Bloomberg Seeks to Ban Smoking in Every Restaurant and Bar

he Bloomberg administration will ask the City Council to amend New York City's antismoking law to include all restaurants and bars, making it one of the toughest in the nation.

The current law, passed in 1995, forbids smoking in all restaurants with more than 35 seats, and excludes stand-alone bars and the bar areas of all restaurants. The proposed amendment would add roughly 13,000 establishments that would be forced to ban smoking entirely.

A state bill banning smoking in all restaurants passed the Assembly this year and had enough support to pass in the Senate. But under pressure from Gov. George E. Pataki, who insisted on exempting small restaurants, and a heavy lobbying campaign by restaurant groups and the tobacco and liquor industries, the Senate's Republican leaders never put the bill to a vote.

However, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — who, along with his health commissioner, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, is persistently anti-tobacco — views bars and restaurants as workplaces before social establishments, and has said that employees within them should have the same option of a smoke-free environment as those who work in offices.

"The mayor will push this," one administration official said, "for all the same reasons he pushed the cigarette tax. He makes changes to things that he thinks are important."

Mr. Bloomberg gained approval from Albany this year to raise the taxes on cigarettes, making the cost of a pack about $7.50 in the city. The administration is expected to announce its plans to amend the antismoking law on Monday. Even cigar bars, if they serve alcohol, are likely to be included in the legislation.

In the last month, the mayor has quietly lined up support in the Council, where several members are likely to sponsor a bill at his request forcing all smoking New Yorkers to do their puffing outdoors. (Under the 1995 law, smoking was outlawed in public places like theaters and offices.)

Among those consulted was Councilman James S. Oddo from Staten Island, who came up with his own more modest bill this spring to expand the smoking laws to small restaurants. Hearings were never held on the bill.

"The health commissioner and the mayor make a very compelling argument for legislation that goes well beyond my bill," he said yesterday. "I am seriously considering sponsoring it."

Timothy Filler, the associate director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, said the amendment "would be hugely significant."

"New York is a bellwether and a city that many others look toward as a leader," he added. "If New York City were to do something that included restaurants and bars, it would be a great step forward in public health."

The city is bound to meet some resistance from both some restaurants and bars and those that represent them, although the New York State Restaurant Association recently reversed its longstanding opposition to the proposed state law after a survey showed that 76 percent of its 7,000 members favored the law.

"Our position has been that we have some of the strictest rules in the country, and we have learned to live with them, and we think they should be left alone," said E. Charles Hunt, the executive vice president of the restaurant association.

However, he added: "If a total ban is proposed in all public places, I think people are going to say nobody has an advantage over anyone else and would seriously consider whether or not that might work. The whole thing seems to be boiling down to an employee safety issue at this point."

Lawmakers in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are considering similar measures, officials there said.

If such a law were passed, New York City would join two states — California and Delaware — and scores of municipalities that ban smoking in just about every workplace, including bars and restaurants.

Three other states — Maine, Utah and Vermont — have statewide bans on smoking in all restaurants. Municipalities have been more aggressive in seeking tough and broad antismoking laws, largely because local legislatures are less vulnerable to the powerful tobacco industry lobby.

New York State law requires that a restaurant have a nonsmoking area that encompasses at least 70 percent of its seats, but the smoking area can be in the same room.

There are 72 municipalities in America that ban smoking in any restaurant or bar, according to Mr. Filler, and hundreds offer some other variation on a law against public smoking, allowing people to light up in stand-alone bars, or permitting smoking in restaurant bars that have separate ventilation systems.

In California, where the Legislature passed a law in 1994 that banned smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants, many tavern and restaurant owners feared dire economic consequences. Some studies, including one by the state's sales tax collection agency in 1998, actually showed an increase in sales after the law was enacted.

"I don't believe a New Yorker would choose a steakhouse in Weehawken over Ruth's Chris in New York City because of a smoking regulation," Mr. Oddo said yesterday.

Mr. Bloomberg, who has a school of public health named after him, is aggressively antismoking. When he lobbied for his cigarette tax, he insisted that he did not care whether the city made or lost money, but rather that the tax would keep children from smoking. He has been known to chide reporters for their puffing, and has takes slaps at the tobacco industry in speeches.

He has found a kindred spirit in Dr. Frieden, the health commissioner, who said when he was appointed that his main priority would be to combat smoking. Dr. Frieden has even produced a radio advertisement deploring secondhand smoke.

It could very well happen that someday smoking cigarettes will be illegal.

I don't think we will see the day that comes when tobacco is illegal. Check out some of the threads I am doing about how much smokers are contributing to the states:

There's a lot more, but it takes time to get them posted:

California Smokers'Contribution To The State Economy -2001

INDIANA SMOKERS' CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2001

MICHIGAN SMOKERS' CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2001

How can you ever have a smoke free environment in Manhattan as long as taxis, trucks and buses are allowed to roll around?

A-F'ING-MEN! I was in downtown Chicago the other day, and the streets were pretty crowded. I started to light up, and immediately some woman behind me starts with the faux coughing/gagging. I mean really obnoxious. Not wanting to start a scene, I put it away for later. About that time, a CTA bus came rolling by, and the thick black smoke blew right though the crowd I was in, including Miss Anti-Smoking-Nazi-B*tch. As the smoke from the bus was wafting by us, I turned, looked right at her and did my best impression of her coughing routine. She just gave me dirty look and walked on.

