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.
June 10, 2004
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.Frank Calland is president of Amusement & Music Owners of New York Inc., a regional trade group of electronic game and jukebox operators.
Copyright (c) 2004, Newsday, Inc.
This article originally appeared at:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpcal103842820jun10,0,7722834.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines