California is also the very same state that once experimented with medicinal marijuana and the occasional cannabis club. There is a ban-tobacco, legalize-marijuana crowd in CA. Even as a non-smoker I'm glad I've never been there. Seriously though, Am I seeing some hypocrisy here or is it just me?

In California, which boasts the toughest anti-smoking laws, people thought bars and restaurants would go defunct with the indoor smoking ban several years ago. They didn't. Everything was fine. The law just had to settle in.

The culture in California has been changed as a result. Now, smoking is generally regarded as unpopular and disgusting. Californians visiting out-of-state restaurants and hearing "smoking or non" get very freaked out. I know I do.

If smokers only smoked around other smokers, this ban would be unneccesary, but even in a bar full of smoking customers, the employees aren't all smokers.

Quit pretending this ban is all about puritinism or government coddling people. Civility is a little part of it, but in the end, it's really about safety and health, and I don't want that left up to the same people who drop their still-burining butts where ever they feel like it and light up right next to me in a public space without even asking if it's ok.

People who work in bars have just as much a right to a safe workplace as those of us stuck in offices. Claiming that those who work in bars know what they are getting into and if they don't want to spend 8-10 hours in a smoke-filled environment, they should work somewhere else is WRONG and just shows how incredibly insensitive and ignorant some anti-ban folks can be.

What if my boss decided tomorrow that he'll allow smiking in our office? Should I just have to get a new job? What if he allowed smoking before I started working here but I REALLY needed this job and it was the only job I could get that I could earn a decent living at, should I have to inhale everyone-elses' smoke all day long?

What if I were part of a "culture" that had the spraying perfume all around me while I ate and drank central to my personal happiness? What if I sat next to a table where some anti ban folks were eating and sprayed some disgusting perfume (one with carcinogens added would be necessary to make this analogy really work) in your face every ten minutes for 8 hours, or even for 1/2 an hour? Would that be ok?

Look, smoking makes you look really cool and feels good. It's bad for you, but hey, that';s your choice. If there was a real way for smokers to smoke in a bar or other business without nonsmokers suffering any adverse impacts, then I would be against this ban, too. as it is, your smoking in most public and semi public venues cannot at this time be done in a way that does not impact the health of nonsmokers so government is protecting the health of many of it's citizens with this ban.

As for the "alcohol is responsible for amny more deaths so why not ban it" argument. I can sit in a room with my friends while they drink and not get drunk. I am not having any of my brain cells killed by their alcohol consumption. I am not in danger of driving drunk because they are drinking in the same space I am. I cannot, however, sit in the same room with these same friends if they are smoking and not suffer from immediate health effects (i have very mild asthma, which is made very severe when I breathe in second-hand smoke). If you can't tell the difference between these two in terms of the ban, then you might want to seek help.

VV:

I'll touch on the marijuana legality issue first. I don't entirely mind the idea that there's no form of legal possession because, generally speaking, the penalties and enforcement of possession of personal quantities is not oppressive, and you can get away with a lot of illegal usage. I wouldn't walk around a bunch of cops guzzling from a bottle of Jack Daniels, either. I'd hate to see someone get 10 years in jail for holding a dimebag, but if you're being a good citizen otherwise, you won't get caught - and if you do get caught, a $200 fine isn't really that bad. I can't make sense of why alcohol is legal to consume in some situations and marijuana isn't, but frankly I'll do either when I want to.

Now, for smoking...

Post-coital cigarette? In a restaurant? Hey, you know, having sex in the middle of a restaurant isn't legal either. I'm sure lighting a cigarette afterward would be the lesser of the rude offenses.

The ashtray in the window thing is probably an aspect of the law that could be challenged and written out somehow if unconstitutional. However, I would read the Constitution very closely, and note that our "free" country is full of undeclared priviledges that can all be made illegal by law without contradiction from the original Constitution OR its amendments. Remember that our right to free speech is a right granted by an AMENDMENT, as in the original document would have allowed Congress to pass a law limiting speech but our forefathers felt it was important to specify that freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to bear arms, etc., were all things that we ultimately did not want any goverment - local, state, or national - to infringe upon.

As a side note, alcohol was prohibited via Constitutional amendment, and the amendment was repealed through an additional amendment. Point being, the basis of our government is through the Constitution. Change the Constitution, change the possibilities. And right now, according to the Supreme Court and in accordance with laws on the books that have not been ruled unconstitutional AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, it is allowable for government to have rules dictating random drug testing of high schoolers ("in loco parentis"), non-permissable business practices of monopolistic companies, youth curfews, regulations on possession and usage of all kinds of substances (pharmaceutical, edible, industrial, etc), restrictions on wagering, restrictions on obscenity in the media, and, of course, activities in public places that do not have specific amendment protection.

