economic Associates Inc. of New Jersey. REA based its analysis on employment, workers' compensation and other data collected by the New York State Department of Labor, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Labor.
"The study confirms what reasonable people have known all along. The smoking ban is very bad business for bars," said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association.
Details of the report were released in Albany where joint legislation would allow smoking in bars and taverns that install state-of-the-art air-purification systems as specified by the state has been proposed by Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito (D-Rome) and state Sen. Raymond Meier (R-Utica).
The bills include strict guidelines to ensure installation of the most effective air-filtration systems. Under the legislation, bars could choose whether to invest in air-filtration technology, which industry officials say cost from $3,000 - $5,000 per unit, and permit smoking, or continue to prohibit smoking in their establishments.
Buffalo
News - June 9, 2004
New
dispute brewing over smoking ban
By Tom Precious
ALBANY - As bar industry groups Tuesday blamed the loss of 2,000 jobs on the state's indoor smoking ban, a dispute between tavern and restaurant owners is brewing over new legislation designed to relax the tobacco prohibition.
New legislation in the Democratic Assembly that would allow smoking again in thousands of bars across the state, if they install special filtration systems, is being opposed by a trade group whose clients include restaurants, fast-food chains and diners.
"This is exactly what we were afraid of," Rick Sampson, president of the New York State Restaurant Association, said of the split over the smoking issue.
The legislation would let smoking return only to bars and taverns - not restaurants. Sampson says his association is firmly behind efforts to keep the smoking ban in place.
"We want status quo. It's a level playing field," he said.
But bar owners say there is no level playing field - that they are losing customers and workers since the law took effect last July.
"In the 25 years I've been in business, this is the first time I'm panicking," said Judi Justiana, owner of Judi's Lounge in Niagara Falls.
Bar owners had to reduce their work force by 2,000 jobs last year - a loss of $28.5 million in wages since the smoking ban, according to a study released by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.
Critics, though, contend the numbers are questionable.
"(The bar owners') basic position is it's OK for people to get sick as long as their profits are protected," said Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York.
"Everybody is trying to figure out who these guys sold out to," Rick Naylon, owner of Jimmy Mac's, a popular Elmwood Avenue bar and restaurant, said of the restaurant association. Naylon, who engaged in a legal fight with Erie County to get a smoking waiver, is a member of both groups.
Associated
Press - June 8, 2004
Group:
Smoking ban hurts business
By Mark Johnson
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Groups representing New York state bar owners contend the statewide smoking ban has cost their industry about 2,000 jobs.
A study released Tuesday by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association said the ban that went into effect in July has also led to $28.5 million in lost wages and $37 million in lost gross state product. Affiliated businesses lost another 650 jobs and $56 million in wages and production, the study by Ridgewood Economic Associates said.
The study's author, Brian O'Connor, said the numbers were derived from projections. Actual employment data for 2004 is not yet available.
The government-documented number of bar and tavern jobs lost from 2002 to 2003 was 401, according to state Labor Department numbers supplied by O'Connor. Those numbers showed bar and tavern jobs also declined in the previous two years, before the ban went into effect.
The groups are pushing for passage of a bill sponsored by majority members in both houses of the Legislature that would provide new exemptions from the ban.
The bill from Republican state Sen. Raymond Meier and Democratic Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito would exempt bars, provided the taverns are equipped with approved air filtration systems. Destito's bill adds bowling alleys and billiard parlors to the list of workplaces where smoking would be allowed, in special rooms with filtration systems.
Russell Sciandra of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York said such systems do little to clean the air of harmful pollutants. He pointed to the many disclaimers in which the makers of air filters acknowledge the shortcomings of their systems.
The state ban outlaws smoking in restaurants and bars, Off-Track Betting parlors, bowling alleys and pool halls, company cars, enclosed parking lots and outdoors around the entrances to public buildings.
State and local health departments may grant waivers to establishments that can prove they lost at least 15 percent of their profits to the ban. The businesses must also take steps to protect workers and non-smoking patrons from second-hand smoke.
WOKR-TV
13 - June 8, 2004
Smoking
Ban: The Fight Goes To Albany
The fight to overturn the state-wide smoking ban in bars and restaurants continued Tuesday when Rochester area restaurant owners lobbied Albany for an amendment to the law.
The bar owners said about 2,000 jobs have been lost in New York State because of the ban. They also said that the process to get waivers is unfair.
Their position is that ventilation systems that would remove 99 percent of the smoke would be a workable compromise. Two state lawmakers support making that change.
WOKR-TV
13 - June 7, 2004
Rain
On The Rooftop
By Chalonda
Roberts
It's been almost a year since smoking has been banned from bars and restaurants in New York State. One Rochester bar owner says the ban cost him more than 50 percent of his business, and he is looking to the "sky" to bring back customers.
Jesse Thompson wants to build a sky bar on part of the top level of the old Genesee Hospital parking garage, which he says offers a great panoramic view of the Rochester city skyline.
Thompson currently owns the Rain night club on the ground floor of the building. He said business there dropped dramatically after the smoking ban took effect.
"We immediately saw a total drop off of probably 80 percent of revenue due to the smoking law," he said.
Some owners of other East End bars said they haven't been affected by the smoking ban, but most of those are in a popular locations and have outdoor patios where smoking is permitted.
Thompson says bringing in a sky bar will not only help increase business, but will also help revitalize Monroe Aenue. He has gotten approval from the city, but he's waiting for the OK from Via Health, who owns the building.
Once he gets approval to build, Thompson hopes to create a big city feel, attracting a young upscale crowd.
"We are going to add 6,000 square feet of grass and make it more or less like a Manhattan penthouse with a two-hole putting green in one corner," he said.
Thompson said he'll also offer tented sky boxes to business owners who want to entertain guests; anyone who chooses will be allowed to smoke.
Capital
News 9 - June 4, 2004
Health
Department grants smoking waiver
By Danielle
Strauss
Quig's Bar and Restaurant is the first in Fulton County where smokers can finally light up.
It's been about five weeks since the State Health Department granted the smoking waiver. Although sales have increased, owner Terry Denney said the timing was a little off.
"The nice weather has made it more difficult for people to want to smoke inside. We have a nice patio area out back. And, most of the local bars in the area have nice patios areas. It's one of those things until the weather gets bad, or get a bad day you won't see the full effect of a smoking room," Denney said.
To receive a waiver, an isolated smoking room is a requirement.
At Quig's they built a 900-square-foot room, installed a smoke ventilation
system and posted smoking and nonsmoking signs.
And the folks that work and play at the establishment said they welcome
the change.
DJ Dave Arnold said, "I think it's great because people like to smoke when they come out and drink. Before they had it, people would go outside. So I would be playing music to nobody. You know, now they are inside and they can smoke. It's fine even though I don't smoke. When people go out to a bar to drink, people smoke."
Patron George Thompson said, "Hey, I enjoy it. I come in here and I want to have a cigarette all the time because I smoke, pretty much a lot. Not a lot, but enough. To come here and have a cigarette is fine by me."
But Denney said he'll be able to get a true measure of the waiver's impact once the cold weather hits and the patio area closes for the season.
Associated
Press - June 2, 2004
Proposed
smoking ban exemptions trouble anti-smoking forces
By Joel Stashenko
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Majority-party sponsorship of a bill in the state Legislature providing new exemptions to New York's 2003 ban on workplace smoking has anti-tobacco advocates worried that the law will be gutted.
State Sen. Raymond Meier said he supports a bill being circulated for sponsorship by state Assemblywoman Roann Destito to exempt bars from the indoor smoking ban, provided the taverns are equipped with approved air filtration systems. Destito's bill is similar to one Meier introduced this year in the Senate, but it goes further by adding bowling alleys and billiard parlors to workplaces where smoking is allowed, as long as there is a separate room fitted with a filtration system.
Both Meier, a Republican, and Destito, a Democrat, are from Oneida County.
Meier noted that the 2003 law allowed waivers to the smoking ban for bars, restaurants and other businesses which could show a decline in business of at least 15 percent from pre-ban revenues. The waivers are being granted by departments of health in 41 counties and by the state Health Department in 21 mostly rural counties which do not have their own health departments.
"This is really preferable to the waiver provision, which has been granted unevenly and without a uniform standard," Meier said.
In addition, he said, most New Yorkers are willing to tolerate some cigarette smoke in bars and taverns.
"Most people understand when they enter a bar they're not entering a health club," Meier said.
Russell Sciandra, head of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, said that while customers have a choice whether or not to patronize a bar where smoking is allowed, employees of the bar don't.
"People have to work for a living," he said. "Some of them are going to die because smoking is allowed."
The American Cancer Society's Michael Bopp said smoking ban opponents are stressing air "filtration" systems, as opposed to "ventilation" systems, because they think it sounds safer. But he said the systems do not flush all toxins out of the air in rooms where smoking is taking place.
"These machines work well if you have a roomful of smoke and you're not adding more smoke," Sciandra said. "Turn it on and it will get the room clear. The problem is if you have smokers in the bar, they're constantly adding smoke and the machines can never catch up."
The Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Association, staunch opponent of the 2003 smoking ban, is trying to rally support behind the new exemptions to the statute. That group and hospitality industry allies plan to lobby in Albany next week in support of the legislation.
Scott Wexler, executive director of the Restaurant & Tavern Association, said most of his restaurant-owner members have been holding their own under the smoking ban, but bar business is suffering.
The leader of the state Senate's Republican majority, Sen. Joseph Bruno of Rensselaer County, supported the smoking ban and resisted wider exemptions when the law passed in 2003.
"He's been willing to talk about it," Meier said of Bruno and the new legislation. "He hasn't said no."
The state Legislature is technically scheduled to conclude its 2004 session on June 22, but with no 2004-05 state budget yet adopted, lawmakers are almost certain to be in Albany longer.
For purposes of the Meier-Destito legislation, a "bar" is defined as a business that derives less than 40 percent of its annual gross sales from on-premises consumption of food.
Preliminary results of a state Health Department released in March indicated that the saliva of 49 bar and restaurant workers contained 85 percent less cotinine, a nicotine byproduct, three months after the state prohibited workplace smoking than before the ban.
Times
Ledger - May 27, 2004
Smoking
violations plague Uncle Jack's on Bell Blvd.
By Sophia
Chang
Uncle Jacks steak house in Bayside is finding it tough to quit smoking. On May 19 the high-end restaurant at 39-40 Bell Blvd. noted for its cigar selection received another set of smoking violations from the citys Department of Health, a department official said.
It was the second time the department had cited the restaurant in a week's time. The first inspection was conducted on May 13. The restaurant was also hit with smoking violations in September.
According to the department, on both recent occasions the "violations observed included ashtrays present and failure of proprietor to make a good faith effort to inform person(s) to stop smoking."
There is no limit on the number of violations the restaurant can receive.
"We'll keep citing them for it," a department spokeswoman said. The fine for each violation can range from $200 to $2,000.
Uncle Jack's, an upscale spot popular with bigwigs such as former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, draws customers in part because of its legendary cigar collection.
The restaurant's Web site says "our focus is simple: the finest foods, the highest quality cigars..." And a posted review from Cigar Aficionado magazine claims that the restaurant has "40 personalized humidors available, each holding 200 cigars."
Last fall, owner Willie Degel told the TimesLedger that his restaurant would follow the anti-smoking laws.
"We have no smoking now," he told the paper in September after receiving the first set of violations. "We're completely compliant with their rules and laws."
At the time, Degel also said his restaurant had filed an application to operate as a tobacco bar, but the Department of Health had no record of such, which Degel called "bureaucratic ridiculousness."
By the time the first inspection took place earlier this month, the department acknowledged that his application was pending review.
Jonathan Cheban, Degel's spokesman, said the owner would only comment that the restaurant has been "preapproved and is now waiting for the certificate" to operate as a tobacco bar.
The Department of Health said "smoking is not permitted while applications are being reviewed." Officials could not give a time frame on when a decision would be made on Degel's application.
Degel recently opened another Uncle Jack's in Manhattan on Ninth Avenue near 34th Street.
Times
Herald - May 26, 2004
Franklinville
tavern loses indoor smoking ban appeal
By Rick Miller
A lawsuit by a Franklinville tavern seeking to overturn convictions for violating the state’s indoor smoking ban has been dismissed in state Supreme Court.
Robert F. Allen, owner of the Long Branch Saloon in Franklinville, had appealed two smoking ban convictions by the Cattaraugus County Board of Health to state Supreme Court. He has not indicated whether he will appeal the court decision to the Appellate Division.
The Board of Health has also received notice from a town of Olean bar, City Limits Bar & Grille, that it has also begun an Article 78 proceeding to overturn its violations of the smoking ban, County Attorney Dennis Tobolski told The Times Herald. That case is expected to be heard in state Supreme Court next month.
The Board of Health had fined Mr. Allen $500 for violating the state Clean Indoor Air Act for allowing Long Branch patrons to smoke Sept. 4, 2003. The Board of health denied an appeal of the violation on Nov. 7.
The following day, a Health Department staff member observed smoking in the bar, and Mr. Allen was cited again on Nov. 10. Following a hearing on Nov. 25, the Board of Health fined Mr. Allen $1,000. His appeal of that conviction and fine was denied on Feb. 4.
Mr. Allen’s attorney, Andrew Goodell of Jamestown, appealed to state Supreme Court in Little Valley contending the Board of Health exceeded its authority, failed in its duties to conduct an inspection and issuing a health permit until the fines were paid, violating the state’s Open Meetings Law, that its determination was not supported by evidence and that the Clean Indoor Act is unconstitutional.
In denying the appeal by the Long Branch Saloon, Acting State Supreme Court Judge Larry M. Himelein wrote: “This was not a case where customers smoked in violation of the bar owner’s good faith effort to stop them.”
In his decision released last week, Judge Himelein also rebutted charges that the health department was “selectively enforcing the act by targeting the bar owners rather than the smokers.”
As to claims that Mr. Allen was denied due process, Judge Himelein wrote: “Petitioner was notified of the allegations of smoking and was given the opportunity to rebut them. The statements were introduced, defendant and others testified and petitioner was also permitted to appeal.”
He added: “With respect to the second violation, petitioner contends
that the Open Meetings Law was violated when the Board of Health deliberated
in executive session.” Judge Himelein said the meetings law does not apply
to “quasi-judicial proceedings.”
The judge also called “meritless” the contention that the charges were
not supported by the evidence.
“On Aug. 1, 2003, a Health Department representative mentioned to the bartender that people were smoking in violation of the law. The bartender told the health department representative that she would not enforce the smoking ban and threatened the representative. On Aug. 27, 2003, when a deputy sheriff delivered a letter to the premises, the bartender was abusive to the deputy. The deputy also observed several people smoking and using beer cans with the tops removed as ashtrays.
“On Nov. 8, 2003, a witness observed not only patrons but the bartender smoking and ashtrays on the bar,” Judge Himelein wrote in his decision. “Only if there was something other than tobacco in those cigarettes could anyone reasonable argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the determination.
“Finally,” he added: “the court rejects the contention that the act is unconstitutional as implemented.”
Buffalo
News - May 24, 2004
Above
the smoking law?
Some
restaurants are using rooftop bars and outdoor patios to skirt the state
ban on smoking
By Jonathan
D. Epstein
Think summer, think Buffalo, and chances are good that gardening, golf
or softball comes to mind.
Unless you're a smoker, of course.
For those who light up, the onslaught of summer now means a return to smoking at restaurants and bars.
Outdoor patios and bars, many of them brand new, are becoming a popular way for local restaurateurs to skirt the state's indoor smoking ban.
"Having a patio means smokers come," said Matthew Hollis, general manager of Lotis Restaurant and Martini Lounge in Buffalo. "Where smokers come, there's drinking, and having a patio means people want to come out to eat. We'll be jampacked all summer because of the smoking."
Just how far are restaurant and bar owners willing to go to bring back their smoking clientele?
At Lotis, which opened a year ago, the lure is a 68-foot outdoor bar and a patio filled with a dozen tables.
At the Steer Restaurant Saloon on Main Street, the owner spent tens of thousands of dollars to revamp the 35-year-old restaurant's rooftop patio.
The new amenities include a partially covered outdoor bar and expanded seating so that 50 people can now fit upstairs among the wicker couches, chairs and coffee tables. The grand opening was Thursday night.
"We're walking the line here," admitted Steer owner Tucker Curtin. "I believe we're following the rules with the open air. But I don't want to call these guys out on it."
While some restaurant owners may be confused about what the law allows, county officials say there are no ifs, ands or butts about it. State law says if the restaurant serves food outside, no smoking is allowed in that area if it's covered by a roof, even if no walls surround the area.
"If it's a restaurant where food is prepared and served, then if there is an overhead covering, they cannot smoke outside," said Peter Coppola, the county Health Department official overseeing compliance with the state ban.
The trend toward outdoor patios and bars is the latest effort by restaurant owners to compensate for the smoking ban, formally known as the Clean Indoor Air Law. The law, which took effect last July, prohibits smoking in workplaces, including restaurants and bars, unless a restaurant can get a waiver by proving the ban is destroying its business.
Most restaurants are complying, but Start-up restaurants want outdoor venues. Many have complained bitterly that they've lost a significant amount of business because smokers aren't going out to eat.
Several establishments have applied for waivers, and at least a dozen in Niagara County and more than eight in Erie County succeeded by proving the severity of their losses.
"I know it has been damaging to a lot of restaurants in the area, and they've been working hard to try to reverse the law itself," said Daniel Garvey, president of the Western New York chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association and director of food and beverage at the Roycroft Inn in East Aurora. "(Tobacco is) still a legal substance, so there must be some way to use it."
At this point, many smokers are staying home or going to friends' houses rather than being forced to step outside or snuff their puff altogether. But those who still go out say they opt for restaurants that try to accommodate smokers.
"I definitely support restaurants that offer a choice for a customer to smoke or not to smoke," said Lina Wong, 30, of Buffalo, who enjoyed a cigarette while dining with a friend in the fenced-in, open-air patio at Lotis.
At the Steer, Curtin said he suffered a 35 percent drop in business since the ban began. He recouped much of it in food sales but is still losing about 20 percent on alcohol sales because smokers are staying away.
"We've had to make quite a few changes since the law was enacted, and this was one of the bigger ones," said Curtin, who also owns the Lake Effect Diner next door. "It was quite an investment, but we think the customers will really like it, and so far the neighborhood has been really responsive to it."
Even start-up restaurants are keeping an eye out for locations that would allow for outside bars and patios.
"People are looking for locations that do have the availability of open air, so smokers can light up, because restaurants have lost an unbelievable amount of business," said Howard Saperston Jr., chairman of Saperston Real Estate Corp. "If there's outdoor availability, it certainly is a major, major draw."
The goal is to reach people such as Tim and Chris Duffett, two brothers who seek out restaurants where they can light up.
"If I'm outside, I'd like to be able to eat and smoke," said Tim, 27, who, with his 24-year-old brother, was smoking on the Steer's roof.
That has also been the reaction Mark Croce found.
"We've incorporated an outdoor area into all the operations, and it happens to be popular with those people who smoke," said the owner of the Buffalo Chop House, D'Arcy McGee's Irish Pub and Brownstone Seafood House and Oyster Bar.
But such efforts might not be enough.
