I have to say that I rarely notice smoke, even in places that don’t have formal restrictions right now. Maybe my lungs are just less sensitive than other peoples’ (even though I have asthma), or maybe I’m just lucky when I go out places and I chance to visit venues that don’t draw lots of smokers.
Well obviously, this is New York’s first step in rolling out the welcome mat for my arrival in September 
Bars that worry about losing business shouldn’t-- they’ll just see a shift in clientele to non-smokers, and smokers willing to go outside.
There are plenty of places in Vancouver that rope off an area of the sidewalk or alley to let people court cancer.
I am delighted by this whole turn of events, especially seeing how bad it pisses off my mother. It almost makes me wish I still lived in NYC - but not quite.
I hate this stupid, intrusive, idiotic law. If I want to go to a bar and have a drink and a smoke, that is my own damn business. If people don’t want to be around smoke, or the owner of a bar wants to designate his/her establishment as non-smoking, that’s all fine with me. But if the owner of a bar (and I’m talking about plain old-fashioned bars here, not restaurants with bars) doesn’t mind, and the patrons don’t mind or are generally smokers themselves, well, then, our asinine Mayor Bloomberg ought to keep his fucking hands out of our business.
I have a feeling that many places (including my longtime favorite hangout) will simply ignore the law. As they should.
I went into a bar to sing some karaoke with my mother. There were several people smoking despite the law, and making it impossible for us to sing. I called the police on mom’s cel phone. They arrived shortly and fined the owner $100, and gave a $100 ticket to each smoker. We smiled, bowed and left.
I wonder if NY has a law protecting entrances to buildings, so that people wont have to run a gauntlet of smokers to get inside or out.
You can always go to Connecticut. Stamford is a 40 minute train ride away and we have no such laws. As my sweater from last night will attest to.
Well, I’m with LMM on this one. Before I smoked and went out to bars, I never noticed the smoke. Now that I smoke, I still don’t notice the smoke.
I don’t smoke all that much, either, but if I’m drinking, I want to have a smoke, dammit.
This makes me glad I won’t live in NY all that much longer.
Really? Where is the family heading? When? Hope it’s not too far. The Heaps always make a great addition to the NYC dopefests. Good luck either way! If you are going far we should have a proper send-off!
Re.Da’OP:
I’m very happy about the new law. I hate cigarettes and I hate stining like em. As I understand it the law isn’t really motivated by an urge to protect customers, rather by concerns for the safety of employees. Whether one wants to smoke or not, even if they are in a majority, the employees should not have to deal with the added health risk, nor be deprived of the opportunity to be employed at such places (where quick and relatively easy cash can be made on a good night) just because they don’t smoke or are concerned about their health. It’s unsafe working conditions not “what’s best for the customers” that motivates here (the new city law, anyway, thus the owner operated bar exemptions). I welcome it no matter how they justified it to themselves.
DaLovin’ Dj
I heard that sue to some loophole in the wording, that Grand Central Station is the only “inside place” that you can smoke in. I think I heard it on NPR, but I don’t smoke so I don’t really care to actually look it up.
The loophole is that the organizations inside Grand Central are run/leased by the State and not the City so they are exempt. If the state-wide law goes into effect I imagine this will change but for the time being you can smoke at the joints in the station. Surprisingly, there are some pretty decent restaurants down there . . .
DaLovin’ Dj
dj, thanks, but no big deal. Sooner or later, lord knows for sure, I’ll be getting outta the Ahhhhmy so we may be heading home to PA.
No real change, it’s only about a half-hour farther from the city that where we are now, so it will in no way stop us from coming up for DopeDinners/Fests.
Unless my wife gets offered a job in some distant land once she graduates college, we’ll still be fairly local.
I’m going to NYC in July and this will make my trip even more enjoyable. I just wish they’d pass this law in my state.
All well and good. But employees of bars (and I’m only talking about bars, not restaurants. Plain old-fashioned bars that serve drink but no more food than peanuts) are far, far outnumbered by patrons of bars. And lots of those employees smoke themselves. And people who hang out in and/or work in bars are generally not the most health-conscious lot to begin with.
What’s wrong with letting bar owners designate their bars as smoking or non-smoking as they see fit? Then demand will ensure that there’s a place for everyone.
I don’t welcome this law at all. It’s just another example of do-gooders forcing us to do what’s good for us whether we want to or not.
Right, LMM, I’m with you.
I wonder if a smoking speakeasy would go over well?
I think the point is, as far as the city is concerned, that the ones who ARE health concious (they do exist - matter of fact I know quite a few male & female bartenders who are very concerned with their physical fitness & health) should not have their health compromised, nor should such a desire be grounds for discrimination. So a boss saying “If you don’t like smoking go work somewhere else.” is not a proper, fair, or even legal response. The fact that they are outnumbered by patrons is inconsequential. The city is protecting the health of workers. Just because a business has more patrons then clients is no justification for an unsafe work environment. “Deal with it.” and “Go work somewhere else” have certainly been the norm in the past, but with the new law such discrimination is impossible. As best as I can tell, as far as the city is concerned, patrons can go fuck themselves in this matter. The law isn’t for them and only considers the effects of smoking on the staff.
As I said before, an owner-run bar is exempt as a result. So if you own a bar, and are the only bartender, you can do whatever you want. Once you have employees, you can not allow them to work in a smoke-filled (unsafe) environment. So bar owners CAN designate their bars as smoking or non-smoking as they see fit unless they want to hire people. In that case they have to meet legal standards for a safe workplace.
DaLovin’ Dj
This will mean that people will stay in New Jersey. Good for most of us, bad for bar owners.
I also hate this law. It’s the principle of the thing, more than the actual issue of smoking indoors. The next thing you know they’ll be giving out tickets for jaywalking!
I have a brother who is viciously allergic to shellfish of any kind. Eating as much as one oyster would kill him. Simply handling shellfish can be dangerous for him.
But, according to the logic above, and of this law, he is entitled to a job in the kitchen of a seafood restaurant, and the patrons of that restaurant, as DLDJ says above, can go fuck themselves. No more fish for them.
How, exactly, does this make sense?
Not quite. This logic isn’t really fair. A medical condition preventing you from doing a certain job is a different thing. Shellfish do not make a workplace generally dangerous for the majority of humans. You must be physically able to perform a job to be hired (a man with no arms couldn’t be a bartender - except maybe in some bad jokes). That fact doesn’t really affect the logic involved with deciding that a smoke-filled environment makes a workplace dangerous for ANYBODY. There is no medical condition or condition (other than the human one) needed for that one.
The comparison doesn’t really work. Even if your brother could handle shellfish the establishment would still be required to maintain a legal minimum standard of work conditions. Smoking is now considered to be great enough of a risk to a substantial percentage of humans (all of them) that it makes a workplace unsafe. Shellfish do not (what percentage of the population are allergic? Surely nowhere near 100%). This seems reasonable to me. If, on the other hand, shellfish were shown to be hazardous to everyone who touched it or was near anyone who touched it then the argument may make a bit more sense. Handicaps/medical conditions are a different issue.
DaLovin’ Dj
Because most bar owners are convinced that their bread and butter comes from people who smoke-- no matter what reality actually is. It’s hard to convince someone who empties ashtrays that they’d get just as much business if no one smoked in their joint at all.
But experience in cities that have actually gone ahead and mandated no smoking in the workplace demonstrate that no bar loses any money-- because the majority of the population doesn’t smoke, and by banning smoking you actually get people going to bars who weren’t before because they hate the smoke.
I don’t go to places I can’t smoke. It just doesn’t work for me. I hope people open private clubs. That would be the best!!