You can burn a flag in a restaurant no matter what (in accordance with fire safety regulations), but goverment can make a law saying you can't smoke a cigarette in an eating establishment because it's not a protected right by the Constitution. It can become a protected right if specified by an Amendment. (Good luck in getting that passed, though)

I think the law is a little heavy handed in regards to how much the smoking ban is inclusive and restrictive. I think, however, that they really had few choices in creating an effective implementation of the law. One of the discussion comments noted that one air filter in the corner is not going to clear up a bar. I've seen many restaurants and bars with industrial air filtration systems that still seem to be smoky and it's still a rude nuisance to have someone at the next table carelessly allowing smoke to drift over to someone's face. The whole idea of smoking/non-smoking sections was contested all the same by smokers when that was required by law. Allowing certain bars to permit smoking is something that's already in the law, even though few meet the requirements. That said, if you really opened up the regulations, you would have the same problems as with the cabaret laws (which no one seems to support).

Smoking wasn't "automatically" banned, either. It was drafted into a bill and passed separately by both the NYC municipal government and the New York State government. This is not a result of some monocrat wielding oppressive powers... this was approved by two different assemblys of government. Strike down one law and you have to deal with the other.

Now, is it bad for people? Well, inconvenient, surely. A lot of laws cause me inconvenience as well. I can't drive 100mph in the city when I have to get somewhere. I can't merely piss in the street when I have to go to the bathroom. I can't cross the street wherever I'd like, and we can appreciate that our current mayor is NOT so assinine about that one. But I can still drive in the city, take care of my bodily functions, and cross the street without prosecution as long as I abide by the rules. You can smoke, too. The reasoning behind the ban is perhaps weak where the ban is strict, but it is what it is.

I don't think the bar scene is worse since the ban. I think it's better. I think smokers definitely don't enjoy it as much. I think smokers can be miserable any time they aren't smoking, and are vicious and rude to anyone who gets in the way of their cigarettes. It's a miserable, dirty, disgusting, rude habit. I could side with civil liberties, but I think the ban is karmic payback for all the times that cigarette smokers acted like assholes about it. I think the next mayor could repeal the ban as a political promotion, but I'll enjoy it as long as it lasts. So will a lot of other people. Because when, or if, your habit does come back to public eating spaces, I can virtually guarantee that there will be no compromise, that smokers will enjoy their habit at the expense of any courtesy that they are not legally bound to give. Hell, even now, people are smoking in bars sneakily (not too bothersome because it's not as frequent and offensive as it once was), and since there's no ashtrays around, they probably all just ash and stomp butts out on the floor. Someone has to clean that up, but hey, they're entitled to their habit, right?

Smokers have never publicly made a substantial effort to enforce courtesy among their own kind. My response is to support the law that causes your inconvenience. I can show a lack of courtesy too. It is New York, after all.

Brian Van:

I bet you've never had the pleasure of a post-coital cigarette, have you?

The government can pass any law it wants; who's it going to answer to? Also, the government sometimes passes laws that violate the Constitution. Same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. The dancing ban is unconstitutional. The smoking ban has at least one obviously unconstitutional aspect--the banning of a particular object: the ashtray. There was a story I read last year about a man who received a fine because a souvenir ashtray was visible in his place of business. Displaying a particular object is now illegal, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Side note--I'd like to hear your argument for what good reason Marijuana is prohibited and should remain prohibited.

Of course moking doesn't serve the public interest. The BAN itself is a disservice to the public interest, because we're getting used to the government legislating our social behavior. THAT'S what's not right, not the smoking laws or any other things that will be banned. Things shouldn't just be automatically banned just because it doesn't serve the public interest.

And have you heard of a compromise? Self-reliance? Personal choice? The rights of the owner of the non-public (aka: private) bar? Remember smoking and non-smoking sections? How about only allowing smoking in establishments that sell liquor? And that air filter seems to be a pretty good compromise. The anti-smoking groups are hardlining fundamentalists, when the smokers simply want to have one freakin' smoke indoors during a blizzard, and everyone KNOWS that the residual smoke won't cause the nonsmoker 50 feet away to drop dead. Or call 311.

Can it be true that city is turning wussier by the minute? I swear the worst thing about the ban is that it has forever changed the feel of the nighttime in NYC. It really does feel different. Things are worse, and it's not just lower tips. There's an ominous feeling of dread--of oppression. We're getting accustomed to living with the words CAN'T and BANNED shoved down our throats.

I love this city to death, but these bans are slowly eroding its soul. I'd rather die of a thousand cancers than to have New York lose its soul.

Liana - what you describe is indeed non-sensical.