Under the law, any overhead covering means smoking is prohibited, even outdoors. On top of that, only 25 percent of an outdoor seating area can be designated for smoking, and it has to be contiguous - you can't have two tables of smokers at opposite ends of the space.
There also must be clear signs designating the space for smoking, which the Steer does not have.
"I don't think there's one place that has a patio that doesn't allow smoking on their patio and eating," Curtin said. "They just don't want smoking in the dining room areas."
D'Arcy McGee's has an outdoor patio jutting into the parking lot adjoining the building, complete with six portable, green-canopied, oak dining booths and a bar. But the entire patio is covered by a green metal roof. Yet a bartender told a Buffalo News reporter he could smoke out there, next to where several people were dining.
The restaurant also has its rooftop Skybar, an open air patio with a bar and more tables and portable booths. Only the central part of the patio, including the bar, is covered. But Croce said there's no food service on the roof.
Down the street, the Brownstone Seafood House and Oyster Bar has three outdoor patios, two in the front and a large one in the rear. Again, a News reporter was told to just smoke on the front patio while eating dinner - under a roof.
Only at the Chop House was the reporter told he could not smoke except out in front of the restaurant, in a pair of vestibules off the front door.
"It's not a perfect world, but we do the best we can to keep our customers happy and comply with whatever ordinances and regulations are in place," Croce said. "Not everything in life is black or white, but as long as you're making an attempt, people are pretty understanding."
At Lotis, smokers sat one night last week among the dozen tables in the uncovered patio, not far from the sheltered bar. Hollis said their appeal is one of the reasons why the owner, Jay Pasquarella, chose to open the restaurant in that building,
"It was one of the deciding factors," Hollis said. "If you go out with five people and two of them are smokers, you go where they can smoke. People don't go out and drink that much when they can't smoke."
But at Lotis, there were no signs designating an area for smokers, although such nuances irritate customers like Wong. "When you have an open patio seating," the 30-year-old smoker said. "I don't think it should be an issue about smoking or not smoking."
Salamanca
Press - May 21, 2004
Tavern
owner loses challenge to smoking law
By Kimberly
Gasber
LITTLE VALLEY — The first court case in the county challenging the smoking ban has been decided in favor of the county health department.
State Supreme Court Judge Larry M. Himelein handed down the decision Tuesday.
The Long Branch Saloon owner Robert Allen, represented by Andrew Goodell, was suing the county health department and board of health for fines the plaintiff thought were levied unfairly starting Aug. 27. The tavern is located at 5 Park Square in Franklinville.
This is the first case in the county dealing with the Clean Indoor Air Act that has ended up in court since the act took effect in July.
Allen contended in his petition that the board of health did not fine individual smokers for violating the law but instead fined the owner for all violations, and that he had fulfilled the law by posting no smoking signs.
He also claimed in his petition that the health department did not have substantial evidence to cite him with violations of the smoking ban, and a number of other violations of procedure by the board of health throughout the entire process.
“None of the contentions has any merit,” wrote Himelein in his decision.
Himelein also wrote: “He claims to have complied with the act by posting ‘no smoking‘ signs and advising smokers who lit up that they were violating the law (wink, wink). However, this was not a case where customers smoked in violation of the bar owner’s good faith effort to stop them and the court declines to reach an issue that is not present.“
“The contention that the Board of Health determination was not supported
by substantial evidence is meritless,” he continued.
In his decision Himelein notes several incidents of smoking in the
bar including:
• Aug. 1, a health department representative told the bartender that people were smoking in violation of the law. The bartender said she would not enforce the law and threatened the representative.
• Aug. 27 (original date of first violation) a deputy sheriff delivered a letter and the bartender was abusive. The deputy observed several people smoking.
• Nov. 8, a witness observed patrons and the bartender smoking.
“Only if there was something other than the tobacco in those cigarettes could anyone reasonably argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the determination,” Himelein concluded in his four-page decision.
Goodell said that had not yet discussed the decision with his client, he said he would “definitely file a notice of appeal.”
“We believe that business owners should not be held personally liable when someone else violates the law,” he said, appealing on the basis of whom is being fined for violations.
The second reason Goodell would recommend appeal is “the health department openly engaged in selective enforcement. The health department only cites business owners. Not a single smoker has been cited for violating the law.”
Allen has 30 days to file an appeal.
The Clean Indoor Air act was originally passed with the purpose of protecting
employees from second-hand smoke, said Public Health Director Barbara Hastings,
adding that the point of the law is “to promote health, especially for
employees.”
“I am pleased the court dismissed the case to allow the health department
and all state health departments to continue to enforce the act to protect
employees from second-hand smoke,” she said.
County Attorney Dennis Tobolski said the decision was “well-written,
it analyzed all the claims and dismissed all the claims.”
He added that county would have appreciated the assistance of the state
attorney general to defend the law “on behalf of Cattaraugus County and
all the other counties in the state.”
However, the state attorney general did not assist in the case.
“The county was left with the responsibility to enforce state law,” he said.
According to health department reports, the Long Branch Saloon has been cited three times with violations of the Clean Indoor Air Act: Aug. 27, Nov. 8 and March 20. They were fined $500 for the first offense and $1000 for the next two, with $10 per diem if not paid by specified dates.
An appeal for the first case was denied by the board of health Nov. 5. An appeal for the second case was denied by the board of health Feb. 4.
Fines for third violation were filed after the court case started. The money for the first two fines is in escrow as ordered by Himelein. Tobolski said anticipated those funds to be released by next week.
Associated
Press - May 20, 2004
Lawmakers
Agree on Tobacco Plan for FDA
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government could impose tough new restrictions on cigarette makers under legislation key lawmakers embraced Thursday that would give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products.
The FDA, for example, could ban the use of harmful additives in cigarettes under twin bills introduced in the House and Senate.
It is the first time identical FDA bills have been introduced by Democrats and Republicans in both chambers of Congress. It also is the first time industry leader Philip Morris USA and key anti-smoking groups have supported the same regulatory approach.
``I think today is a breakthrough,'' said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. ``This is a strong bill that has the potential to save literally tens of millions of lives.''
Philip Morris officials say FDA regulation would help the company market new tobacco products. Other major manufacturers do not support the legislation, saying new advertising restrictions would prevent them from capturing any of Philip Morris' market share. The legislation would be paid for by assessing a fee on tobacco companies.
Sens. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., have been haggling over the details for the past several months, after a near-deal collapsed last fall. House sponsors are Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
The legislation forbids the FDA to ban cigarettes and says the agency can reduce but not eliminate addictive nicotine.
Marketing terms such as ``light'' and ``ultra-light'' would be prohibited unless the FDA approved them. That is unlikely to happen, since studies have shown those cigarettes haven't reduced health risks faced by smokers.
Senate lawmakers from tobacco states who previously fought FDA regulation now say they would support it in exchange for support of a measure that would pay tobacco farmers to leave the federal system that sets price and production controls on U.S. leaf. Farmers say they want out of the system, which in recent years has dramatically restricted the amount of tobacco they can sell.
Lawmakers say the buyout measure could be linked to the FDA legislation on the Senate floor.
In the House, there is talk of adding a farmer buyout to a corporate tax bill likely to be considered next month. House GOP leaders have so far been cool to the idea of FDA regulation, but Davis said that could change.
The issue has gained attention in both chambers in recent weeks following a statement by President Bush in Ohio that he did not think the tobacco program needed to be altered.
Asked about tobacco regulation, the president repeated a stance that the emphasis ought to be on preventing teens from smoking.
Following Bush's remarks, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts came out in favor of the buyout and FDA regulation.
The FDA asserted authority over cigarettes in 1996, but the Supreme Court later ruled that only Congress can give the FDA that power.
Capital
News 9 - May 15, 2004
Tougher
smoking ban waiver
By Jola Szubielski
On a rainy day, Poor John's Bar in Glenville should be booming with business.
However, owner Claire Kolor said the state's smoking ban -- combined with a tougher proposed smoking waiver policy in the county -- means her business is almost at rock bottom.
"We're having a problem, a big problem. We are downturning severely to the point where we can hardly pay our bills, we can't give these guys raises, there's no customers here," Kolor said.
The bar has been a family business for more than 30 years, and they've never had a problem until now. Business dropped drastically after the smoking ban went into effect last year. Kolor has even had to dip into her retirement money. She applied for the smoking waiver back in November, hoping to keep her business afloat.
Tom DiPietro of the Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association said, "Schenectady County has decided -- nothing is in print yet--that they're going to go with 20 percent financial hardship."
That's five percent more than the state's standards. The Board of Health has also added a policy of room separation. All of this makes the waiver all that much harder to get.
Those who want to apply for a smoking ban waiver in Schenectady County may have a tougher time doing so if a proposal is approved.
But at the Bayou Cafe in Glenville, owners are thinking about the other side. They worry that if waivers are granted at other restaurants, they might lose business.
Bayou Cafe Owner Ralph Spillenger said, "If they start granting waivers down the street because of hardships, and then a lot of my customers go up there, I've got a hardship."
Spillenger said he didn't think he had lost too much business since the smoking ban, but he's clear in saying that it's not worth the health of his employees or his own.
Post-Standard
- May 13, 2004
Non-tobacco
cigarettes are OK for plays
By Frank Herron
The characters in the Syracuse Stage production of "Private Lives" burn through about 10 cigarettes during each show.
And they do it totally in compliance with last July's Clean Indoor Air Act, which snuffed out smoking in public places, including theaters, throughout the state.
They are lighting up herbal cigarettes.
That's a change for the actors. They were in an Indiana Repertory Theatre production of the same play before coming here for a run that ends Sunday.
There, they smoked the Nat Sherman brand, with real tobacco.
Here, they smoke the Ecstasy brand, with real leaf of lotus, corn silk and licorice root.
"Many actors think the herbals are nasty," says Sam Sheehan, prop master at Syracuse Stage.
But, they're legal. (And cheaper, at $60 for two cartons, including shipping, he says.)
The theater began using some herbal cigarettes years ago when Sheehan started buying them for Syracuse University student productions.
"Lots of the students were dancers who didn't smoke," he says.
The odor of herbal cigarettes can be a problem. When the play "Biloxi Blues" opened in Rochester's Geva Theatre in September, actors were smoking herbal cigarettes. According to news reports, some in the audience thought the sweet aroma was generated by burning marijuana.
The theater applied for, and was granted, a waiver from the Monroe County Health Department, so the actors portraying Army recruits could smoke tobacco onstage.
For now, herbal cigarettes are a workable solution, says Gary Sauda, director of environmental health for Onondaga County.
"That's typical of Broadway," says Sauda, who was in New York City for a recent performance of "Gypsy," which calls for some onstage smoking. (From his mezzanine seat, he assumed it was an herbal smoke.)
"Herbal meets the law," he says, adding that he was glad to know that that's what was lit up in "Private Lives."
However, the curtain might come down on herbal cigarettes someday.
"We know they're bad," Sauda says. "We just don't know how bad."
Salamanca
Press - May 12, 2004
Study:
taxes lost from Indian cigarette sales ‘grossly overestimated’
IRVING — After commissioning a study surveying Indian retailers, the Senecas say state projections of lost revenue from tax-free tobacco products are “grossly overestimated.”
“Reports of hundreds of millions of dollars New York State would gain if it were to collect tax on tobacco products sold on Indian territories are grossly overestimated,” said a statement issued Tuesday by the Honor Indian Treaties Campaign, of which the Seneca Nation is part.
“At best, the state would stand to collect only 27.1 million in extra revenue, a far cry from figures supplied by legislators, non-Indian business owners and others that have ranged as high as $1 billion.”
Lower estimates have come in at about $400 million.
The study, conducted by American Economics Group, Inc. an independent research firm in Washington, D.C., was compiled using a combination of survey data, industry data and demographic statistics.
SNI president Rickey L. Armstrong commented, “There have been a lot of wild guesses floating around. We just wanted to inject some facts into the taxation debate and provide the state with some hard numbers backed by solid research. Now that we have a fact-based estimate of potential revenue, New Yorkers have to ask themselves if breaking a treaty is worth $27 million. What price does New York want to put on its integrity?”
Armstrong pointed out that the report, entitled “Seneca Nation of Indians Creates Jobs and Economic Benefits in New York State,” is the first study to be based on data supplied by Seneca business owners and takes into account that most Seneca tobacco sales are not made face-to-face in traditional retail settings, but via mail order and the Internet.
The study concluded that figures previously released by the state and non-Indian business owners have “no basis in reality” and suggests that if Internet and mail order buyers were faced with paying tax on Indian tobacco goods, they would purchase untaxed cigarettes from sellers in other states, via the same format. It projects that 8.3 percent of current Seneca sales would be converted into taxable sales.
“Most of those other estimates simply took a guess at our gross sales and assumed that all of those sales would be converted to taxable sales if the regulations went into effect. That is an unrealistic assumption though. You can’t ignore consumer behavior. If a consumer is used to buying tax-immune cigarettes online or by mail order, why would he suddenly start buying taxable cigarettes at the corner store? It’s not going to happen,” said Armstrong.
The study further concluded that if the tax plan was to go into effect, not only would the Seneca economy be devastated, but the state would stand to lose over $400 million in economic activity from businesses throughout the state.
Senecas say one direct effect would be the loss of over 2,700 jobs across the state, 1,091 of which would come directly from Seneca production and distribution services, 1,081 from indirect or supplier industries and 613 from the goods and services sector where Seneca workers spend their paychecks.
“Should the Senecas and other Nations be taxed by New York, their tobacco businesses could not be sustained,” said the study.
Armstrong said, “Tobacco sales are the foundation of our economy. For the past few decades our people have used their entrepreneurial skills to make an honest and decent living. All we are trying to do is build a more self-sufficient economy for the future of our Nation, but if our tobacco businesses are devastated, it would set us back 20 years.”
The study concluded by questioning the reasoning behind the plan to collect tax on goods sold on Indian territories, predicting the state stands to lose over $400 million in sales from a variety of businesses throughout the state and over $100 million in wages if the regulations go into effect.
“To kill these jobs and suppress such extensive economic activity in
order to gain $27 million in tax revenue is perverse,” it said.
Armstrong added, “When you look at the numbers right there in black
and white, it is obvious what a big impact Seneca businesses have on the
state economy. To shut down an industry that provides much-needed jobs
and revenue for the state of New York makes no sense.”
The Senecas launched a media campaign in October 2003 which they said was designed to educate state residents about how the regulations, then set to take effect Dec. 1, 2003 would violate a series of treaties. On Nov. 7, the state tax department announced it would extend the public comment period and postpone implementation of the regulations until March 1. In February, the tax commissioner said he would indefinitely delay implementation, but in April, State Sen. Nick Spano issued a report calling for a renewed push to collect state taxes on sales in Indian territory.
Niagra
Falls Reporter - May 11, 2004
CITYCIDE:
BUSINESS OWNERS STILL WAITING FOR NON-SMOKERS TO FILL THEIR
REGISTERS
By David Staba
Don't worry -- they'll come back.
That was just one of the big lies that supporters of the nation's strictest smoking ban told New York's restaurateurs and tavern-keepers after the law passed.
Smokers who decided to stay home from local watering holes and dining spots rather than be forced onto the sidewalk to indulge their habit would eventually relent and return, according to anti-smoking fanatics and the cowardly politicians who caved under their pressure. Even if they didn't, the fib held, wholesome non-smokers enticed by the newly clean air would replace their sadly addicted peers, gleefully filling the coffers of businesses complying with the ban.
Well, it's been nearly nine months, and neither portion of this big lie has come true.
But unlike the other supposed justifications for allowing government to stampede into the domain of private business, this one is provably untrue.
You can argue all day about the impact of second-hand smoke. According to the fanatics, every cancer death in the United States is somehow attributable to the Marlboro puffed by the guy next to you. When people start making up numbers, they're pretty hard to disprove. If you believe the propaganda of the antis, you're either already dead or will be within a year.
Likewise, ban-lovers would have you believe that bar and restaurant business is actually up over the dark, dirty days when one could light up in the local gin mill, selectively citing tax figures issued by Albany to back their claims.
Of course, those numbers ignore inconvenient factors like inflation. If the price of a meal or a drink is up 10 percent -- a reasonable expectation -- over a year ago, then so is the sales tax on that item. Duh.
Besides, Citycide prefers to take the word of the people actually feeling the pain caused by the ban, rather than trust the figures of bean-counters whose jobs depend on making the inane policies of lawmakers seem sensible.
Since the ban was enacted last July, precisely one business owner interviewed has reported an increase in business.
That was a place in Olean called the The Beef 'N' Barrel, where the emphasis falls heavily on the former. Not having to have a separate smoking room allowed the owner to more fully utilize the tables near the bar, which few ever utilized for more than a few moments anyway.
Closer to home, few have enjoyed any benefit, no matter how many stories The Other Paper runs about that place in Lockport that never allowed smoking to begin with.
Bars in the purest sense have been hit hardest, but even places thought of more for their food than their spirits have suffered, too. Don't believe it? Stop by Lou's Pete's Market House for lunch some afternoon, or farther up Pine Avenue at the Como just about any time, and ask their owners about what a great help the ban has been to them.
One Web site, The Hittman Chronicles, has provided business owners with a place to tell their stories at www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html, and hundreds have done so -- including 131 from New York State as of this writing.
Two Niagara County establishments are on the list -- the defunct Middleport Inn and Jean's Bar and Grill in Wilson, which reported a 26 percent loss in business.
"This damn state really knows how to kill people's dreams," wrote Rene Lembke, who closed the Middleport Inn last week after the ban emptied her bar.
Of course, an astute editorialist at The Other Paper has repeatedly called such business people "whiners," which is particularly funny coming from someone who has never actually run a business for which someone else wasn't providing the capital.
The owner of Five Corners in Oneida, where business is down 32 percent, was a bit more on target.
"After 20 years in business, this is what New York State does to us," the owner wrote. "Where are all these non-smokers?"
Associated
Press - May 11, 2004
Proposed
Law Would Raise Legal Smoking Age To 19
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Turning 18 comes with perks: You can legally vote, marry and buy cigarettes in New York. But under a proposed law aimed at curbing underage smoking, the legal age for lighting up would become 19.
In recent years, several states have tried with little success to raise the legal smoking age to make it harder for teenagers to obtain cigarettes from their 18-year-old friends.
In 1992, all 50 states were ordered by Congress to set the minimum age for purchasing tobacco products at no younger than 18. Alaska, Alabama and Utah restrict such purchases to 19.
Last year, nine states, including New York, unsuccessfully sought to raise the minimum smoking age to 21. New York Sen. James Alesi, a former smoker, floated a proposal to phase in the hike over a three-year period, but the idea died before ever reaching the state Legislature for a vote.
It's unclear whether the latest push by New York to increase the legal age to buy tobacco products will gain steam or how it would affect the nearly $420 million that flowed into the state treasury in the 2003-04 fiscal year from tobacco taxes.
The measure is supported by the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association, but smoking rights groups complain it's another attempt by government to dictate their lives.
Alesi, a Monroe County Republican, along with Assemblywoman Sandy Galef, a Westchester County Democrat, is sponsoring the latest attempt to increase the minimum smoking age.
"Raising the age at which one can purchase tobacco products is one way that we can cut back on the number of young adults beginning this deadly and addicting habit," Alesi said Monday.