I'm gettin' worked up all over again just thinking about it.

What I would like to see go away is holding the establishment responsible for their drinking patrons. If a person drinks, drives, then gets in an accident, it should be 100% his resposibility. I've never understood why the bar is responsible.

You should have told her that it sounded like her a$$ was backfiring.

It's just not that. What business does government have in telling this or that establishment that they can or cannot serve alcohol or cigarettes? As long as adults are using them, any establishment should be able to allow patrons to partake of them.

A-F'ING-MEN! I was in downtown Chicago the other day, and the streets were pretty crowded. I started to light up, and immediately some woman behind me starts with the faux coughing/gagging. I mean really obnoxious. Not wanting to start a scene, I put it away for later. About that time, a CTA bus came rolling by, and the thick black smoke blew right though the crowd I was in, including Miss Anti-Smoking-Nazi-B*tch. As the smoke from the bus was wafting by us, I turned, looked right at her and did my best impression of her coughing routine. She just gave me dirty look and walked on.

LOL

And anyone should be able to start a taxi service in New York City, too. But, there are good reasons for limited restrictions on bars, which I do support (for example, zoning restrictions, location relative to church or school, etc.). Or, if a community of like minded citizens wishes their town to remain dry (or free from other adult entertainment), they should be allowed that freedom.

I'm gettin' worked up all over again just thinking about it.

Well, this Bloomberg issue is really heating up on MSNBC! However, Curtis and Jeff are just letting more ANTI's express their opinion. I emailed Jeff and told him he is a DAMN liar about second hand smoke. And why doesn't he let the public know about the Federal Court throwing OUT that EPA study?

Jeff also said that the ban has HELPED in California since the bans. I told him that once again, he is a damn liar. There is a study out about the Smoking Bans Impact on California:

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

I wish you all would send in an email to those idiots about this New York ban! They seem to think it's OK to take away people's rights and business rights! Let them have it!

question@msnbc.com

Cigarette smoke stinks? Nothing stinks worse than sanctimony.

You got THAT right. And like I have said before: I bet these anti smokers have some habits that WE would find disgusting!

Or, if a community of like minded citizens wishes their town to remain dry (or free from other adult entertainment), they should be allowed that freedom.

Then please extend to those same like-minded citizens (perhaps those who view smoking as against the wishes of God and who would prefer not to be confronted with it or have their children see it in their public accomodations) the freedom to rid themselves, not only of alcohol and adult entertainment, but of cigarettes as well.

Or is this simply a matter of favoring one vice over others?

Apples and oranges. Mr. Bloomberg does not wish to stop selling cigarettes, he just wants people to stop smoking cigarettes.

Now, if Mr. Bloomberg and the people of New York City vote to ban the sales of cigarettes and the smoking of cigarettes within city limits, that's fine by me. But it's just a little hypocritical to sell people a carton of cigarettes for $75., take the tax, then tell the smoker to go to New Jersey to smoke them, don't you think? Just how strongly does New York City feel about smoking?

Great point about the employee safety scam. It's too bad also that businesses are subject to a lot of horrible regulations that could never be passed off on individuals. I guess the constant drumbeat about the evils of business in the news and entertainment media make people forget that businesses are owned by people.

It's no more hypocritical than a community banning the sale of liquor at restaurants, but letting people bring their own liquor to drink.

So, apart from the hypocricy in allowing the sale but not the smoking of cigarettes in public accomodations, you have no problem with a city prohibiting the smoking of cigarettes within its limits?

One just remodeled. They did a beautiful job. But get this: You know how most places put the smokers in a enclosed glass "house?" Well, THIS place has the NON SMOKERS in there. Now THEY get to look out at the people smoking, drinking, eating and having FUN! I laughed my a$$ off when I saw that!

Whats the name of this place and where is it? :-)

Whats the name of this place and where is it? :-)

Oh, it's in northern Maine. WAY up here in Aroostook County. They also installed a new Golf computer game that takes up one whole wall. People bring in their own golf clubs, and what with the harsh winters up here, the avid golfers have found a home!

This place is starting a golf tournament in October. Should be fun to watch.

And like I have said before: I bet these anti smokers have some habits that WE would find disgusting!

Like that mayor of Friendship Heights, MD who was backing a town ordinance banning out-of-doors smoking, and who was charged with molesting a 14-year-old boy in the men's room of the National Cathedral in D.C. I think he ended up admitting the charge in a plea bargain.

I've never understood why the bar is responsible.

Because the bar typically has deeper pockets than the drinking patron. And trial lawyers love deep pockets.

You got your hypocrisy backwards. According to your example, Mr. Bloomberg would ban the sales of cigarettes yet allow people to smoke them. I'm saying the hypocrisy is in profiting (actually profiteering) from the sales of cigarettes, then not allowing people the opportunity to smoke them.

Now, from a city that banned a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, banning cigarettes would be a walk in the park. But if New York City continues to sell cigarettes, I would find the message to be disingenuous at best. If I were a voting resident of New York City, I would not vote for prohibition.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.