My sympathy for that point, however, falters in one aspect - a smoker may not be as much of a health or smell nuisance when outdoors, but since you're asserting that you SHOULD be able to smoke in an outdoor seating area, would you or many of the other smokers out there take a break if there was no law and it legitimately bothered someone? While a ban on that stated situation might not have much solid ground to stand on as a public health measure, it's upholding a certain degree of courtesy that few could argue with.

Consider that a large number of us just scored a big victory in the smoking ban, and many smokers are not asking for a repeal of the law by stating that it's not that rude to others, they're asking for a repeal in spite of the fact that it's bothering others. You will not get me on your side to get your priviledge back if I feel you'll abuse it.

(Note: it's a priviledge. It can be outlawed. Such laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. Alcohol was prohibited from EVERYWHERE for a number of years through constitutional amendment. Take note of that, because it could be worse)

Regarding the private property remark, you can't smoke marijuana in a bar either - or anywhere for that matter. Also, see reference to prohibition above. The government can pass any law or regulation that does not violate the Constitution. And the Constitution can be amended as well. I'm not being defiant about the law as it stands, I'm just saying that it's there fair and square.

Assume that the health risks of smoke to employees are significant, the economic effects of the ban are slightly negative, and that 50% of the population consider it a public nuisance. You could convince me that the law is not right if you can demonstrate how it serves the public interest to allow smoking in bars and restaurants, with those facts in mind.

Okay, I can't belive I have to write this again, but I think this repost is in order (I know it's not proper net-etiquette, but it needs to be said again). The smoking ban is "good," however the ideals of banning something like smoking is bad. Bloomberg fully admits to imposing the bad soley because he wants all firsthand smokers to quit, not specifically because he wants to protect workers from secondhand smoke.

Some of you keep forgetting: the issue is not whether or not a smoking ban is good thing, it's about whether it ought to be a LAW. The smoking ban is a censorship of behavior and of culture, and many cultures embrace smoking (hookah for example). Laws "cleaning up" social attitudes and annoying behaviors have no place in America. Laws should be used for more important things. (Other examples of wasteful laws: dancing ban, cellphone ban in theaters, et cetera.)

I personally wish people would stop drinking alcohol, since it leads to hundreds of thousands of more deaths and injury to innocent people (drunk driving, rage, aggravated rapes, et cetera), but I'll be damned if I'd support a law banning alcohol, because it goes against the basic principle of liberty and personal responsibility.

I personally think that frat boys and jocks shouldn't be allowed to come and party in the city on Friday and Saturday nights. It would cut down on a slew of annoying people. I wouldn't have to deal with meatheads and idiots who ruin everyone's fun. It would also cut down on crime, and may even save more people than the smoking ban supposedly "saves." But I'll sure as hell NEVER support a law banning frat boys and jocks (despite the fact that I would love the effects of such a law).

Some facts:

Annual FIRSTHAND tobacco-related deaths: 344,000

Annual obesity-related and sedentary lifestyle-related deaths: 300,000

Annual alcohol-related deaths: 110,000

Annual falling deaths: 16,600

Annual food-poisoning deaths: 5,000

Annual drowning deaths: 4,100

Annual fire/burn deaths: 3,700

Annual SECONDhand smoke deaths: 3,000

(Sources: American Lung Association www.lungusa.org, American Medical Association jama.ama-assn.org, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism www.niaaa.nih.gov, National Safety Council www.nsc.org, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.cdc.gov)

Read the numbers carefully. Firsthand smoke obviously kills. However, take a good look at the stats for secondhand smoke. The secondhand smoke deaths are actually less than freak-accident deaths such as food poisoning, drowning and fire. Simply walking down the stairs of your tenement building will give you a 500% more chance of dying than spending time in a smoky bar. Considering the facts, eating a late-night meal at the local diner seems downright risky; if at first you survive the risk of food poisoning, you have a ten-THOUSAND percent more chance of dying from its nutritional content.

I spared you all the statistical possibilities of dying by shark bite, struck by lightning or obliterated by a meteor, despite the fact that secondhand smoking is nearly in the same category.

I'm glad I have such a good-natured government to protect me from the "scourge" of secondhand smoke. God bless the smoking ban, and God bless America.

Let's make more laws to protect us from making our clothes stinky. How did the hazy, dingy New York of old survive when people smoked cigarettes in bars? It must have been HELL! Why did Frank Sinatra sing that song about our town if everyone was living in a rotting hell because their clothes smelled like ashtrays? Could Peggy Lee ever have drowned her past regrets in "Coffee and Cigarettes"?

But I forgot: we elect governing officials to legislate away all things annoying, and to make our outfits smell better. Perhaps Mister Clean and Mister Bubble should run for NYC Mayor 2005. I want to see New York all sparkly clean, and filled with a new breed of people who have the "311" complaint line on speed dial.