About 90 percent of smokers take up the habit before age 21, and about 400,000 deaths each year in the United States are attributable to tobacco-related causes, according to the American Lung Association.
Audrey Silk, a longtime smoker and founder of New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, argued that it should be up to parents to teach their children about the dangers of smoking and that increasing the smoking age by a year will not solve the underage smoking problem.
"It infringes on the 18-year-old's rights," Silk said.
The New York Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 5,000 neighborhood mini-marts and corner stores, also opposes the legislation. The group trained and certified over 2,500 store workers on how to prevent underage sales of tobacco and raising the age would only confuse cashiers, the group said.
Poughkeepsie
Journal - May 11, 2004
Proposed
law would raise state's legal smoking age to 19
Two state legislators are proposing to raise the legal smoking age from
18 to 19 in an effort to curtail teen tobacco use.
A Democratic assemblywoman from Westchester County and a Republican
senator from Monroe County say hiking the age would put cigarettes a little
further out of the reach of high school students, most of whom are 18 or
younger.
Studies show about 60 percent of teen smokers get cigarettes from others, either by bumming or getting them to buy smokes for them, Assemblywoman Sandra Galef, D-Ossining, said.
''By raising it to 19, you don't have as many students that can be the suppliers of cigarettes to our kids,'' Galef said.
Sen. James Alesi said teens, given a year more to think about it, might come to the conclusion that smoking is a bad idea.
''They have had one more year of life experience to understand the choices they make are going to affect their lives,'' Alesi, R-Perinton, said.
The bill has good chances of passing the Democrat-led Assembly, Galef said, and a less certain future in the Republican-run Senate. Alesi said he hadn't discussed it yet with Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, who has supported some anti-smoking efforts in the past but opposed others.
The measure is supported by the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association, but smoking rights groups complain it's another attempt by government to dictate their lives.
Audrey Silk, a longtime smoker and founder of New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, argued it should be up to parents to teach their children about the dangers of smoking and that increasing the smoking age by a year will not solve the underage smoking problem.
''It infringes on the 18-year-old's rights,'' Silk said.
The New York Association of Convenience Stores also opposes the legislation. The group trained and certified over 2,500 store workers on how to prevent underage sales of tobacco and raising the age would only confuse cashiers, the group said.
Associated
Press - May 11, 2004
Online
group withdraws challenge to Internet cigarette ban
By Carolyn
Thompson
BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) -- An online retailers' group will withdraw its federal court challenge of New York's ban on Internet and mail-order tobacco sales while awaiting the outcome of a lawsuit pending in state court, the group's attorney said Tuesday.
The Online Tobacco Retailers Association, or OLTRA, becomes the second group to drop legal action against the state over the ban. The Seneca Indian Nation, which sells large quantities of untaxed cigarettes at reduced prices over the Internet, withdrew its federal lawsuit last month.
Joe Crangle, attorney for OLTRA, said the group is awaiting the outcome of a state Supreme Court action which claims the law was improperly passed by the Legislature in 2000.
The federal lawsuits by OLTRA and the Senecas argued more broadly that the law was unconstitutional. The Senecas also claimed the statute violated their sovereignty rights under Indian treaties.
"This is a very clean thing," Crangle said of the state case, filed on behalf of Scott Maybee, owner of SmokeSignals.com. "We're not putting on the table at this time any of the treaty rights. This is strictly saying that New York State law wasn't observed (when the statute was passed.) If it wasn't observed you don't even have to raise the treaty rights."
The law, passed in 2000 but not enforced until last year, prohibits Internet and mail-order sales of cigarettes to private individuals in New York state who are not licensed by the state to receive them.
Supporters say the law is necessary to keep tobacco out of the hands of minors. Opponents say its true purpose is to increase the state's tax revenues by forcing smokers to buy cigarettes at brick-and-mortar stores within New York state, rather than off the Internet.
In dropping the Senecas' legal challenge last month, Seneca President Rickey Armstrong said only that the tribe had changed its strategy on the issue and would address it in a different way.
The decision came after the Pataki administration announced it would hold off on efforts to collect state taxes on tobacco and gasoline sales from Indians to non-Indians at reservation businesses.
A hearing on the Maybee case was scheduled for May 19.
Salamanca
Press - May 11, 2004
County
OKs four smoking waivers
By Kimeberly
Gasber
ELKDALE — Four area establishments can open their doors to smokers once again.
The Cattaraugus County Board of Health granted waivers from the New York State’s Clean Indoor Air act to four business at their meeting Wednesday.
The businesses are: the bar Rough Cuts in South Dayton; Off Track Betting in Olean; the Ischua Fire Department, and the Kinney Hose Company in Weston Mills.
Administrative Officer Kathleen Ellis and Ray Jordan, senior public health sanitarian, reviewed the waiver applications for the four businesses with the board before the vote. Each waiver application was voted on separately.
To qualify for a waiver, businesses either have to show 15 percent loss in revenue or show other financial hardship, such as building a special room for smokers prior to the start of the ban in July.
Businesses also have to keep smoke from reaching non-smokers and staff by having a separately ventilated room with no paid workers serving the room.
Rough Cuts has a building for smokers, separated from non-smokers by a walkway, said Jordan in his report. After increasing the size of the fan to vent smoke outdoors and arranging for a stronger self-closing door to the smoking room, the building met the standards for the waiver, said Jordan.
The OTB facility had a separate room with separate ventilation and a self-closing door already in place, said Ellis.
The Ischua Fire Department originally had a separate room for non-smokers pressurized to keep smoke out, said Jordan. The deparment switched the rooms, changing the non-smoking room to a smoking room and venting the smoke outside, then using the larger room for non-smokers instead.
The Kinney Hose Company in Weston Mills already had a separate room set aside for smokers, said Jordan.
He added that both fire facilities would have bingo volunteers in the smoking rooms for bingo, but those individuals would all be unpaid.
“They have no paid employees in the smoking room,” he said.
Under the criteria for the waivers, no paid employees are allowed in smoking rooms. This stems from the original intent of the law: preventing second-hand smoke from getting to workers.
Public Health Director Barbara Hastings said she was “very glad we can move forward with the waivers.”
She added that other businesses had applied for waivers, and the health department was waiting for them to complete separate smoking facilities before the department can inspect the buildings.
These are the first full waivers the county health board has granted. Previously, it has granted membership exemptions from the smoking ban, but they have less strict requirements.
Membership organizations must prove that all workers are volunteers and not being compensated in any way, and non-members are not allowed in the establishment.
L.A.
Daily News - May 10, 2004
Hollywood
burning over smoking
Industry:
'R' ratings not needed
By Lisa Friedman
WASHINGTON -- Stamping out smoking in the movies is an unrealistic goal, Hollywood leaders will tell a Senate panel today as it investigates the impacts of lighting up on film.
Movie industry officials also plan to resist calls to impart an "R" rating on films that show smoking, saying it will water down a system meant to warn parents against graphic sex, violence and illegal activities like drug use.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., requested the hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on the heels of a Dartmouth University study linking the portrayal of smoking on film with the likelihood that children will pick up the habit.
"The link between movie characters smoking and young children being influenced by that behavior is unquestionable. The goal of this hearing is to determine the best way to empower parents to deal with that situation as they see fit," he said in a statement.
Vans Stevenson, senior vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America, said industry leaders have met with anti-smoking advocates, as well as with a group of attorneys general from across the country interested in curbing on-screen smoking.
Stevenson said MPAA President Jack Valenti will tell the Senate panel the studio association's role is to ensure that moviemakers clearly understand the concerns of anti-smoking advocates -- not to impose rules about what can or can't go into a film.
"Smoking is a matter of creative expression. People smoke, and that is an element that is sometimes depicted on screen. ... Can you imagine a World War II movie without smoking? My God, they used to put cigarettes in mess kits," Stevenson said, adding, "We're not in the business of telling people how to tell stories."
In addition to Valenti, a representative from the Directors Guild of America and the author of a University of California, San Francisco, study about the impact of smoking on film will testify.
The Dartmouth study tracked 3,549 adolescents between the ages of 10 and 14 and found what it called "strong evidence" that viewing smoking in movies promotes smoking among teens.
"Exposure to movie smoking was positively associated with sensation seeking and rebelliousness, and inversely associated with school performance," the report noted, and found that slightly more than half the teens who started smoking since the beginning of the study did so as a direct result of movie influence.
Hollywood leaders have challenged the methodology of the study, however, and plan to oppose any move to impose a special rating system for smoking.
Smoke Free Movies, an advocacy group, has blasted the MPAA for its position. The group maintains that an "R" rating would allow moviemakers to retain artistic control while giving parents a tool to protect children from images of smokers.
Reuters
- May 9, 2004
Lawmakers
Examine Film Smoking, Copyright Act
WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - Hollywood lobbyists will be busy this week as lawmakers examine smoking on film and legislation that could undo some key portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The hearings, one in the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday and one in the House Commerce Committee on Wednesday, make nice legislative bookends for the entertainment industry's current troubles in Washington as one focuses on content and the other on copyright.
The entertainment industry has been under considerable pressure to rein in indecent broadcasts on TV and radio, and now may face the same criticism for depictions of smoking.
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., pushed for the hearing after several recent meetings between anti-smoking advocates and entertainment industry executives.
Hollywood's top lobbyist, Jack Valenti, is scheduled to testify along with LeVar Burton, co-chair of the Directors Guild of America's social responsibility task force, Madeline Dalton, associate professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School, and Stan Glantz, professor of medicine at UC San Francisco School of Medicine.
Dalton wrote a recent study claiming that smoking in movies entices young people to pick up the habit. Glantz is one of Hollywood's leading social critics who pushes for R ratings for movies in which the actors light up.
While Motion Picture Assn. of America chief Valenti has worked to get the anti-smoking message out, his trade group says it's a filmmaker's right to have the characters smoke or not.
Times
Herald - May 6, 2004
Health
officials grant first waivers of smoking ban
By Rick Miller
ELKDALE — The first waivers of the state’s indoor smoking ban were granted Wednesday by the Cattaraugus County Board of Health.
The Ischua and Weston’s Mills fire department bingo halls, Off Track Betting parlor in Olean and Rough Cuts tavern in Delevan were the first in the county to receive waivers under the state Clean Indoor Air Act that went into effect last July.
Each met the county Health Department’s requirements of separate rooms with self-closing doors and ventilation to the outside, said Public Health Director Barbara J. Hastings. Other waiver applications are pending.
“We are going in the right direction,” Ms. Hastings told members of the Board of Health meeting at Elkdale Country Club. The waivers protect employees from second-hand smoke, she added.
Mrs. Hastings admitted the indoor smoking ban is taking up an increasing amount of staff time to oversee.
The Board of Health denied appeals from four taverns that had been cited for violating the indoor smoking ban. They are: City Limits Bar & Grille, town of Olean, fined $500 for permitting smoking Nov. 29; Hardy’s in Delevan, fined $500 for permitting smoking Dec. 11; Ischua Valley Country Club, Franklinville, fined $500 for permitting smoking Dec. 11, and Phil-N-Station, city of Olean, fined $1,000 for a third smoking ban violation, recorded Jan. 24.
The board also fined Pine Lanes of South Dayton $500 for a violation of the smoking ban March 5.
City Limits was denied permission for a one-week extension of the 15-day period during which time a board order may be appealed.
The Long Branch Saloon in Franklinville was also cited for a third violation
of the smoking ban March 20 and fined $1,000.
Ischua Valley Country Club was fined $1,000 by the board for a second
violation March 4.
Mrs. Hastings said the business owners have been told that the inspections
are not random, but are sparked by complaints.
County Attorney Dennis Tobolski explained to board members that Long
Branch Saloon, owned by Robert F. Allen, had appealed its prior citations
for violating the Clean Indoor Air Act to state Supreme Court.
Arguments were heard last week in state Supreme Court in Little Valley. Andrew W. Goodell of Jamestown is representing the Long Branch Saloon.
Acting State Supreme Court Judge Larry M. Himelein reserved decision in the lawsuit, which seeks to overturn the Clean Indoor Act as unconstitutional.
Capital
News 9 - May 5, 2004
Quig's
allowed county's first smoking ban
Smokers at a Gloversville bar and restaurant can now light up.
The New York State Department of Health granted Quig's Bar and Restaurant a two-year Clean Indoor Act waiver.
The owner said a separate smoking room will be available in the back of the bar. He added that 60 percent of the bar is still for non-smokers.
Quig's is the first establishment in Fulton and Montgomery counties that can legally allow patrons to smoke since the state smoking ban went into effect last July.
The
Post-Standard - April 28, 2004
Bar
loses smoking ban battle
Cayuga
County refuses to issue permit allowing Costello's to remain open.
By John Stith
It looks like the last call for Costello's, an Auburn bar whose owner has refused to pay a $1,000 health department fine or enforce the state's indoor smoking ban.
The bar appears to be the first business in the county closed for violating the state's smoking ban, after a pair of setbacks delivered Tuesday by Cayuga County health officials.
The first setback came Tuesday morning from administrative officer Jack Tonzi at the close of a Health and Human Services Department hearing. He recommended that the Board of Health deny Costello's owner Patricia Glanville, of Fleming, a food service permit, required of all bars by state law. Without the permit, a bar cannot operate legally in the state.
The second setback came about an hour later, when the board agreed formally to deny the permit, effectively shutting the bar at 15 Aurelius St.
"Mrs. Glanville brought this on herself," County Attorney Frederick Westphal said during the permit hearing.
Glanville did not testify at the hearing and had no comment afterward, except to say that the bar would be closed Tuesday. She not attend the subsequent board meeting. Her position from the start has been that since she is the only employee at her business the smoking ban should not apply to her.
According to testimony by county officials at Tuesday's hearing, the permit denial was tied to Glanville's failure to pay the $1,000 fine, assessed Jan. 27 by the board for allowing smoking in the bar. The fine followed a hearing Jan. 20, also conducted by Tonzi.
In addition to the setbacks Tuesday, Glanville faces a court battle over her refusal to pay the fine. On Thursday, Westphal's office filed suit in state Supreme Court to force her to pay.
At the board meeting, County Environmental Management Director Eileen O'Connor told board members the food service permit year runs from April 1 through March 31 and Costello's has been operating without a permit since April 1. She said the Health Department had allowed Costello's to operate until the board could act on the application.
Tonzi had also recommended that the board order the bar to close immediately. Westphal urged only denying the permit. If Glanville opens the bar, the county could move to close it, he said. The board took his advice.
At the conclusion of the earlier administrative hearing, Kenneth Ray of Utica, Glanville's lawyer, said the county acted improperly. "There's nothing in the law to permit the county of Cayuga to put this person out of business," he said.
Ray said the section of the state sanitary code cited by the Health Department as the reason for the hearing only allows an existing food permit to be suspended. Since the department didn't issue a permit, there was no permit to suspend, he said.
Two Health Department employees testified that they saw smoking violations at Costello's Feb. 17 and March 23.
The
Post-Standard - April 25, 2004
Smoking
protesters fume
By Aaron Gifford
Bud Natale said cigarette smoke killed both of his parents: His father died of lung cancer and his mother from emphysema.
Yet Natale yelled the loudest and waved his sign the proudest Saturday in a demonstration against the American Cancer Society in front of the Oneida Indian Nation's Turning Stone Resort and Casino, site of the fifth annual Coaches vs. Cancer Basket Ball to benefit the not-for-profit health organization.
"I still don't think you have the right to tell people what they can do," said Natale, adding that he doesn't use tobacco but sympathizes with tavern owners who have been hurt by the new state law that bans smoking in bars and restaurants. "My father also served in the military for our freedom. They're taking away our civil rights."
With signs and chants, bar owners from the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association and their supporters called the American Cancer Society "a bunch of hypocrites," saying it was wrong for the organization to push for the state smoking ban and then hold one at a place that allows smoking.
"This should have been held at the Oncenter," said Caren Snyder, owner of Dodester's bar on South Avenue in Syracuse, waving a sign that said, "Whether I chose to smoke or quit, at least I'm not a hypocrite."
Turning Stone, because it sits on Indian land, is not subject to the state's strict anti-smoking law that went into effect last summer. The Basket Ball event was in a smoke-free area of the convention center there.
The Basket Ball is run by Syracuse University men's basketball coach Jim Boeheim, who previously said he would save $50,000 a year by holding the $300-per-ticket event at Turning Stone, which pays for the entertainment and doesn't charge a setup fee. The event was moved from the Oncenter to Turning Stone in 2002.
There were at least 60 protesters along Route 365. One carried a sign that said "Boeheim Butt Out."
Although the bar owners' aim was to criticize the American Cancer Society, several members of Upstate Citizens for Equality lined up next to them with their signs complaining about the sovereign nation's taxation policies.
Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association President Ralph Dittenhoefer, of Oneida County, stressed that his organization does not oppose the nation or its rules and policies, but he appreciated Upstate Citizens' support.
Some motorists honked horns in support of the bar owners or Upstate Citizens and others did so in opposition, prompting some of the sign-wavers to remark, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."
Plenty of protesters smoked during the gathering and threw their cigarette butts on the shoulder of the road or into the flower garden at Turning Stone's main entrance.
Terry Karst, owner of Bec' Ivy Grill in Oneida and an association member and smoker for 40 years, acknowledged that the protesters had no plans to pick up their butts.
"You should see it (mess) in front of our bars," he said, lighting a Marlboro.
Two nation police officers in an unmarked car watched the protest from about 50 yards away and videotaped it, "just to make sure nobody gets hurt."
The
Leader Herald - April 25, 2004
Smoking
ban a cloudy issue
Editorial
For the past nine months, the Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibits smoking in virtually any business, has prevented smokers from lighting up. Or has it?
Despite the law, state and local health departments have been granting waivers to some establishments based on whether the ban is creating financial hardship. In the 41 counties that have full-service health departments, the individual departments have the authority to issue and approve waivers and can come up with their own criteria for granting waivers. In the 21 other counties, including Fulton, Montgomery and Hamilton, which have no full-service health departments, the state Health Department issues waivers, said department spokeswoman Claire Pospisil.
Businesses give various reasons for opposing the smoking ban. Locally, some area businesses say people are tracking in mud from outside after they go out to smoke, creating a hazard on the floor. They say people are smoking anyway and extinguishing their cigarettes in various inappropriate places of the business because no ashtrays are allowed. The ban's resulting in fewer patrons, owners say, and some businesses contend they can ensure air circulation would prevent non-smokers from breathing in smoke.
Several Fulton County businesses, including Arterial Lanes in Johnstown, Sherman's in Caroga Lake, WF Shamrock's in Gloversville and the Rainbow Restaurant in Johnstown, applied for waivers but were denied. In other counties, however, restaurants, bars, lodges, a bingo hall and even Off-Track Betting parlors are getting a free pass on the smoking ban. A few examples:
€ Oswego County and its Board of Health granted waivers to OTB parlors in Central Square and Phoenix.
€ Franklin County granted a waiver to a bar in Malone. Seven's Grill now allows people to smoke in a room that's vented outside.
€ Several Jefferson County bars have received waivers.
€ The state granted a waiver to the Herkimer County Detachment Marine Corps League in Ilion. The league created a separate smoking lounge with air-circulating fans in a pre-existing space down the hall from the bar.
€ A Keeseville bingo hall in Essex County received a waiver.
€ The state granted a waiver to the Montour Falls Moose Lodge in Schuyler County.