First, let me say I am part of the vocal, aggresive minority. Mostly because I personally hate the ban, & also because I do not think it is anyone's business whether I blacken my lungs while torturing my liver. There are of course, better well-thought out reasons, but no need to get in to that now.

Brian Van wrote: Most importantly, the ban applies only to enclosed areas where other people are eating, drinking, and working.

But no Brian, you are wrong. The ban applies equally to outdoor spaces. At places with more than a certain number of seats on the sidewalk, no smoking is allowed. This of course leads to the spectacle of empty tables with a bunch of people standing 1 foot away smoking. & no touching your drink while you are away from the table buddy. Now really, what is the sense in that?

I see a vocal, aggressive minority in favor of killing the ban and allowing smoking in bars, but their reasoning is almost entirely self-centered.

I see a tyrannical majority doing the same thing, asserting a right to govern other people's behavior on private property where none existed before. And I see enormous amounts of collateral damage in what should be a straightforward war on smoking itself.

I'm a non-smoker, and I'm still furious that this was allowed to happen.

PS- BG is right on- the cost of a real / effective HVAC system with smoke removal is way beyond the budget of a bar or restaurant.

I have said it many times- sell smoking licences- the city will raise monay and smokers will have smoking bars and everyone else can go to clean air bars. Of course the non-smokers will all want to hang at the "cool" smoking bars, but at least they will be warned and have other options, and will be thrown out into the (quiet) streets if they start to complain.

I also used the opportunity to read back to prior Gothamist posts about the ban, and the comments attached.

I see a vocal, aggressive minority in favor of killing the ban and allowing smoking in bars, but their reasoning is almost entirely self-centered. The best argument I heard was the "slippery-slope" government control issue, as some people argued this was a precedent for more government control.

The majority were happy, one way or another, that the ban was in place. Some lamented a loss of tips, however no one who didn't smoke argued that drinking in bars was less enjoyable since the start of the ban.

Smokers are a minority of the general population and the number of smokers are dwindling. Smoking is proven to be unhealthy for the smoker and receivers of secondhand smoke. Most importantly, the ban applies only to enclosed areas where other people are eating, drinking, and working. I'm actually sad that the only way to prevent people from smoking in those areas is to make it illegal - most smokers would cop an attitude if you asked them politely to abstain in these areas before the ban.

I do lament, however, that some people who were polite about their habit are being restricted because of the nuisance created by others.

who cares if it can filter the air? If I still come home smelling like an ashtray, it's a waste.

It's a bit naive to think that it's as simple as plopping a filtering unit down in a bar and the air is magically cleaned. You need to MOVE the air from all corners of the bar through the filter unit, and that takes an engineered ventilation system not just a little box sitting somewhere. Viva la clean air!

I'm going to be widely despised for this but... really, are all of us that desperate to bring back smoking in bars?

I don't judge what other people do if it doesn't affect me, and I grudgingly accept that there is a large segment of the population that wants to continue smoking in light of all of the health risks.

However, I despise it when smokers are completely rude and inconsiderate with their habit, and there are many completely rude and inconsiderate smokers out there. For one thing, many are obnoxious to insist on smoking in an enclosed space around others, knowing the health risks and bad smells they pass on.

Smoke isn't the only nuisance associated with smoking. Many are messy and disgusting about their habit - as if ashtrays sitting in eating/drinking areas wasn't enough of a turn-off, it's what smokers do when they can't find an ashtray that's even more disgusting. And the behavior gets worse once people start drinking.

Even now, one of the bigger valid complaints about the ban is how smokers create a mess and a noise problem on the street in front of bars, even late into the night. The ban doesn't stand in the way of anyone being rude about their smoking habit. Better that the rude behavior is outside the bar, cause I'm inside being happy, clean, and polite. I find NYC bars much more enjoyable since the nuisance is gone.

Since none of the smokers out there seem to care about how frequently non-smokers were offended with rude behavior associated with smoking, and it's all about whining about Mayor Tali-ban, I really don't care about how any of them are inconvienienced by the ban. Good. Live with it. Karma comes back to you.

(As for bar business being down, I'm skeptical because it's been claimed often but no one has backed it up conclusively. It's an undecided matter as far as I see it, although that could change with more evidence)

I played a gig Saturday night at a bar in the Bronx. It was really poorly organized, and it consisted essentially of three hours sitting at the bar with the bass pounding so loud I couldn't talk while waiting to play for a half hour in the area usually occupied by the pool table. It was awful.

But it was not unusual. I've been playing gigs in this city for years. This is pretty standard.

The point: in my misery, I was thanking God and Bloomberg for the one bright side -- I didn't have to spend that three hours breathing other people's cancer, and when I left the bar, I didn't smell like a pukey ashtray.

The smoking ban is the greatest thing to ever happen to this city!