The fact these places received waivers - and many more businesses are sure to get them - while others still suffer with the ban should send a message to state legislators: The "smoke-free" law is flawed. Either the state should change the law to accommodate smoking at bars, restaurants and other establishments, or truly enforce the smoking ban and permit no waivers.
When smokers violate the ban, the establishments can be fined. In Fulton County, four businesses have been fined a total of $1,600. They include Miss Johnstown Diner, Rooster's Sports Bar, Kane's Tavern and the Waterway Grill.
Meanwhile, patrons of other businesses can smoke to their heart's content because those establishments have waivers.
Something smells afoul in the law, and it's not smoke.
The
Saratogian - April 24, 2004
Area
bar gets smoking waiver
By Jerome
Burdi
MOREAU -- Connie LaRock, owner of Connie's Roadhouse on Gansevoort Road, has a message for patrons: Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
The bar was the first in the county to be approved this month for a smoking waiver because of financial hardship, with business dropping by more than 15 percent. The Alley Bar in Saratoga Springs was turned down.
'They were coming and having one drink, then going outside and having a cigarette and saying 'the heck with it' and going home,' LaRock said.
According to the state Department of Health's Web site, updated monthly, 45 bars in 21 counties have been denied waivers and five waivers have been granted. Local health officials watch over the more urban counties, DOH spokeswoman Claire Pospisil said.
Connie's Roadhouse -- which the state cited for allowing smoking last year after the ban took effect on July 24 -- now has a separate room for smokers, as required by law.
'They love it,' LaRock said. 'Smokers as well as nonsmokers go in there. People are enjoying it. They no longer have to stand in the rain and the cold to smoke a cigarette.'
Though Pospisil said the waiver took effect on Thursday, LaRock said a health inspector told her it was OK to allow smoking on April 16.
LaRock said the smoking room can hold about 50 people.
'The room prior to this (ban) was a nonsmoking room -- isn't that ironic?' she said.
A party was thrown Wednesday to celebrate the waiver, with $1.50 drinks and free hamburgers and hot dogs -- but no free smokes.
'I don't encourage smoking,' LaRock said. 'This is all about my livelihood. Smoking and drinking have been together as long as Adam and Eve.'
News
10 Now - April 24, 2004
A
controversial fundraiser
The annual Coaches vs. Cancer fundraising event being held at Turning Stone casino isn't happening without some controversy.
The annual Basket Ball is a black tie affair created by Syracuse University Coach Jim Boeheim to benefit the American Cancer Society.
The ACS pushed for New York's Clean Indoor Air Act, which many bar owners say has hurt their businesses.
Although the Basket Ball is a smoke-free event, some feel associating it with an organization connected to tobacco products and smoking is hypocritical and promotes a double standard.
Organizers argue that choosing Turning Stone shaved about fifty thousand dollars off the cost of the event.
"We're trying to raise money to fight cancer and the nation has helped us to do that. I just am very grateful for them. I understand a little bit about what people's thoughts are, but I think you have to work with people to change minds. I don't think it does any good to boycott people, that doesn't help people change their minds," said Boeheim.
Bar owner Terry Karst is frustrated at the rigid guidelines set by the ACS.
"My bar could be smoke free also, 99.9%, but the American Cancer Society maintains that that's not good enough. It has to 100% free. No establishment, they maintain that if you have a smoking room or anything like that in your establishment, then the smoke leaks out, there's smoke permeating the air, and it's not 100% free and therefore it's dangerous."
This is the first year the event is being held at Turning Stone.
Washington
Blade - April 23, 2004
Anti-smoking
smokesreen
Those
pushing for a smoking ban in D.C. are hiding the truth: industry employees
oppose it and business would be hurt.
By Mark Lee
Nightlife and hospitality venues and employees have become accustomed to the smoke and mirrors.
But we didn’t expect the Washington Blade to be so easily seduced by the beguiling statistical deceptions of the mandatory smoking ban lobby (“It’s time for a smoke-free D.C.,” editorial by Kevin Naff, April 16).
The claim that New York’s mandatory smoking ban has not hurt bar, club and restaurant business in the Big Apple is both implausible and untrue.
Selective aggregate tax statistics for food and beverage businesses of all types in New York City — assembled by a defensive mayor facing growing opposition to the forced imposition of a total smoking ban — conveniently mask the negative effect the ban has had on nightlife businesses.
A survey conducted by the New York State Restaurant Association discovered that 76 percent of alcohol-licensed bar and restaurant businesses surveyed in New York City reported a decline of 25 percent or more in bar sales and 15 percent or more in food sales as a result of the smoking ban.
Figures released by the city’s Wholesale Beer & Liquor Distributors show that the sale of spirits and wines in bars and restaurants in metropolitan New York City is down by more than 20 percent. Beer wholesalers are reporting a 15 percent decline statewide in beer sales.
Hundreds of businesses have applied for financial hardship exemptions to the law in New York.
IT IS FOR these reasons that New York state legislators are now considering a rollback of the state’s mandatory smoking ban. A recent independent and respected poll indicates that a majority of both New York City and New York state registered voters no longer support the ban for bars and nightclubs.
Contrary to the assertion made by the Washington Blade, a record number of noise complaints caused by people smoking on sidewalks outside bars and clubs have resulted in a proposal by New York City officials to force nightlife establishments in the city that never sleeps to close at 1 a.m. unless a special “nightlife license” can be obtained.
Needless to say, Bloomberg has put that proposal back on the shelf until after the election.
One in four Washingtonians smoke regularly and they are joined by those who are infrequent social smokers who might light up over a beer or cocktail at a local bar, lounge or nightclub. Patrons of bars and nightclubs tend to smoke in greater numbers than the general population.
FOR GAY AND lesbian venues, however, the numbers are even greater. The American Legacy Foundation estimates from surveys conducted around the country that the percentage of LGBT smokers may number up to twice that of heterosexual adults. Business owners do not need calculators to do the math.
The simple fact is that all mandatory smoking bans have a negative impact on business, differentiated only by effect on business category and degree of loss. Locales with commonly available outdoor facilities at venues and a year-round temperate climate do tend to fare better than others.
A hospitality-dependent city like Washington cannot afford to force a total ban on its largest private sector industry contributing well over 10 percent of the city’s total tax revenues.
We need only look at the significant impact a ban has had on businesses in Maryland’s neighboring Montgomery County to understand that the purported positive business effects of mandatory smoking bans are supported only by the frequency with which ban proponents repeat their claims.
Perhaps that is why the overwhelming majority of industry employees that smoking prohibitionists purport to “protect” are strongly opposed to their campaign.
The attempt by mandatory smoking ban advocates to single-out D.C. At-Large Councilmember Carol Schwartz for opposing a mandatory smoking ban ignores the fact that only three of 13 Council members support a forced ban. Eight D.C. Council members have been joined by District Mayor Anthony Williams in opposing the bill.
D.C. nightlife businesses do not encounter support for a mandatory ban from customers or receive complaints about existing D.C. regulations. If we did we would respond to demand in the marketplace.
D.C. elected officials have clearly and wisely said: allow freedom of choice to prevail for both consumers and businesses, and let the marketplace decide.
nacsonline.com
- April 23, 2004
Seneca
Indian Nation Withdraws Legal Challenge Against New York
BUFFALO, NY -- The Seneca Indian Nation has withdrawn its challenge to New York State's ban on Internet tobacco sales, according to the Associated Press. The tribe was suing the State of New York in U.S. District Court, claiming the 2000 law enacted in June 2003 was unconstitutional and interfered with its sovereignty.
"We changed our strategy on this issue and decided to address it in a different way," said Seneca President Ricky Armstrong Sr.
The Seneca Indian Nation is one of the largest sellers of tax-free cigarettes through its Internet and mail-order businesses.
The ban on Internet and mail-order sales of cigarettes was passed by New York State as a public-health law. Proponents of the measure said the goal was to limit children's access to cigarettes. Tribes--along with a coalition of online tobacco retailers--filed its own legal challenge, contending that the law's true purpose was to increase the state's tax revenues by forcing smokers to buy cigarettes at brick-and-mortar stores within New York State.
"The courts had decided this issue before this case was even filed," said James Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores. "In 2003, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of New York's law barring private carriers from delivering Internet tobacco orders directly to consumers. Perhaps the tribe's withdrawal is a recognition of how hopeless it was to challenge the same statute again."
The lawsuit by the Online Tobacco Retailers Association (OLTRA), which also includes two disabled consumers and a Seneca Indian retailer, is pending.
Capital
News 9 - April 22, 2004
State
grants smoking waiver to local bar
One bar owner in Saratoga County said she's been given the go-ahead to allow patrons to light up in her bar.
Connie LaRock is the co-owner of Connie's Roadhouse in Moreau. LaRock said the state has granted her a waiver to have a separate smoking room in her establishment.
The state Department of Health said LaRock shouldn't declare total victory just yet. A spokeswoman said the waiver won't go into effect until they inspect the smoking lounge.
LaRock said an inspector told her on Tuesday that her patrons could begin lighting up in the designated area and doesn't understand what the problem is.
Connie's Roadhouse is the first North Country bar or restaurant to be cited for violating the state's smoking ban last fall.
Post
Standard - April 19, 2004
Auburn
bar owner hasn't paid smoking fine
By John Stith
An Auburn bar owner, who has refused to pay a $1,000 fine for allowing smoking in her establishment, could lose her food permit and be forced to close the bar.
The Cayuga County Health and Human Services Department has asked Patty Glanville of Fleming to attend an administrative hearing 10:30 a.m. Tuesday about the food establishment permit for Costello's, the bar she owns on Aurelius Street.
Glanville said Friday she recently filed her permit application and paid the $55 annual fee. Instead of receiving the permit, as in previous years, Glanville said, she was asked to attend the hearing.
She declined to comment on the pending hearing. Her lawyer, Kenneth Ray, of Utica, could not be reached.
County Environmental Management Director Eileen O'Connor said bars serve ice and drinks and, under the state's sanitary codes, must have a food permit to operate. She stopped short of saying the bar would be closed immediately but said that is a possibility.
O'Connor said Glanville's unpaid smoking fine triggered the permit hearing. "She's not complied with an outstanding Board of Health order," O'Connor said, "so we're having a hearing to determine whether a permit should be issued."
Hearing officer Jack Tonzi will issue a recommendation on the food permit, and O'Connor said the Board of Health could act on Tonzi's ruling when the board meets April 27.
Glanville's father opened Costello's in 1948. She was cited in November, after Health Department workers observed smoking in the bar.
The state's revised Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect July 24 and bans smoking in most public places, including bars and restaurants.
In December, Glanville refused to pay a $100 levied by the Health Department. Glanville received the maximum $1,000 fine allowed under state law after an administrative hearing Jan. 20. Tonzi presided at that hearing.
Glanville has refused to pay the fine, and the Health Department turned the matter over to the county attorney.
While Glanville appears at the hearing inside the County Office Building, her supporters will demonstrate from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. outside the Genesee Street building.
Meanwhile, Thomas and Melina Greco, owners of the Cato Hotel, Main Street, Cato, are holding a meeting at 7 p.m. April 29 in the hotel to discuss the state smoking ban. They have invited a representative of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association and a representative from Honeywell Filtration Systems to speak at the meeting.
The Cato meeting is open to all bar and tavern operators in the county.
Record
Online - April 16, 2004
Foes
of smoking ban accuse it of undermining Lottery take
By Paul Ertelt
Albany – It was the trifecta of vice: sitting at a bar, smoking a cigarette and playing Quick Draw. But the state spoiled the party last summer by banning smoking in bars. And it may be paying the price now with lower than expected Quick Draw revenues.
During the six months following the July 24 enactment of the smoking ban, Quick Draw sales actually were up $5.4 million, or 2.2 percent, over the same period a year earlier, according to figures from the state Lottery Division. But at the same time, the number of outlets for the keno-style game grew at a much faster pace. So the average sales per Quick Draw terminal dropped by 6 percent since the smoking ban. Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Association and a vocal opponent of the smoking ban, said the figures support his contention that the no-smoking law is hurting the state's tavern industry.
In February 2003, the state changed the frequency of Quick Draw games so numbers are drawn every four minutes instead of every five minutes. State budget officials predicted more frequent games would boost Quick Draw sales by 5 percent, so the 2.2 percent increase is actually a loss for both the state and businesses with Quick Draw, Wexler said.
Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, said per-terminal sales are only down because the number of Quick Draw venues has grown.
From August through January, Quick Draw sales totaled $246.5 million statewide, up from $241.1 million from August 2002 through January 2003.
But there were also, on average, 3,283 Quick Draw terminals operating statewide during the latter period, a 9 percent increase from the same period a year earlier. The trend in the Hudson Valley and the Catskills was similar to the statewide trend. In Orange County, Quick Draw sales totaled $7.78 million from August through January, an increase of $1.23 million, or 19 percent, from the same period a year earlier. Sales were up more than 15 percent in both Sullivan and Ulster counties, totaling $1.9 million and $2.8 million, respectively. But the number of retailers offering Quick Draw was up by more than 40 percent in Orange County, by 35 percent in Sullivan County and by 28 percent in Ulster County.
Buffalo
News - April 16, 2004
Smoking
banned again at Mac's
By Sandra
Tan
The smoke may be clearing at Jimmy Mac's, but don't expect restaurant owner Rick Naylon to hide the ashtrays.
A Rochester appeals court issued a decision Thursday that once again makes it illegal for smokers to light up in Naylon's restaurant and bar on Elmwood Avenue until the court hears a full appeal months from now.
The decision by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court represents a suspension of the order issued by State Supreme Court Justice Rose H. Sconiers on April 2.
She had given Jimmy Mac's a six-month waiver of the New York State smoking ban and faulted the Erie County health commissioner for imposing inappropriately strict requirements to get a waiver.
Since that time, Naylon said, bar business has doubled, and he had been contemplating rehiring 10 employees he said he was forced to lay off because of the smoking ban.
Naylon claimed he was unaware of the appeals court decision, though he had taken down the signs in the windows welcoming smokers.
He said he would continue to allow smokers to patronize the bar until he's officially told he must do otherwise. Attorneys said court papers to that effect are expected to be served today.
Even if courts hand him a decision that prohibits smoking, Naylon said, "many of my customers have told me that if we lose the waiver, they're going to break the law and smoke anyway."
He added that it's his understanding the smoking ban requires him to inform patrons that smoking is illegal, but that that's the limit of his obligation.
County Health Commissioner Dr. Anthony J. Billittier IV disagreed.
"The law requires a few things," he said. "It requires an establishment to have no-smoking signs, to not have ashtrays or anything else that will encourage people to smoke. It requires (employees) to ask people not to smoke, and not to serve them if they continue to smoke. We would expect all business owners in Erie County to comply with the law."
He said that, in the past, Naylon has been good about following those requirements.
The appeals court gave the county until May 14 to file the rest of the paperwork needed to fully appeal Sconiers' decision, said Joseph Reina, the assistant county attorney handling the case. Arguments are scheduled for September, though lawyers for Jimmy Mac's said they hope to move up that date.
"Our business may not survive until September," said lawyer Nicholas P. Amigone III, representing Jimmy Mac's.
Amigone said he wasn't surprised by the appeals court decision because lower court judgments that go against the state, county or other municipalities in New York typically are suspended on appeal.
Naylon said he fears for his ability to stay in business and support his family if patrons aren't allowed to smoke in his establishment. He also said other bars all over the county are ignoring the smoking ban.
During the last two weeks when smoking has been allowed at Jimmy Mac's, Amigone said the business saw a $5,000 spike in revenue each week. He said establishments like Jimmy Mac's make the most profit on alcoholic drinks, not food, and smokers are the ones who drive up the beverage tab.
"Without smokers at the bar, we're just not going to survive, and the county has to recognize that," Amigone said. "It's not a perfect world, and you have to deal with realities as they exist."
Republican County Legislators Charles M. Swanick and Steven P. McCarville sent Billittier a letter Thursday requesting that the commissioner relax its process for issuing smoking ban waivers, in keeping with the findings of Sconiers.
Billittier responded, however, that he believes the county's waiver process is fairly consistent with the waiver process adopted by other counties in the state. He pointed out that the county has issued eight waivers.
"We denied fewer than that," he said. "I'm not sure how much more permissive we can be. I have a duty to follow this law, and the law mandates that I protect employees' health in this establishment. I know of no other way to do that than the way we've done it. If someone has a better way to do that, I'd certainly be willing to consider it."
Irish
Echo - April 14, 2004
City
vows new clampdown on pub smoking
By Stephen
McKinley
As New York City health officials warned of a new clampdown to enforce the smoking ban imposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg just over a year ago, wildly contradictory claims and counterclaims have been made by supporters and opponents of the ban.
Another rally was held outside the Department of Health by representatives of the bar and restaurant industry on April 6, focusing on the Department's claim, along with Bloomberg, that the smoking ban would save 1,000 lives per year. Protestors demanded to know the names and addresses of the 1,000 people who they said must have survived since the advent of the ban in March 2003.
Brian Nolan, executive director of United Restaurant & Tavern Owners of New York, laid the statistics at the door of Mayor Bloomberg, saying that the city had launched a massive coverup to hide the appalling economic downturn caused by banning smoking.
"It's a complete distortion of the facts," Nolan said.
Some bar and restaurant owners have forgone paying themselves a salary, he added, in order to stay in business.
Department of Health officials say 97 percent of bars and restaurants are complying with the law, but health inspectors are planning late-night raids based on tip-offs.
"Officials will inspect places late at night and into the morning especially when we receive complaints related to violations at those times," said Sandra Mullin of the Department of Health.
It's been street wisdom since the ban took effect that some late-night dive bars off the beaten track, as well as bars in the outer boroughs, have been skirting the law and permitting drinkers to light up after midnight.
David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association, said: "In many parts of town, places have to choose between risking a ticket for allowing smoking inside or getting a summons for the noise of their patrons out front smoking."
The campaign against the ban appears to have acquired some new energy since a handful of remote and isolated upstate watering holes successfully lobbied lawmakers in Albany and proved that the statewide smoking ban had decimated their business.
Watertown
Daily Times - April 13, 2004
New
York Lists Watertown-Area Bars Denied Waivers of Smoking Ban
By Drew Mangione
The state Health Department has updated its Web site to include 13 bars in Jefferson, St. Lawrence and Lewis counties that have been denied waivers under the state's expanded Clean Indoor Air Act.
The Health Department will not release the names of bars that have been granted waivers until a final inspection of the establishment has been completed.
In Jefferson County, four bar owners confirmed they received waivers. The Speak Easy, 557 Pearl St., had its inspection Friday morning and by Friday night smokers were lighting up.
Smokers and nonsmokers alike at the Speak Easy said it was about time waivers were granted and were pleased with the smoking room itself.
The Brown Shanty, 808 Mill St., and Colesante's Restaurant, 482 Factory St., both in Watertown, are scheduled for inspection Monday. All three bars have separate ventilated rooms designated for smokers.
A fourth bar, Walsh's Pub and Grill, 110 E. Main St., Brownville, is planning to construct a room and have it inspected next month.
At Colesante's, owner George D. Colesante is intending to use what used to be a coin laundry connected to his bar. The washers and dryers were pulled more than a year ago, he said, so now with about $400 in modifications, it will be a haven for smokers.
"It's a room that was almost set up naturally for it," Mr. Colesante said Friday. "The people are very upset about this smoking ban. A good block of them are going home to drink, and we'll never get them back."
He said the bar patrons he has lost because of the ban may not come back, but at least those who are now forced to go outside to smoke will be more comfortable.
While Mr. Colesante said the waiver might be "too little, too late," patrons at the Speak Easy on Friday night were confident that business at the Pearl Street bar will improve.
"I think the waiver has already helped his business," said Paul H. Dean, who built the smoking room at the Speak Easy. "We've had several new faces in here today checking it out."
Other customers, who said they have been drinking at home recently because of the smoking ban, agreed with Mr. Dean.
"I'll come down here and patronize this place more because I have a place to smoke," said Jeffrey S. Backus, before he sauntered into the smoking room to light up a Marlboro Light. "I don't have to go out in the elements. I can have a cocktail with me and I can listen to my tunes. It's great."
Mr. Colesante credited Assemblyman Darrel J. Aubertine, D-Cape Vincent, for helping him and said Thomas E. Boxberger, district director for the state Department of Health, was honest and accommodating. The three other bar owners also complimented Mr. Boxberger, but did most of their lobbying through Sen. James W. Wright, R-Watertown.
"Aubertine seemed very sympathetic toward the cause, even though he voted for it," Mr. Colesante said. "He gave me 45 minutes of his time and so did Ed Gaffney," Mr. Aubertine's chief of staff.
In Jefferson County, the bars denied waivers are the Bobkat Bar & Grill, Theresa; Gary's Pub, Great Bend; the Best Western Carriage House Inn, Watertown; American Legion Post 588, Brownville, and the High Street Hotel, Chaumont.
In Lewis County, only Hotel Parquet, Constableville, was listed on the Web site, while the bars denied in St. Lawrence County are the Coach Inn, Norfolk; The Jug, North Lawrence; Ralphie's, Cranberry Lake; Seaway Bowl, Massena; Nina's Hotel, Richville; American Legion Post 514, Winthrop, and Roy D. Graves Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1194, Potsdam.
Star
Gazette - April 12, 2004
Relief
sought from smoking ban
Chemung
County in top 3 in granting businesses waivers to clean air act.
By Joseph
Manez
Despite a statewide ban on lighting up cigarettes in restaurants and bars, some businesses are winning waivers to temporarily keep the smoking going.
And some county health departments have been more sympathetic than others to bar owners' pleas -- while some are refusing to grant any waivers.
A total of 89 waivers have been issued from the ban under the Clean Indoor Air Act, according to a report by the American Cancer Society this week. Among them, Oneida County has doled out the most waivers with 23, Chautauqua 19, Chemung 10, Onondaga 10 and Niagara nine.
The state Health Department, which oversees waivers for the 21 counties without full-service health departments, has issued five of the 89. It has turned down 45 requests.
Bars and restaurants that apply for a waiver must show they've suffered financial hardship because of the ban, which became effective last June.
Some localities have taken a harder line. For example, Westchester and Livingston counties and New York City prohibit waivers outright. Calling it good news, smoking opponents said the number of waivers is low, given the roughly 65,000 bars and restaurants in New York.
"By holding bars and restaurants to the highest of standards, county health officials show that they consider the health of workers in all types of worksites a priority," said Donald Distasio of the American Cancer Society.
Chemung County has granted 10 out of 20 waiver requests. Waivers have gone to business owners who could prove they lost 15 percent of their business from the waiver and had separate smoking rooms and ventilation systems.
Many of those businesses say the waivers have helped keep their customer base happy.
"It's working out very well actually," said Bonnie Marks, owner of Blondie's Tavern, 256 E. 14th St. in Elmira Heights. "I don't think they should make people continue to prove a hardship to have it. I don't understand the reasoning behind it, now that I see it truly does work."
Customers at some local bars accept the separate smoking rooms as a necessary evil.
"People don't like it, but it's better than going out in the cold. They mind it, because they'd rather sit at the bar," said George Wilson, co-owner of Tiny Tavern, 103 S. Kinyon St. in Southport.
"I think they prefer a separate room to outside, especially when colder weather is here," said Aliks Loughman, manager of Angles Dance Club, 511-513 Railroad Ave. in Elmira. "I know that there are some people who still prefer to go outside because they don't like smoky environment, no matter how much ventilation or air purification we have."
Oneida County's nearly two dozen waivers has drawn criticism from smoking ban advocates who claim the county's criteria for granting waivers is weak.
"They allow for a financial hardship (waiver) based on a 10 percent decline in business compared with the 15 percent standard established by the state Department of Health," Distasio said.
But Oneida County officials said financial hardship isn't the principle reason they give waivers.
"Financial hardship is not a key issue," Oneida County Health Department Director Eric Faisst said. "We wanted to focus on the intent of the law."
Oneida by far has had the most waiver inquiries of any county: 58. It granted 23 and turned down 12, with 23 pending. No county has approved waivers at such a high rate.
Faisst said the intent of the law is to separate non-smoking patrons and employees from smoke. He said he considers smoking rooms that non-smoking patrons and employees do not have to enter or pass through as acceptable for waivers, which will run out at the end of the year.
Critics disagreed.
"I don't think that makes their argument any stronger," American Cancer Society spokeswoman Angela Smith said.
Sen. Raymond Meier, R-Western, Oneida County, introduced a smoking ban rollback bill earlier this year that would exempt establishments with air filtration systems. Under the bill, filtration systems would be required to remove 99 percent of the contaminants from cigarette smoke, but there is disagreement over how effective the systems are.
Earlier this year, the Chemung County Health Department revoked a waiver to the Horseheads American Legion because its air filtration system didn't work well enough, allowing the scent of smoke to waft into non-smoking areas.
Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, said the relatively small number of waivers granted is good news for advocates of the ban, known as the Clean Indoor Air Act.
He said he anticipates exempted businesses will see their peers fairing well under the ban and decide investments in air systems and other necessary additions and maintenance aren't worth it.
"They're going to see this isn't a good way to do business."
Star-Gazette staff writer Jeff Murray contributed to this report.
Waivers granted
Here's a breakdown of smoking waivers granted by the New York state and local health departments:
County, Requests, Granted
Broom, 0, 0
Chautauqua, 41, 19
Chemung, 20, 10
Chenango, 0, 0
Cortland, 4, 0
Delaware, 2, 0
Dutchess, 12-20, 0
Erie, NA, 3
Genesee, NA, 3
Herkimer, 8, 1
Livingston, 0, 0
Madison, 1, 0
Monroe, 56, 2
Niagara, NA, 9
Oneida, 58, 23
Onondaga, 28, 10
Ontario, 3, 0
Orleans, 0, 0
Oswego, 11, 6
Otsego, NA, 1
Putnam, 5, 0
Rensselaer, NA, 1
Rockland, 1, 0
Saratoga, 1, 0
Schuyler, 1, 1
Seneca, 0, 0
Steuben, 0, 0
Tioga, 6, 0
Tompkins, 14, 0
Ulster, 0, 0
Wayne, 1, 0
Westchester, 0, 0
Wyoming, 0, 0
Yates, 1, 0
Source: American Cancer Society
Ad
Week - April 12, 2004
Rheingold
Defends New York Nightlife
By Mae Anderson
NEW YORK Powell and Rheingold tackle New York City legal codes that affect nightlife in a "Don't sleep" local TV campaign breaking on Wednesday.
One of three 30-second spots shows people striding down the street with ashtrays in their pockets as a voiceover describes New York in a rhythmic manner. "This is New York, where black air buzzes with stop lights and street lamps and boot steps beat the blacktop," the narrator says. The people are then seen walking into bars and slamming their ashtrays down on tables. "This is New York. And we can't sleep 'til we take it back," the voiceover states, as onscreen copy reads: "NYC Admin. Code 17-502B. No Smoking in a bar. Fines issued: $200.00 & Up."
The two other TV spots present people dancing in bars without a cabaret license and sitting on milk crates. In May, a man in the Bronx was ticketed for sitting on a milk crate because he did not own it.
"If there is a company that has license to speak out and give commentary, it would be Rheingold because they've been here such a long time," says Neil Powell, founder of the New York shop and art director on the campaign. "They're speaking out against issues that affect New York City nightlife. Rather than doing a conventional campaign about low carbs or how great their hops are, we decided to use the advertising campaign as a platform for objecting to these laws."
"We want to sell beer, but we also want to stand out from traditional ads," said Tom Bendheim, president and CEO of the Utica, N.Y.-based brewer. "The campaign is very much about community—we're addressing issues of importance and concern in New York."
The commercials, directed by David Gordon Green of Chelsea Pictures in New York, were shot over three days in mid-March. In addition to the spots, which break Wednesday at midnight and will run between 12-4 a.m. on cable channels in the New York metro area including Comedy Central, ESPN, Spike TV and MTV, Powell branded metal gratings that retailers pull down over storefronts when they close and lightboxes, which hang in bar windows, with the Rheingold logo.
"Don't sleep" has two meanings, according to Josh Rogers, copywriter on the campaign. "This is the city that never sleeps, and Rheingold is the New York beer brand that never sleeps," he said. The phrase also should remind people "not to sleep on issues."
Associated
Press - April 12, 2004
NYC
Mayor Blasts Beer Maker Rheingold
NEW YORK (AP) -- Rheingold Beer may boast that it is ``100 percent New York by volume,'' but don't expect the city's mayor to stand up and cheer.
On Monday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg blasted the beer maker after it announced it would begin airing television ads this week poking fun at various city laws, including the mayor's smoking ban in bars and restaurants.
Bloomberg noted that Rheingold Brewing Co. laid off thousands of workers from its Brooklyn plant in the 1970s.
``Rheingold is a company that walked out on the city 20 years ago,'' Bloomberg said. ``They fired 4,000 people almost overnight.''
Not so fast, said Rheingold chief executive officer Tom Bendheim. The new Rheingold, he said, is not your father's Rheingold.
``It's as disturbing to us as it is to the mayor as to what happened in 1976,'' said Bendheim, 41. ``But we are different owners. We are all about New York.''
Rheingold is actually made through a contract brewer in Utica, about 245 miles northwest of New York City.
The beer, launched in 1855, virtually disappeared from the market between 1978 and 1998. Now, Bendheim is trying to resurrect the brand as the beer of choice for drinkers in their 20s and early 30s.
As the company sought new ways to win attention for the beer, Bendheim decided to create a series of ads poking fun at city laws that prohibit dancing in bars without cabaret licenses and ban smoking in public places. The ads are scheduled to begin airing Wednesday.
Bendheim said the company would begin brewing a limited amount of beer at a small Brooklyn brewery in the next few months.
``If capacity existed, we would be brewing in New York City,'' he said.
As the mayor watched the New York Mets' home opener at Shea Stadium on Monday, he sipped a Coors.
The
Evening Telegram - April 12, 2004
County
Marine Corps League gets smoking ban waiver
By Jerry Blair
ILION - The Herkimer County Detachment Marine Corps League last week became the first facility in the area to be issued a waiver for the state's ban on smoking.
Marine Corps League officials were informed Wednesday that the New York State Department of Health had reviewed its application and awarded a waiver from compliance with the Clean Indoor Air Act. The detachment operates a bar on the first floor of its veterans' club at 178 Second St., Ilion.
Herkimer County is one of 21 small, rural counties for which the DOH handles enforcement of the smoking ban and waiver approvals. Under CIAA regulations, a business may be excluded from the smoking ban if it can demonstrate compliance has created an "undue financial hardship."
The criteria for issuing a waiver includes a documented loss of revenue since CIAA was implemented; capital expenditures prior to the law; or other exceptional circumstances resulting in adverse economic impacts to the facility.
"I think justice was served," MCL House Committee Chairman Donald Sterling said. "We met the qualifications for the waiver."
The CIAA requires a business to show its revenue has decreased by at least 15 percent as a result of the ban on indoor smoking; the claim must be verified by state tax figures. According to Sterling, the Marine Corps League has seen its revenue drop by about 21 percent since enforcement of the law began last summer.
DOH documents specify the waiver allows for smoking to occur within a "dedicated smoking room" located down a short hallway, just off the northwest corner of the Marine Corps League bar. That smoking room is fully enclosed and has two tight-fitting doors.
Sterling said the detachment made use of an existing 20- by 30-foot space, which was converted into a smoking room by moving its two ceiling mounted charcoal air cleaners there from the bar. The room is also equipped with two ceiling fans. All four units are designed to turn on automatically when the lights are turned on.
A fan placed in a row of glass windows along the outside wall is used to created a negative pressure inside the room, preventing smoke from entering the bar area when the door is opened. The DOH waiver states that there is to be "no service provided to customers in the smoking room and the door is to remain closed at all times."
The Marine Corps League first submitted an application outlining its plan for a smoking area to the DOH's Herkimer District Office in February. Sterling said the facility was inspected and its application forwarded to department officials in Albany; a waiver was issued after a second DOH inspection of the charcoal air cleaners.
Conditions and restrictions included in the waiver include the placement of smoking/non-smoking area signs and maintenance of all structures and systems featured in the application. The non-transferable waiver is only valid for the Marine Corps League, and no structural changes may be made to the smoking room without DOH approval.
DOH spokesman Claire Pospisil said the waiver is good for two years, expiring on April 5, 2006. She also noted it may be renewed by the enforcement officer following "an assessment of the facility's compliance with all waiver provisions."
Sterling said league members supported the detachment's efforts to acquire a CIAA waiver because they understood what a significant financial impact the law was having. He also stressed that the plan approved by DOH officials would protect non-smokers and employees, while allowing for the needs of patrons who smoke.
"The bottom line is it's good for everyone. It meets both ends of the spectrum," Sterling said. "We're just elated we got the waiver."
Poughkeepsie
Journal - April 10, 2004
Some
state bars getting smoky
10
counties have granted waivers
By Joseph
Manez
ALBANY -- Despite a statewide ban on lighting up cigarettes in restaurants and bars, some businesses are winning waivers to temporarily keep the smoking going.
And some county health departments have been more sympathetic than others to bar owners' pleas -- while some are refusing to grant any waivers.
Ten counties have issued a total of 86 waivers from the ban under the Clean Indoor Air Act, according to a report by the American Cancer Society this week. Oneida has doled out the most with 23, Chautauqua 19, Chemung 10, Onondaga 10 and Niagara nine.
The state health department, which oversees waivers for the 21 counties without full-service health departments, has issued five. It's turned down 45 requests. Bars and restaurants that apply for a waiver must show they've suffered financial hardship because of the ban, which became effective in June.
Criteria by end of month
Dutchess County Health Commissioner Dr. Michael Caldwell plans to have criteria for granting smoking ban waivers completed by the end of the month. The county Legislature would not have to approve the criteria.
He expects the criteria to be rigid enough that only rarely will waivers be granted to a stand-alone bar. Restaurants will not be eligible for waivers.
About 20 Dutchess businesses have requested waivers.
Tony Marchese, president of the Dutchess/Putnam Restaurant and Tavern Association, said local tavern owners are glad the waiver process will soon be available, considering the negative impact on restaurants and bars of the smoking ban.
''I'm glad he's doing what he's doing,'' Marchese said of Caldwell. ''Most of the bars are down 30 percent in business.''
Since the smoking ban was enacted, the county health department has issued 16 fines of $500 each to Dutchess businesses, Caldwell said.
In Ulster County, no smoking ban fines have been issued. Warnings have been made over the telephone and by mail to those businesses cited in complaints. The health department has received about 25 complaints since enactment of the ban.
''We call them up and explain the law to them,'' said Chip Schoonmaker, Ulster environmental health manager. ''We send them a copy of the law and a brochure giving information on the New York State Clean Indoor Air Act.''
Ulster Health Director Dean Palen is also still drawing up criteria for smoking ban waivers.
About 20 requests for waivers have been received, Schoonmaker said.
Some localities have taken a harder line. For example, Westchester and Livingston counties and New York City are prohibiting waivers outright. Calling it good news, smoking opponents said the number of waivers is low, given there are roughly 65,000 bars and restaurants in New York.
Oneida's nearly two dozen waivers has drawn criticism from smoking ban advocates who claim the county's criteria for granting waivers is weak.
But Oneida County officials said financial hardship isn't the principle reason they give waivers.
''Financial hardship is not a key issue,'' Oneida County Health Department Director Eric Faisst said. ''We wanted to focus on the intent of the law.''
NY
Newsday - April 9, 2004
Judge
upholds smoking ban
By Dan Janison
The city's year-old Smoke-free Air Act cleared a key legal test Thursday as a federal judge rejected a constitutional challenge by a smokers' rights group.
U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero shot down all the arguments from the group Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, or CLASH that the smoking ban violates rights to free expression, assembly, travel and equal protection.
Marrero even called the group's attempt to prove its case "akin to trying to scale Mount Everest with a ball of string."
"There is nothing to suggest that the smoking bans are aimed at the suppression of any expressive conduct," Marrero said.
The judge also rejected the group's attempt to discredit authorities' assertions that secondhand smoke causes death and injury and thereby argue that there was no "rational basis" for the law.
Marrero cited "immense support from the empirical data."
In another portion of the 83-page decision, the judge compares the smoking ban with stringent state auto exhaust emission laws.
While the law does "single out a particular class of persons" and "places some greater burdens on their activities," that doesn't mean it violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, he wrote.
"Smokers remain free to associate and assemble as they please, to smoke or not, whether it be in a bar, a restaurant, a city street or any other place where it is permissible to do so," he said.
City and state lawyers hailed the decision, issued in Manhattan.
The
Independent - April 9, 2004
Smoke
waiver plan smolders
By Jack Mabb
HUDSON--Five Columbia County businesses have applied for a waiver on the eight-month old ban on smoking in public places, claiming, through their applications, that the ban has seriously hurt their businesses.
To qualify for the waiver, an establishment must show that it has suffered at least a 15 percent decline of business because of the ban.
Local business people seeking the waiver vary on what they say the ban's impact has been. "Oh yeah, well over the 15%," said Tom Hope, owner of Peint 0 Gwrw, Ltd., a pub on Chatham's Main Street of the downturn of his busines. Madalyn Blasko, operator of the Turnpike Inn, in Ghent, said her business was "seriously affected." In Hudson, Melino's Pub owner Anthony Melino estimates his business has dropped off 30%.
The other applicants are Four Brothers in Valatie and Schweizer-Mauduit, in Ancram.Edward Coons of the County Health Department is handling the application review and site inspections. He says only two of the five applications have been deemed complete by his office. Schweizer-Mauduit's and Peint 0 Gwrw Ltd. Both those concerns have received site visits from Mr. Coons and he is now finalizing his recommendations. The Turnpike Inn application was just received this week. Mr. Coons says he has returned the Four Brothers and Melino's Pub applications for more information.
Beyond having to prove, through sales tax receipts for the last three years, that business has suffered, those applying for a waiver must also document their ability to have a separate smoking area that is away from the general traffic flow. Nonsmokers must be able to go to the restrooms and to access the services of the establishment without going through the smoking area. Additionally non-smoking staff must not be exposed to the smoking area.
Mr. Hope's Chatham pub offers an unusual application for the waiver. The pub opened two and half years ago as a non-smoking establishment.
"That was part of my marketing plan," said Mr. Hope, who added that he had heard from local residents that they wanted smoke-free establishment. When smokers started asking for an inside area they could smoke in, he opened a separate lounge upstairs that quickly became popular among younger patrons.
"I put in a pool table and dart board. There were times when you couldn't get up there," he said of the days before the ban. Afterwards, he added, "It just turned into a dead zone."
Mr. Hope, a former smoker himself, says this past winter, especially during the brutal cold of January, he felt sorry for the smokers who had to go outside.
"I just felt terrible. They're not lepers," he said, adding he will do whatever the department wants him to do as a waiver requirement. He said Mr. Coons did have some suggestions for door closers and a number of other adjustments.
Ms. Blasko says she and her husband Donald were ready to install an expensive ventilation system in order to allow customers to smoke in their Route 66 tavern. But upon review of the plan by the Albany Health Department she learned the department would not bend on the requirement for separate smoking/non-smoking areas.
At first the couple thought to make the bar a smoking area but found that customers wanted a smoke-free bar so they decided to make a side room, out of the flow of traffic the smoking room.
As the waiver regulations require, bathrooms are to be within the non-smoking area and non-smoking patrons do not have to pass through the smoking room. There must also be a ventilation system that prevents any smoke from leaking to the non-smoking area.
If Columbia County treats the request for waivers like other counties of the state, the applying establishments have a tough road to go. A study of 38 upstate counties, prepared at the end of February showed only 53 waivers had been issued. Just eight of the 38 counties issued any waivers at all with four Oneida, 16, Chautaugua, 10, Chemung, 9, and Onondaga, 9, accounting for 80% of them.
Half of the waivers went to taverns, food service establishments garnered nine, and bowling alleys and bingo halls had six each. Additionally, four businesses identified as industry received waivers.
Associated
Press - April 8, 2004
Federal
judge tosses out smoking-ban lawsuit
By Larry Neumeister
A judge has snuffed out a lawsuit seeking to overturn city and state bans on smoking in bars and restaurants, saying the challenge on constitutional grounds was so weak it was "akin to trying to scale Mount Everest with a ball of string."
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero concluded in a ruling released Thursday that New York state and city legislators were being rational when they used police powers over the health and welfare of the public to enact smoking bans.
Marrero rejected all the constitutional challenges brought by an organization calling itself NYC CLASH _ Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment.
A message left with a lawyer for the group was not immediately returned.
The group argued that the bans violated constitutional rights to freedom of speech, association and assembly, travel and equal protection.
The judge, though, said even with the bans, "smokers remain free to associate and assemble as they please, to smoke or not, whether it be in a bar, a restaurant, a city street or any other place where it is permissible to do so."
He said "mere conduct such as smoking is not generally considered speech" and is not protected by the First Amendment.
He rejected attempts to describe smoking as a form of expression, saying it was not like court cases brought to protect the right to burn a flag or to wear an armband to protest a war.
In their arguments, lawyers for CLASH had argued that smoking was a form of political speech, an act of rebellion against government.
Marrero said he was "not persuaded by the general proposition that a smoker's prevailing motivation for smoking a cigarette, whether it is done in a bar, restaurant or on a city street, is to convey a message with some profound expressive content to those around him."
By contrast, he said, the flag burner "is driven predominantly by his or her desire to make a statement, to voice an opposition and take a stand on a cause."
The judge said the government is granted greater leeway to restrict expressive conduct than the written or spoken word.
"There is nothing to suggest that the smoking bans are aimed at the suppression of any expressive conduct," Marrero said. "Nor are they aimed at the person as a smoker by reason of his social habit of choice or addiction, as the case may be."
The judge also rejected the group's claim that the laws are discriminatory because they demean and stigmatize smokers.
"The act of smoking is entirely unrelated to any condition of human being. It is simply not on the same elemental plateau as a person's sexual orientation in defining, in existential terms, who the individual is," he wrote.
Capital
9 News - April 8, 2004
Smoking
waivers granted to two bars
Two local bars have been granted smoking waivers.
According to the Post Star, the Department of Health has approved the waivers for Peter's Pub on Maple Street in Glens Falls and Good Times in Hudson Falls.
Smokers will be allowed to light up in designated, enclosed areas of the two establishments.
Officials said the bars proved they suffered "undue financial hardship" after the smoking ban went into effect in July.
WOKR
13 TV - April 8, 2004
Smoking
Law To Change?
By Jane Flasch
(Rochester, NY) - Up until now only two smoking waivers have been granted in Monroe County. It's possible that might change.
A state appellate court in Rochester could soon make a decision which would ultimately allow smoking in many area bars and restaurants.
The Center Street Smoke House in Batavia built a separate smoking room with its own ventilation system in order to obtain a smoking waiver.
Because food and drinks are not served in the separate space, employees are not exposed to second hand smoke.
However, because different counties interpret the law differently a separate room is still not enough to get a smoking waiver in Rochester. This is one reason Ronnie Davis, who owns three clubs, hasn't even applied.
"I’m not going to waste my time for someone to say ‘No,’" Davis said.
Scott Paul, at the Center Street Smokehouse, said, "You've denied those citizens in the county the same right the bars in the next county have. They're re-writing the guidelines the state intended."
A ruling by a state Supreme Court judge in Buffalo could change that.
The judge in Buffalo ruled that Erie County is too restrictive when it comes to granting waivers.
Her ruling implies that if a bar or restaurant has an enclosed smoking room which limits exposure to secondhand smoke, it would not need a waiver because it is already complying with the purpose and intent of the clean air act.
The state's highest court, based in Rochester, has been asked to review the decision. If the high court agrees, Rochester bars and their smoking patrons could force similar changes.
Davis said, "If there's any way to do it, I'll put in a ventilation system. People want it, they want to be able to smoke."
The state has said only businesses which can prove financial hardship can apply for a waiver. That's the standard in Monroe County but not for all counties.
The judge in Buffalo is calling for "equal enforcement." She said business owners shouldn't have to prove hardship and build a smoking room; one or the other is enough.
Tuesday, April 12, lawyers will file papers in state appellate court.
The justices could then schedule arguments for another day.
The court could uphold all, part, or none of the ruling.
Buffalo
News - April 8, 2004
County
goes to appellate court to halt bar's smoking waiver
By Matt Gryta
Rick Naylon and his Elmwood-Anderson Corp. are expected to learn early next week whether patrons at his Jimmy Mac's bistro on Elmwood Avenue will be able to smoke for the next six months, or if he will have to hide the ashtrays again, pending further court fights.
On Wednesday, Erie County filed a motion with the five-judge Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, seeking to vacate the six-month waiver of the state's no-smoking law a Buffalo judge granted Jimmy Mac's on Friday.
County Attorney Frederick A. Wolf and Joseph F. Reina, the assistant county attorney handling the case, said the county slightly altered its legal tactics and decided not to seek an immediate stay of the entire 14-page order issued by State Supreme Court Justice Rose H. Sconiers.
Wolf and Reina said that while the full Appellate Court on Tuesday will review papers from both sides on the six-month waiver issue, an actual courtroom hearing will be conducted in Rochester some months from now on the county's overall appeal of Sconier's decision.
Naylon declined to comment Wednesday, referring all questions to his attorneys.
Arthur G. Baumeister, one of Naylon's attorneys, confirmed that Jimmy Mac's has until Monday morning to file legal papers with the appellate court on lifting the six-month smoking waiver.
"We're going to vigorously oppose" the county government's request for the appellate court to either stay that portion of Sconiers' 14-page decision in the case or vacate her self-imposed waiver of the no-smoking ban for the next six months, he said.
Reina said the county is convinced Sconiers acted "in excess of her judicial authority" in vacating County Health Commissioner Anthony J. Billittier IV's Feb. 6 rejection of Jimmy Mac's application for a hardship waiver on the smoking ban.
Reina said the county will argue that Sconiers erred in finding Billittier acted in an illegally arbitrary and capricious manner in denying Jimmy Mac's waiver application.
Wolf stressed Sconiers' ruling only applies to Jimmy Mac's and not to any other Erie County businesses affected by the state's no-smoking law, which became effective last July.
"Her order, which we believe is legally incorrect, does not grant a waiver to anyone else and businesses had better make darn sure they abide by the law," Wolf said.
Democrat
and Chronicle - April 6, 2004
Positives
of smoking ban cited
Data
show healthier workers, but waivers are given unevenly.
By Joseph
Spector
Dale Steffen is torn over the state’s smoking ban.
As owner of The Kendall Inn in Orleans County, Steffen prefers not working in a smoky bar. But Steffen has lost customers because of the ban and, as a result, is trying to sell the place.
”Personally I like it because I don’t smoke,” he said. “But they should have their own right to do it.”
And so goes New York’s tough anti-smoking law that took effect last July and prohibits smoking in workplaces, including bars, restaurants and nightclubs, as well as off-track betting parlors, bowling alleys and company cars.
Evidence shows that the ban is starting to have a positive effect on sales and workers’ health, but counties are still wrestling with its enforcement, and some businesses remain adamant that it is hurting sales.
Counties enforce the ban differently. The 21 county health departments run by the state — including in Wayne and Ontario counties — determined in December that businesses would be eligible for a waiver if they can prove at least a 15 percent decline in sales tax receipts specifically related to the smoking ban.
The state Health Department has granted one waiver, to a restaurant in Oneonta, Otsego County.
But many of the 41 counties with their own health departments, including Genesee, Livingston, Orleans and Monroe, are staying clear of setting a financial threshold for receiving a waiver, arguing they would need a team of accountants to review a business’s books.
So some, such as in Genesee and Orleans, will consider granting waivers if businesses build separate smoking rooms that comply with a list of criteria. Monroe County has had several requests from businesses to build smoking rooms and has denied them.
Livingston County, meanwhile, is streamlining the process: No waivers at all.
”It’s very hard to determine financial hardship and say, ‘You deserve a waiver and you don’t,’” said Joan Ellison, the county’s health director.
Bar owners argue, for example, that it’s unfair that an establishment in one county could have a smoking room and one in another county couldn’t.
”The fact that we got a waiver is great, but it doesn’t level the playing field. It makes it worse,” said Cregg Paul, owner of the Center Street Smoke House in Batavia.
The barbecue joint got Genesee County’s only permanent waiver after it created a smoking room. But the waiver was revoked last week after health inspectors found the door to the room was broken.
Genesee County has also granted temporary waivers to two businesses that had smoking rooms but whose rooms needed to be updated to meet current codes.
An American Cancer Society survey shows that 10 counties have granted a total of 83 smoking ban waivers.
The Oneida County Health Department had granted the most waivers at 23.
Monroe County has granted two, both for compliance reasons: at Eastman Kodak Co. and for a temporary performance at Geva Theatre.
”The worries that rampant waivers would be granted has not come to fruition,” said Hillary Clarke, the cancer society’s local advocacy director.
Health advocates have also been encouraged by recent studies.
In the first 10 months of New York City’s ban, tax receipts from bars and restaurants rose 8.7 percent, city agencies said. A poll last week by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids found that 61 percent of the 500 respondents in New York support the ban.
And last month, the state Health Department found that saliva tests from a small group of bar and restaurant workers since the ban showed a significant drop in the levels of cotinine, a nicotine byproduct.
”Our overall impression is that the law is working as intended,” Clarke said.
”The air is clean, the public supports it, and the hospitality economy has remained strong.”
The
Villager - April 6, 2004
Some
bar owners are still fuming over smoking ban
By Elizabeth
O’Brien
Some local bar owners blasted Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s announcement that his year-old smoking ban has not hurt business in the city’s bars and restaurants.
On March 29, Bloomberg celebrated the anniversary of the ban by announcing that business tax receipts filed by bars and restaurants were up 8.7 from April 1, 2003, to January 31, 2004, compared with the same period the previous year.
But some nightspot proprietors called that comparison flawed, since the data does not show the smoking ban’s impact on bars alone. By combining the whole hospitality industry, the bar business appears to get a boost whenever a new Starbucks opens, said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association and an owner of Lotus, a nightclub on W. 14th St.
Another problem with the data, Rabin said, was that the 8.7 jump came as the restaurant and bar business began to bounce back from the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attack. Such an increase would only be expected after the dramatic dip in business post-9/11, he explained.
“2002 is a horrendous year — to compare this year’s results to last year’s is patently absurd,” Rabin said.
But a spokesperson for the city Dept. of Finance said the nightlife industry should be pleased that the ban did not live up to bar owners’ predictions of 30 or 40 percent profit losses and widespread layoffs.
“They were basically predicting gloom and doom and they were wrong,” said Sam Miller, the spokesperson.
Miller said the city could not accurately measure the impact of the smoking ban on bars alone, since most bars serve food and some small bar owners identify themselves as restaurants on tax forms.
Rabin said the smoking ban has particularly hurt smaller bars and pubs. Dave McWater, the owner of four neighborhood bars on Avenue A, agreed. Although he declined to specify exactly how the ban had affected his bottom line, McWater said that until it began he had never experienced a month without growth.
McWater said the ban hurt his businesses more than he expected, but that he had enough resources to weather the dip in revenues.
Eric Petterson, a partner in the Coffee Shop at Union Square, said his beverage sales were actually up five percent since the smoking ban started, compared with the previous year. He explained that since his business was 55 percent food and 45 percent drink, the ban might not affect it as much as it would a pure bar.
Petterson said one negative consequence of the ban has been that his staff must devote more time and effort now to cleaning cigarette butts off the sidewalk.
“But that’s just the nature of the beast,” Petterson said.
McWater and Rabin both voiced concern about the increase in noise complaints that have accompanied the smoking ban as patrons light up outside. This noise has stiffened community resistance to supporting liquor-licensed premises in their neighborhoods, and this will ultimately make it much harder for young entrepreneurs to open bars, they said.
“I think it’s a very, very dangerous trend, and it’s directly related to the mayor’s ban,” Rabin said.
WROC
TV - April 5, 2004
Smoking
Ban Waiver Revoked
A bar in Genesee County that led a fight against the state smoking ban has lost its waiver.
Health officials say the Center Street Smokehouse in Batavia did not put a door on its designated smoking room. They revoked the waiver, because once one is granted, businesses must have an enclosed smoking room with a ventilation system.
The Center Street Smokehouse was one of four businesses to get waivers from the Genesee County Health Department. They had to prove a loss of business because of the ban.
Post
Standard - April 3, 2004
'Butt
hut' deemed legal
Structure
used by county employee smokers allowed under Clean Indoor Air Act.
By John Stith
No ifs, ands, or buts about it, it's legal to smoke in the so-called "butt hut" behind the Cayuga County Office Building in Auburn.
"So long as there wasn't a door connecting the hut to the workplace, and no one was required to go in there and perform any sort of work duties such as cleaning . . . that type of structure was permitted," said Scott King on Friday. King is the county health and human services department public health sanitarian.
King said the county confirmed with the state health department last summer that the smoking shed is allowed under the indoor smoking ban that went into effect July 24. The county received a complaint Friday about people smoking in the butt hut.
The butt hut might even be a protected right under the county's contract with Civil Service Employees Association Local 806, which represents more than 200 employees working at the county office building.
"Once you allow somebody to do something, it's really difficult to change what has been a past practice," said county Legislature Chairman Herbert D. Marshall, R-Port Byron.
Attempts to reach Local 806 President Marilyn Cowen on Friday afternoon were unsuccessful.
The hut is a wooden shed abutting the office building with a slightly sloped roof, windows and a door. It's just barely big enough to hold a picnic table and a few standing ashtrays, and is used by county employees as a place to smoke.
Frank Thomas, financial officer for the John Cool American Legion Post 257, filed a formal complaint on Friday with the county health department alleging that allowing people to smoke in the shed violates the state's amended Clean Indoor Air Act. The law bans smoking in most indoor public places, including the legion hall.
Post Commander Richard Potempa said legion officers paid a $250 fine on Wednesday for violating the smoking ban. As they left the county office building that day, they spotted the butt hut. They were unhappy, Potempa said.
"They got a smoking room - no ventilation, nothing - right there on the health department building," he said. "I couldn't believe it when we walked out of there. I seen that, after here we've just paid a fine, but they can do it. It's kind of hypocritical, don't you think?"
County Environmental Management Director Eileen O'Connor said the county this week checked again with state health officials, who reiterated their position of last summer that the smoking shed is permitted.
O'Connor said other businesses or organizations in the county could consider a similar solution to on-site smoking problems.
"That type of facility would be OK elsewhere, at other places," she said. "And, we've told other employers, a facility like a restaurant, they could have something like that as well."
Marshall said the butt hut was erected around 1995.
He said the shed was built by county office staff, and the materials cost about $1,000.
County officials have talked about what to do with the shed in light of the smoking restrictions, he said.
For Potempa, it's a fairness issue.
"You're going to tell him you fought a war, but you can't smoke in your own Legion. . . . It's hard for me to tell a veteran that he can't smoke in his own club," he said.
Potempa noted that some military veterans even received a cigarette ration while in the service.
The Legion officers assured the county this week they will crack down on illicit smoking.
The Legion has now paid separate fines of $100 and $250. State law allows for a fine of up to $1,000 for violating the law.
Potempa said the money that goes toward fines would otherwise go to the post's charitable giving, such as paying $675 to send three people to this year's Boys' State, scheduled for June 27 to July 3 at Morrisville State College.
The county health department has already received yet another complaint from the public about smoking at the Legion post, according to Thomas.
Scott said the facility can expect a follow-up visit by a department technician sometime within two weeks.
Buffalo
News - April 3, 2004
Smoking
ban waived for 6 months at Jimmy Mac's
By Matt Gryta
The operator of Jimmy Mac's, a popular Elmwood Avenue bistro, was told by a judge Friday to "smoke 'em if you've got 'em," at least for the next six months.
State Supreme Court Justice Rose H. Sconiers granted Rick Naylon an immediate six-month waiver from the state's no-smoking law.
Sconiers faulted Erie County's health commissioner, Dr. Anthony J. Billittier IV, for legislating and improperly expanding the state's smoking restrictions that took effect in July. She claimed he imposed "some significant" different standards.
While ruling that the Billittier-imposed operating conditions were arbitrary and capricious and beyond his powers as health commissioner, Sconiers urged both sides to evaluate the matter over the next six months.
County Attorney Frederick A. Wolf said the county would not comment immediately on Sconiers' ruling or whether it will be appealed. Billittier was unavailable to comment Friday night.
Naylon said the judge "has given us a six-month window to operate our saloon the way it was operating for 23 years. Hopefully within that time, maybe the county and the state and legislators can come up with a more logical, rational and reasonable way to deal with smoke in bars."
Naylon's attorney, Nicholas P. Amigone III, said he was "gratified the judge agreed with us that Billittier far exceeded his authority."
In her decision, Sconiers held that while Billittier's demand that businesses entirely eliminate exposure of employees and nonsmoking patrons to secondhand smoke is "a laudable goal, it is not what (the state law) requires in order to obtain a waiver."
Sconiers also noted that while the state health commissioner is empowered to grant two-year waivers for businesses in counties without health commissioners, she called "irrational" Billittier's mandate limiting any local business to a one-year waiver.
The judge also faulted Billittier's requirement that Naylon prove he suffered a drop of at least 15 percent in sales "solely" due to the smoking ban as unduly restrictive and improper legislating by a nonlawmaker.
The judge called the state's requirements for showing undue financial hardship justifying a waiver much more liberal than Billittier's because they take into account capital expenditures made prior to the law and "other exceptional circumstances resulting in adverse economic impacts."
She also cited state guidelines allowing waivers if a business can demonstrate "that there are safety, security or other factors that would make compliance unreasonable" under the no-smoking law.
She called the Erie County guidelines "irrational" because businesses like Naylon's would have to prove the no-smoking law "is the sole reason for a decline in business," a more severe requirement than under the state law.
During a March 5 court hearing, Amigone said that since the smoking ban went into effect, Jimmy Mac's had suffered "a precipitous decline" in revenue, which caused layoffs and threatened the business' viability.
Associated
Press - April 3, 2004
Two
OTBs get smoking waivers; Buffalo bistro wins suit
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) _ Two Off-Track Betting parlors in Oswego County have been granted waivers from the state's tough anti-smoking rules, while the operator of a Buffalo bistro won a waiver after suing in state court.
The Oswego County Board of Health on Friday granted waivers from the statewide ban on public indoor smoking to the OTB parlors in Central Square and Phoenix.
Waivers were rejected for the OTB parlor in Oswego and a tavern in Schroeppel. In March, the board approved four business waivers and rejected five.
Affected businesses have to show financial hardship from the ban and ensure that employees and non-smokers are protected from second-hand smoke.
The Central Square OTB showed that betting activity between November and January fell almost 42 percent from the previous year, and it spent $3,780 to minimize second-hand smoke.
The Phoenix OTB showed a 13.2 percent business drop and spent $127,500 to build a separate smoking room. The Oswego OTB showed a 6.6 percent drop, and its smoking room was found to be too close to the building entrance.
In Buffalo, State Supreme Court Justice Rose Sconiers on Friday granted Rick Naylon a six-month waiver from the no-smoking law for his Jimmy Mac's bistro.
Sconiers found that Erie County Health Commissioner Dr. Anthony Billittier improperly expanded the restrictions in requiring businesses to entirely eliminate smoke exposure of employees and nonsmokers. She also found unduly restrictive a requirement that Naylon prove he lost at least 15 percent in sales solely due to the smoking ban.
Knight
Ridder Newspapers - March 30, 2004
A
year after New York smoking ban, debate still rages over effects
By Miriam
Hill
NEW YORK - (KRT) - Moses Rodriguez says he's healthier.
Theodore Lauterborn, on the other hand, says he's out of work, forced to close his family's 100-year-old Queens bar.
A year after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned smoking in bars and restaurants, city officials, most nonsmokers, and even a few smokers claim big benefits - including 1,000 fewer smoking-related deaths a year, clothes that no longer reek of tobacco after a night out, and the ability to breathe deeply at a bar without coughing.
But restaurants and many smokers are fighting to overturn the ban. They say it has cut sales by 30 percent at many establishments, reduced tips for bartenders, and forced residents to deal with the noise of smokers who now congregate on the sidewalks to light up.
"It has effectively changed the tone of New York nightlife," said Michael Musto, nightlife columnist for the Village Voice. "I don't smoke and didn't love coming home and having my clothes smell like smoke, but all the bad behavior you're supposed to indulge in in a nightclub, that's what it's all about."
So far, the banning advocates seem to be gaining momentum. On Monday, Ireland banned smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants and pubs, despite strong protests from pub owners. Several states, including Delaware and California, have banned smoking in indoor public places. In Philadelphia, Councilman Michael Nutter introduced legislation last year to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, but it failed to generate support in City Council.
New York bar owners took their fight to Albany after the state adopted the ban in July and are pushing to allow smoking in bars and restaurants with filtration systems. Some barkeeps are rebelling, allowing smoking after 11 p.m., when they believe city inspectors have gone home. New Yorkers call such places "smoke-easies."
City officials, however, say they won't back down. They note that 80 percent of New Yorkers are nonsmokers. The health benefits of avoiding secondhand smoke are also well-documented, and the economic losses minimal, said Thomas Frieden, the New York City health commissioner.
"We've measured air quality, and during one minute in a smoky bar, you are exposed to as much pollution as you would be standing for an hour at Holland Tunnel during rush hour," Frieden said. Secondhand smoke is known to increase heart disease, cancer and infant deaths, he said. He calls arguments that filtration systems protect people from secondhand smoke "a lot of hot air."
But David Rabin, owner of Lotus, a Meatpacking District nightclub where Mick Jagger has hung out, and president of the New York Nightlife Association, said commercial filtration systems kept air almost 100 percent clean. He also said the exemption would be only for establishments that generated 60 percent or more of their income from alcohol sales - those believed to be hardest hit by the ban.
The economic impact has been difficult to measure, because statistics include all restaurants, including fast-food outlets and others that do not sell alcohol.
Those numbers show that from April 2003 to January, the city collected about $17.3 million in tax payments from bars and restaurants, a rise of about $1.4 million over the year-earlier period.
One indicator suggests that owning a bar is just as popular now as before the ban: The New York State Liquor Authority says it received 127 applications for liquor licenses in a recent month, one more than in late 2002.
Nonsmokers such as Moses Rodriguez of the Bronx say they enjoy going out more now.
"It's better for your health," he said. "I hate the odor of cigarettes in general."
Some smokers even see benefits.
"To tell you the truth, I smoke less," said Brandy Wykes, as she stood outside the Whiskey Ward in the East Village smoking with friends.
Bar owners say they are hurting. They don't like telling their patrons to go outside or stop smoking. They say that many smokers, denied the pleasant melange of alcohol and tobacco, simply stay home.
Joseph Franco, owner of Caffe on the Green in Queens, a bar and restaurant in a home formerly owned by Rudolph Valentino, said his bar business fell about 35 percent immediately after the ban. It has picked up since he added a "butt hut," an outdoor tent where patrons may smoke, but it's still less than before the ban. He said he had to cut one of his bartenders to weekends only.
Patrons "don't want to go out and be subjected to not being able to smoke," he said.
Lauterborn, 60, said his bar, Roesch's in Queens, saw 40 customers nightly before the ban but only about five after it. He closed in September and says his children are supporting him while he looks for work.
"When the smoking ban hit, it was like a ton of bricks," he said. "It just killed the business instantly. I didn't even have time to regroup."
Times
Herald-Record - March 30, 2004
High
bar for smoking waivers
By Brendan
Scott
Goshen – Orange County smokers, don't hold your breath.
The county Health Department has just released its guidelines for restaurants and bars seeking a waiver from New York's indoor smoking ban. And they're so strict, tavern owners say it's unlikely any Orange County bar patrons will ever again legally smoke a cigarette in their favorite neighborhood pub.
Not only do the new regulations require business owners to build a separate, self-ventilated smoking chamber, no hostess or bartender can set foot in the room. An alarm must sound if the door is left open for more than 60 seconds. Providing four years of sales-tax receipts that show a decline in sales since the Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect last July is not enough to qualify for a smoking ban waiver. Proprietors must prove the business losses don't stem from the stricter drunken driving laws enacted around the same time.
"It's totally unfair," fumed Jim Mullany, owner of the small, library-like bar that Goshen pub crawlers simply know as "Maureen's." "I don't think anybody in Orange County can meet these requirements."
Like many of the 200 or so licensed liquor sellers in Orange County, Mullany claims business has wafted away in the wake of the Clean Indoor Air Act. Some tavern owners hoped that a provision requiring counties to offer "hardship" waivers would provide some relief.
But the legislation allowed each county health department to draft its own standards and their approaches have varied, to say the least.
In Oneida County, where the county executive came out in support of restaurant and bar owners, health officials have already granted 23 waivers. That's more than a third of the 60 waivers issued statewide, according to a running survey by the American Cancer Society.
But some county health departments, like those in Orange and Erie counties, decided to apply the full power of the new law in their own rules.
Orange County Health Commissioner Dr. Jean Hudson said she doesn't think the regulations are draconian. She said county health inspectors have met with a handful of business owners to accommodate those who don't have the space for a separate smoking room.
"Business owners, even if they get a waiver, must still meet the environmental requirements laid out in the law," Hudson said. The guidelines, she said, comply with "the spirit of the act."
Sullivan County, which doesn't have an organized health department, is one of 21 counties supervised by the state. Of the 14 establishments that applied directly to the state Health Department, only one has gotten a waiver. An Ulster County health official did not return a call for comment.
Still, the economic impact of the indoor smoking ban remains a matter of heated dispute.
Yesterday, a New York City report found sales tax receipts from city bars and restaurants actually increased 9 percent in the 10 months since the city's own smoking ban began.
Locally, Dana Distributors Inc., which serves Orange Rockland and Sullivan counties, reports their tap beer sales have dropped 9 percent since the smoking ban. Package beer sales, on the other hand, have held steady.
Russell Sciandra, president of the Center for a Tobacco-Free New York, called the economic issue a red herring. He hailed Orange County's waiver guidelines.
"This law is to protect people from a known carcinogen," Sciandra said. "We don't give people waivers to allow asbestos in buildings. We don't give waivers so you can park a truck outside a restaurant and pump exhaust through the window."
Smoking-room standards
To qualify for a smoking ban waiver in Orange County, a bar or restaurant owner must be willing to operate a smoking room that:
Is totally isolated from all nonsmoking areas from floor
to ceiling.
Has its own ventilation system with an exhaust strong
enough to create negative pressure in the room.
Has self-closing doors and an alarm that sounds if a door
is left open for more than 60 seconds.
That does not consume more than 20 percent of the establishment's
overall floor space.
Does not allow waiters, bartenders, other employees, or
any person under 18 years of age to enter.
Has a plan to remove garbage, glasses, etc., and handle
other problems in the room without employee entrance or exposure.
The
Publican - March 29, 2004
New
York bars face new smoking clampdown
Pubs and bars in New York are facing a new clampdown from health officials enforcing the City's smoking ban.
Health officials say that despite the fact that 97 per cent of bars and restaurants are complying with the law it received 2,833 complaints about illegal smoking at bars and restaurants in the past year.
A number of late-night bars in the city are understood to have been flouting the ban and allowing customers to smoke, especially late at night when enforcement officials have not been working.
Health department spokeswoman Sandra Mullin said in the New York Post: "Officials will inspect places late at night and into the morning especially when we receive complaints related to violations at those times.
David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association, said: "In many parts of town, places have to choose between risking a ticket for allowing smoking inside or getting summons for the noise of their patrons out front smoking."
Associated
Press - March 29, 2004
NYC
restaurant tax receipts up 8.7% since city implemented its smoking ban
In the first 10 months after the city instituted a ban on smoking in public places, tax receipts from bars and restaurants jumped 8.7 percent, according to a report by several city agencies.
From April 2003 through January 2004, the city collected about $17.4 million in tax receipts from bars and restaurants, compared with $16 million in that period a year earlier, said the report, to be issued Monday by the Departments of Finance, Health & Mental Hygiene and Small Business Services and the Economic Development Corp.
The city said the findings indicate that concerns the smoking ban would choke restaurants and bars were unfounded.
"One year later, the data are clear," the report said. "The city's bar and restaurant industry is thriving and its workers are breathing cleaner, safer air."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed the smoking ban into law a year ago, stamping out smoking in most public places.
Some opponents of the ban say their establishments are suffering as a result of the no-smoking law. Owners of nearly two dozen hookah bars recently requested an exemption from the law, saying their businesses have been hurt by the ban. A hookah is a kind of pipe with a tube for drawing smoke through water in a bowl.
Currently, cigar bars, designated hotel and motel rooms, tobacco retailers and membership associations operated by unpaid volunteers are the only establishments exempt from the law.
Yet, the city said the indications for the industry were generally strong. The city's report found that the number of workers employed in bars and restaurants averaged 164,000 in 2003, the highest number in at least a decade. The industry added a seasonally adjusted 2,800 jobs between March and December 2003.
The number of bars and restaurants in the city remained unchanged between third-quarter 2002 and 2003, the most recent time for which statistics were available.
At the end of 2003 the city had 9,747 active liquor licenses outstanding, a net gain of 234 from 2002.
The city said that 97 percent of the 22,000 bars and restaurants inspected between April 2003 and February 2004 were in compliance with the ban, meaning that no patrons or workers were seen smoking, no ashtrays were present and "No Smoking" signs were properly displayed.
NY
Newsday - March 29, 2004
Some
bars skirt smoking ban
By Christine
Armario
Plenty of bartenders agree with the city that they're doing better since the start of the smoking ban. Better at outfoxing the smoke police, that is.
"One place at 1 a.m. had a 10-minute smoke-in," said bartender John Twomey, 55, smoking a cigarette outside a West Village bar.
Twomey said the bar, which he declined to name, handed out shot glasses with water for patrons to later extinguish their cigarettes.
"It sounds like a speakeasy," Twomey said. "Everyone laughed about it."
But as bar owners and employees continued to bemoan the ban, city officials and health groups gathered yesterday at the Blind Tiger Ale House on Hudson Street to celebrate the controversial ban's first anniversary. They said the law has made 97 percent of the city smoke-free.
"New York City is a healthier place to work, eat and drink," said city Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. "The law has not hurt the bar and restaurant industry and 150,000 more workers in New York City breathe smoke-free air."
David Brodrick, owner of the Blind Tiger, said he had misgivings about how the law would affect his business.
"I was feeling nervous about the smoking law. The first six weeks were a lot of change but it went smoothly and business didn't suffer," Brodrick said.
But Bob Zuckerman, executive director of the New York Nightlife Association, was skeptical about the city's figures. "We are comparing statistics from 2003 to 2002 when the economy was recovering form the effects of 9/11," Zuckerman said. "Any industry's earnings would be up."
Zuckerman said he too had heard "anecdotal evidence" of the relaxed attitude some places have taken.
"I know a lot of people waiting till after hours and going to smoke on the East Side," said Lisa Jones, 24, a bartender at Fiddlestick's Pub and Grill in the West Village.
Yet the need to find creative solutions has hardly enticed patrons.
"It makes me feel like a criminal that I have to go outside to smoke," said Paco Brown, 38.
According to city officials, 10,600 new jobs have been created in the restaurant industry past year. But Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the ban was about more than just money.
"It's not just the economy," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "It's the right thing to do. And those who want to run against it, you know, good luck on having a campaign on bringing back smoking."
Scotsman.com
- March 28, 2004
Counting
the cost of New York's smoking ban
By Richard
Luscombe
IT IS early evening in Swift’s, a Scottish-themed pub in the heart of Manhattan’s East Village, and bar manager Sean Byrne is surveying the rows of empty stools.
The first anniversary of a controversial smoking ban introduced to New York’s bars and restaurants is on Tuesday, and Byrne says he and many others across the city are left counting the cost of the lost business it has caused.
"It’s absolutely killed us," he said. "This time last year the bar would be packed with the after-work cocktail crowd. Now they just take a bottle of wine or a six-pack to each other’s apartments, where they can smoke.
"They don’t come in for lunch any more either. Business is down 40%, and we’ve had to cut back on our shifts."
While some bar owners and restaurateurs say the smoke-free atmosphere has attracted new customers, many others have stories similar to Swift’s. Ciaran
Most bar-going New Yorkers want a more reasonable smoking law.
Staunton, proprietor of the mid-town O’Neill’s bar near Grand Central Station, says he has laid off three staff.
"It was one of the great myths that kicking out the smokers would lead to non-smokers coming to the pubs and bars in their droves," said Staunton, who says he has lost 20% of his business since last March.
"People who don’t go to pubs just don’t go to pubs. They said the ban would be good for business and for employees, yet my business is down and three good staff are out of work and unable to find another job.
"One big irony is that most of my staff are smokers, and now they’re being protected from second-hand smoke."
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg cited concerns over employees’ health as a main reason for the ban, which can see landlords fined £550 if customers are found smoking.
"You have a right to smoke, you just don’t have a right to make somebody else sick and kill them, and that’s what second-hand smoking does," he said, when he announced the extension of an existing ban on smoking in offices and public buildings to pubs, clubs, restaurants and other places where people gather socially. A similar ban comes into effect in the Republic of Ireland tomorrow.
Some say Bloomberg’s intentions have backfired. "Since the ban took away my customers and cut my tips in half, I can’t afford to pay my health insurance," said Vanessa Rohrbach, a bartender on the Upper East Side. "They said it would help employees."
The issue has become a political hot potato for Bloomberg, who faces a tough battle for re-election next year. New York newspapers have been debating the unpopularity of the ban, and respected New York political consultant Hank Skeinkopf said: "This could lose Bloomberg 400,000 votes."
Given that the billionaire media tycoon won the November 2001 election by a margin of less than 44,000, he cannot afford such a backlash, yet he appears determined to stick to his guns.
City health commissioner, Thomas Frieden, will tomorrow release data on the first year of the ban, which will claim that 150,000 New Yorkers are now protected from second-hand smoke, and that air-pollution levels have dropped. Frieden says that before the ban, second-hand smoke claimed the lives of 1,000 city bartenders and waiters each year, and led to the daily treatment of 100 children for asthma, ear or lung infections.
The success stories, however, are unlikely to appease those bar and restaurant owners who have lost business. The New York Nightlife Association - a trade association for the city’s pubs, clubs and lounges, is calling on Bloomberg to implement changes that will allow smoking in certain places, such as those bars with air-filtration systems installed.
The group claims that 76% of 300 members surveyed about the ban said business had fallen by an average 30%. "The majority of bar-going New Yorkers want a more reasonable smoking law," said Bob Zuckerman, executive director of the NYNA. "The ban went too far."
NY
Newsday - March 28, 2004
City
to make case for smoking ban
By Herbert
Lowe
The Bloomberg administration intends Monday to make its case that the city's ban on smoking in restaurants and bars is not hurting businesses or costing people their jobs.
"One year later, the data are clear," states a new report that was produced by four municipal agencies and was to be released at a city news conference. "The city's bar and restaurant industry is thriving and its workers are breathing cleaner, safer air."
Despite outcries from smoking and business advocates, the city's Smoke-Free Air Act went into effect a year ago Tuesday.
According to the report, because of the ban:
· Business tax receipts in restaurants and bars are up 8.7 percent.
· Jobs in restaurants and bars have increased by 10,600.
· Air quality in those places has improved dramatically.
· Levels of cotinine, a tobacco byproduct, decreased by 85 percent in nonsmoking workers in bars and restaurants.
· 150,000 fewer New Yorkers are exposed to second-hand smoke while at work.
The report also insists that New Yorkers overwhelmingly support the law.
"The vast majority of New Yorkers ... say they are more likely to patronize bars and restaurants now that they are smoke-free," the report states.
The New York Nightlife Association, one of the ban's most vocal opponents, could not be reached for comment.
Associated
Press - March 28, 2004
Poll:
New Yorkers support smoking ban
More than 60 percent of New Yorkers support the ban on smoking in workplaces, including restaurants and bars, according to a new poll by an anti-smoking group.
The survey by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids found that 61 percent of respondents "strongly" support the ban, while another 14 percent "somewhat" support it.
Women favor the ban more strongly than men, with 80 percent in support and 19 percent opposed, the poll found. That compared with 70 percent of men who favor the ban and 19 percent opposed.
"Those are amazing numbers," Josh Isay, a spokesman for the group, told The Daily News for Sunday editions. "People should know that contrary to some press reports, this law is very popular ... it's a vocal minority that opposes the law."
But Bob Zuckerman, of the New York Nightlife Association, said the poll had been designed to skew results toward the ban.
"When you group bars and restaurants together, you get a much different result than if you just ask about bars," he told the News. "We continue to hear from members and even nonmembers that the smoking ban has hurt business and curtailed the bar business."
The poll of 500 registered voters had a margin of error of 4.5 percent.
Associated
Press - March 25, 2004
Restaurants
divided on anniversary of workplace smoking ban
By Carolyn
Thompson
A year after Gov. George Pataki signed legislation to snuff out cigarettes in virtually every place of business, the bars and restaurants most affected remain divided over whether it has helped or hurt them.
Supporters of the ban, meant to protect workers' health, celebrated the anniversary of its passage with cake and discounts Thursday, even as opponents were pushing lawmakers for changes.
The former president of the California Restaurant Association, meanwhile, predicted that a favorable consensus would eventually follow the ups and downs. California enacted a smoke-free restaurant law in 1995 and banned smoking in bars in 1998.
"I can assure you," Paul McIntyre said, "that when you hit your 10th birthday, you'll look back just the way we look back at airlines today and say, `Wow, I can't believe we ever had it any other way."'
Lee Federiconi, owner of Lebro's, credits the smoke-free atmosphere in his suburban Buffalo restaurant with an 8 percent rise in food sales and 11 percent increase in alcohol sales over the past year. More customers coming in for dinner now start and finish the evening with a drink at the bar, he said, rather than eat and run.
"Technically, I've gained four drinks by (being) smoke-free," said Federiconi, one of a dozen western New York business owners to rally around the ban Thursday.
But the Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Association said hundreds of other business owners have sought hardship waivers amid sinking sales.
"There is mounting evidence that New York's smoking ban has imposed a great deal of economic harm on the state's hospitality industry," the association's director, Scott Wexler, said.
Wexler's group supports a proposal to permit smoking in bars and bar areas of restaurants that operate super-efficient air-filtration systems.
"If the technology used to protect against bioterrorism and to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in hospitals can be used to clean the air in bars and restaurants, then what's the problem?" he asked.
Dr. Michael Cropp, medical director of the HMO Independent Health, one of several health agencies expressing support for the ban Thursday, responded that such systems would leave smoke's tiniest toxins in the air.
"There is no machine capable of filtering the air quickly and completely enough to protect nonsmokers to the extent that the current law protects them," Cropp said.
Besides restaurants and bars, the Clean Indoor Air law, which took effect July 24, outlaws smoking in Off-Track Betting parlors, bowling alleys and pool halls, company cars, enclosed parking lots and outdoors around the entrances to public buildings.
Buffalo
News - March 25, 2004
COUNTY
SETS APPLICATIONS FOR SMOKING BAN WAIVERS
By Michael
Zwelling
Andrew Lucyszyn, director of the Orleans County Health Department, told the County Legislature on Wednesday that he hopes to make applications for smoking ban waivers available to businesses by April 1.
The county's Health Department approved a policy for waivers Tuesday that permits businesses to allow smoking in a separate and ventilated room, but the economic impact of the ban on business is not part of the equation.
"As a Health Department, we're more concerned about health issues than economic issues," Lucyszyn said.
While the state recommends a 15 percent loss of revenue for businesses and not-for-profit organizations for waiver eligibility, Orleans County has decided on zero percent loss.
The reasons cited by the health board includes that the revenue requirement is a disadvantage to new businesses, which have no previous revenue to base a loss on, and as a cost savings to the county.
"By the time we pay for someone to go through the paperwork submitted to determine if their 15 percent loss is accurate, we'll spend more than we make," Lucyszyn said. The county plans to include a $100 fee to apply for a waiver.
The smoking rooms, whether modifications of existing space or new additions, must meet size and ventilation requirements and must receive approval from the Board of Health.
Legislative Chairman Marcia B. Touhey praised the waiver.
"It's a very controversial topic, and I think the board did a wonderful job of angling it," she said.
Times
Union - March 24, 2004
Advocates
toast state's smoking ban
Albany--
Supporters celebrate first anniversary of Clean Indoor Air Act as debate
continues over impact on bars
By Erin Duggan
A year after the state Legislature passed the Clean Indoor Air Act, advocates held a party at the Capitol heralding the law as a boon for business and public health.
"Smoke-free New York is working," said Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York. Sciandra pointed to a recent survey of nonsmoking bartenders that showed an 85 percent drop in how much nicotine their bodies had absorbed and to a slight increase in the number of New York's hospitality jobs. The ban, which took effect July 24, is helping business, Sciandra said, because "more people want to go out and eat and drink."
But for each of Sciandra's figures, the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association had its own set of numbers: declines in both bar and restaurant sales, fewer New York City restaurant openings, a drop in Quick Draw revenue and, since April 2001, a loss of 7,000 hospitality jobs in the New York City area. Whether those losses are a product of the smoking ban, the economy or Sept. 11 is hard to say.
Rick Sampson, president of the New York State Restaurant Association, said his members are generally pleased with the ban.
"There's an adjustment period," he said. "Not just for the restaurants, but for the customers."
For avid smokers who aren't patronizing smoke-free restaurants, Sampson said it will just take time.
"Do they really think smokers are never going to dine out again?" he said.
His association does have two problems with the law. First, he said, local health departments should be more proactive in enforcing the ban. Currently, they respond primarily to complaints, so some bartenders still permit smoking.
Second, the state law allowed county health departments to decide for themselves who would get waivers from the ban. The issuance of those waivers has not been consistent between counties -- some gave waivers to most businesses that showed measurable loss of revenue, others, like New York City and Westchester, have granted none.
The state Health Department is not tracking waivers issued by each county. Spokesman William Van Slyke said state and local health inspectors are doing spot checks specifically for compliance with the no-smoking law and checking for violations during routine inspections.
Legislative
Gazette - March 22, 2004
Technology
can clear air of smoke, CEO claims
By Michael
Trupo
A Western New York company official says technology is capable of clearing rooms of the smoke and toxins emitted from burning tobacco.
Paul Chirayath, chief executive officer of Failsafe Air Systems, said the filters produced by his company are being used in hospitals and by the military. The filters are designed to remove airborne pathogens such as viruses from an enclosed environment. Chirayath said removing tobacco smoke and toxins is a relatively easy challenge to meet.
“We get rid of smallpox and anthrax and things like that,” Chirayath said.
FailSafe, based in Tonawanda, provided documents that said its portable air purification systems have been tested independently. During tests conducted in 1997 by EnviroSafe, a consultant to the Department of Cancer Control and Epidemiology at Roswell Park Cancer Center, researchers found that the booth provided an “acceptable level” of contaminant containment.
Chirayath said similar filtration systems are in place in some restaurants, including Dickie’s Donuts in Buffalo. David Costanzo, owner of a Dickie’s location, said his experience with FailSafe’s Model 7000 has been positive. Costanzo said he never had any complaints about smoke escaping the booth. In addition, smoking customers are served with take-out containers that they take into the booth with them. This, Costanzo said, prevented non-smoking employees from having to work in the smoking booth.
Costanzo went on to say that the unit in his store cost about $8,000, including building permit fees and related electrical work. He said the booth was worth the initial cost as it allowed smoking customers to stay within the store and make purchases of food and coffee.
Costanzo said he has definitely lost business since the New York State smoking ban went into effect. Though his losses have not reached the 15 percent required to apply for a smoking ban waiver, the 5 to 6 percent loss is a detriment to his business. His biggest loss has been in coffee sales to smokers who used to pay for multiple take-out beverages, but now usually buy one cup and exit the store.
According to Chirayath, establishments have the option of installing an enclosed booth for smoking, or retrofitting the building with filtering equipment. Prices range from about $3,000 for a basic booth, up to $30,000 for a complete building retrofit. In terms of energy costs, Chirayath said the basic unit uses three amps, about as much electricity as a microwave oven. He added that the initial cost of installing a FailSafe system is still much easier to bear than the financial losses many establishments have faced as a result of New York’s smoking ban.
In terms of reliability Chirayath said the filters are like any other mechanical device. When used and maintained properly they will perform as designed. However, if the filtering equipment is neglected, it will fail to clean smoke from the air.
Chirayath rebutted claims made by some health professionals and the American Cancer Society that filters can never remove enough tobacco toxins from the air to be deemed effective. He said FailSafe technology is a patented filter design that is unique in that it uses HEPA filters, carbon filters and ozone to not only capture, but eliminate, toxins.
Answering questions about the toxicity of the ozone used in the process, Chirayath said it did not present a threat to consumers. He compared ozone to other airborne chemicals saying, “Oxygen is a contaminant [in the air] if it’s more than 25 parts per million.”
He said his company’s machines emit a negligible amount of ozone when compared to other common machines such as photocopiers.
Chirayath said FailSafe technology could create an indoor environment that is safe for all. He disagreed with the study done by James Repace, a health physicist and international consultant on second-hand smoke, which concluded that it would take 100,000 air changes per hour to keep a room clear of smoke and toxins.
He described Repace’s analysis as being “in stark contrast” to that of the Erie County Health Department’s own tests that found the FailSafe device reduces air contamination to an acceptable level.
NY
Newsday - March 22, 2004
Banning
the ban on smoking
By Alan J.
Wax and Rose French
Kelly Knefel is no fan of New York State's workplace smoking ban.
A bartender at Mo's Caribbean Bar & Mexican Grill on Manhattan's Upper East Side for four years, Knefel has seen her tips tumble since the state's tough ban took effect in July.
The winter was particularly tough, she said. Her tips for a typical weeknight shift lately have been a third of the three- digit amounts she pocketed before the ban.
Knefel's not alone.
"I know a lot of friends who work on the Upper East Side, and they say business has gone down," she said, discussing the impact of the ban.
The law, which prohibits smoking in virtually all indoor workplaces with only limited exemptions, has given rise to complaints from bartenders, bar owners and beer distributors that their incomes have been cut, sometimes sharply. Smaller neighborhood establishments appear to have been hit the hardest, and the city has issued thousands of violation notices. As a result, the tavern industry is asking the State Legislature to ease the restrictions.
"In New York City, the smoking ban has really hurt," said Mike Vitale, vice president of sales at Brooklyn Brewery. "People go to a bar and expect to be able to smoke, especially those bars that have a daytime business. Most of those people are smokers."
Vitale said the smoking ban -- along with cold weather and the still limp economy -- resulted in "a horrendous" January for the Williamsburg-based brewery. "The biggest thing was the smoking ban."
And it's not just beer sales that are off. Sales of spirits and wine in bars and eateries are off from 25 to 40 percent, according to Vincent Fyfe, president of the union that represents liquor salespeople, Brooklyn-based United Food & Commercial Workers Local 2D.
The smoking ban seems, however, to have helped restaurateurs, who said they've seen an increase in diners since they've been required to make their eateries smoke-free.
Anecdotal evidence
Evidence of the bar business downturn is largely anecdotal, although 76 percent of some 300 bars and nightclubs surveyed last fall for the New York Nightlife Association, a trade group, reported that the number of customers has dropped by 30 percent on average. Bars and clubs that don't serve food reported a 19 percent drop in the sales.
State Labor Department figures for employment at food and drinking places paint a different picture, however. Jobs in the industry rose 0.8 percent to 158,700 in January, from 157,400 one year earlier.
Be that as it may, customers are irked about the ban and having to stand outside bars and restaurants lighting up, even on the coldest days.
"It's been a pain in the winter months," said Nicole Hernandez, 23, of Sunnyside, as she and a group of friends lit up outside the Acme Underground in SoHo.
"People don't want to go outside, throw a coat on and smoke," said Sam Barbieri, whose two Waterfront Ale House locations, in Manhattan's Kips Bay and Brooklyn Heights, have experienced a drop in bar sales because customers don't come as often. "I'm sure the liquor stores are happy, though."
Bar owners said that customers who step outside to smoke are likely to order fewer drinks or leave altogether, and sometimes skip out on their tabs.
The law, passed by the State Legislature a year ago and in effect for almost nine months, aims to reduce workers' exposure to second-hand smoke.
"I think the reason for the ban is kind of stupid," said Hernandez. "They say it's going to protect the workers, and I don't really think it has much to do about that."
Employees benefit
The State Health Department, however, has evidence the ban is working. Earlier this month, it said preliminary tests on a small group of nonsmoking bar and restaurant workers -- 49 people -- found a significant drop in the levels of a nicotine byproduct in their saliva.
Be that as it may, some bar owners insist the prohibition has hurt profits.
"Business is definitely slower," said Michael Wendrow, who for the past five years has owned the Galloping Green Pub in Flushing, a 60-year-old business. Bar sales are off 20 to 30 percent from a year ago, he said. "On a average night we'd get 60 to 80 people ... Within the last year, since the smoking ban, it's been between 30 and 40 a night." Wendrow said at least five nearby eating and drinking establishments shut within the past year.
It's worse at Tony's Sports Bar & Restaurant in Queens Village. "It killed our business," said owner Tony Narain. Within the past year, alcohol and beer sales have declined 70 percent, he said. "I'm losing money right now."
There's been a small, bright side to this, said the Waterfront's Barbieri. His two locations have seen dining revenues grow by 2 to 3 percent. "Most people I speak to appreciate not having a smoke-filled room and say they're eating here more than they would have before the smoking ban," he said. "It doesn't really financially compensate us for the sales we lose at the bar, though." Waterfront's bar sales are off 5 percent, he said.
Meanwhile, there is new activity in Albany to ease the restrictions. State Sen. Raymond Meier (R-Western) has introduced legislation that would allow smoking in bars that install hospital-style air filtration and purification systems.
The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association, which represents 20,000 businesses with on-premise liquor licenses, supports that measure as well as proposals to issue smoking licenses to bars, said Scott Wexler, the group's executive director. "Why put people out of business, if you can provide similar protection to the employees and the public without the economic loss to business?" he asked.
Russell Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, an Albany lobbying group, said there's no way such filters could do the job without creating hurricane-force winds.
Enforcement of the smoking ban is the responsibility of county and city government. Violations carry a civil fine of up to $1,000.
"There's fairly widespread noncompliance," said Wexler, declining to name any of the alleged violators.
The city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene said it received 3,500 smoking-related complaints and issued 3,300 citations for violations, as of early February, since the ban was imposed. The agency couldn't say how many citations were upheld, but the city collected $200,000 in fines in fiscal 2004. The violations include failures to post no-smoking signs and having ashtrays present, spokesman Sid Dinsay said. It also issued six hardship waivers, but details were unavailable.
In reality, though, enforcement falls mainly to bartenders like Knefel. "To this day, I have to check the bathrooms every 10 minutes to see if people are smoking in there," she said. "I hate having to be mean to people about it."
The
Journal News - March 18, 2004
Health
officials get tough on smoking ban violators
By Khurram
Saeed
PEARL RIVER — The first time Kate Johnson of the county Health Department went to Fennell's to see if patrons were smoking inside, she found the bar's owner sitting at the table with the very people lighting up.
Johnson, who is responsible for enforcing the state's indoor smoking ban, gave him a warning. That was Sept. 23, two months after the law took effect.
A couple months later, on Dec. 30, she returned and found customers still puffing away. With the county not ready to hand out fines, she issued another warning.
After receiving her fifth phone complaint about smoking in the Pearl River bar, Johnson dropped in at 11:25 p.m. Jan. 30, saw a customer smoking and promptly issued a $250 fine to Fennell's.
That's how the bar became the first business in Rockland to be fined for violating the state's nearly 8-month-old smoking ban.
The Rockland County Board of Health made if official yesterday by citing Fennell's and Kennelly's Grille House in Congers, which was ticketed the same night. The owners of both businesses have already paid their penalties. By imposing fines, the county is effectively putting bar and restaurant owners on notice that their customers' actions, combined with the lack of action on their part, might cost them.
By comparison, the state Health Department, which enforces the law in 21 counties, started issuing fines as early as September.
But in Rockland's case, health officials also had to develop a waiver process for business owners who could demonstrate "undue financial hardship." Many complain they are unfairly hurt because the county borders New Jersey, which leaves it up to bar and restaurant owners to decide whether, and where, smoking is allowed.
Rockland Health Commissioner Dr. Joan Facelle said there has been ample education about the new law, plenty of publicity and more than enough time for businesses to comply since the smoking ban took effect July 24.
"Now it's time to do our job to protect public health," she said.
Johnson noted that the vast majority of Rockland establishments are complying with the law. Of the 68 complaints she's received, only three have resulted in penalties.
"I've been out on the weekends, I've been out at night, I've been out after midnight, and they're not smoking" indoors, Johnson said.
A handful of businesses that believe their bottom line has been hurt by the smoking ban have applied for exemptions from the smoking ban with the county Health Department. Only two have reached the second stage, which means they have already proved their business has dropped at least 15 percent since July 24.
The owners must still show how they would minimize secondhand smoke's adverse effects before being granted a waiver.
Kennelly's, which was fined, has applied for a waiver. Its owner declined to comment yesterday.
However, Tom Fennell, owner of the Pearl River bar, said he believed he was being held up as an example, and disputed the county's charges that the bar had repeatedly violated the law.
"It happened that an individual was breaking the law and unfortunately, I have to pay the fine for that individual," Fennell said. "It's like a teacher in class. You can't watch all 25 students at one time."
Fennell said he has lost 12 regular customers to New Jersey since the ban took effect, but "99.9 percent" of his customers have willingly gone outside to smoke, or done so when asked by staff.
He called past violations isolated incidents that likely went unnoticed because of large crowds.
"My father was a police officer," Fennell said from his bar. "I follow the law as closely as I can."
Some say the businesses that are not adhering to the law might be more apt to do so now that it will hit them in their pockets.
Richard Pedri of Haverstraw said bars and restaurants have been given enough leeway to comply with the smoking ban, and he favored strict enforcement.
"They know the law and if they choose to let their patrons break the law, they should be penalized," Pedri said.
Until now, the emphasis has been on education and warnings, said Carl Dornbush, a senior environmental health specialist for the county Health Department.
"Sometimes the warnings haven't been as clearly heard as they should be," Dornbush said.
Margaret Hallet, coordinator of POW'R Against Tobacco Coalition, which is made up of community groups in Putnam, Orange, Westchester and Rockland, said a survey her group is participating in shows most people and businesses are abiding by the law.
Its volunteers have observed two bars, two restaurants and one bowling alley in each of those counties since the ban started.
They were there after a month, three months and six months to look for telltale signs such as ashtrays, people smoking or even to detect the strong smell of smoke.
The survey is being conducted in all 62 counties in New York.
After a month, 84 percent of businesses were complying, Hallet said. At the three-month mark, 90 percent were in compliance.
Associated
Press - March 18, 2004
Cigarette
makers not in settlement could face tax
Cigarette manufacturers who weren't part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit settlement with the state may get hit with a 50-cent per pack tax that could raise $50 million to $100 million.
Although the Republican-led Legislature usually bristles at the idea of raising taxes, in this case supporters say it is only fair that if the four largest manufacturers have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the state each year, small manufacturers also should.
''It is a tax,'' said Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland. ''You can't hide from that fact. The purpose is noble -- it's equalization.''
Supporters say the state is losing money because the settlement agreement is based on the so-called ''Big Four'' market share, which has been eroded by smaller manufacturers who sell cigarettes for about $2 a pack less.
The Senate Regulated Industries Committee approved the bill by a 7