NY Observations and Information
New "Transit Museum Annex" exhibit features 19 vintage smoking pipes dating back to the 1600s uncovered at the South Ferry Terminal construction site Where New York Began: Archeology at the South Ferry Terminal New York Transit Museum Gallery Annex Grand Central Terminal March 18-July 5, 2010 Construction in New York City is always complex, but it raises particular concerns when it cuts through the most archeologically rich section of town. In February 2009 a new South Ferry subway station opened on the southernmost tip of Manhattan, a place where environmental, historical, and commercial interests collide. In order to build the station, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was required to conduct an archeological review and excavation. This provided an extraordinary glimpse into the very place that the modern city has its roots, and the basis of an exciting new exhibit at the New York Transit Museum. Where New York Began: Archeology at the South Ferry Terminal will be on view at the New York Transit Museum Gallery Annex and Store from March 18-July 5, 2010. Annex is open Mon. - Fri. 8 AM to 8 PM / Sat. & Sun. 10 AM to 6 PM. For additional information please call (718) 694-4915 or log onto www.mta.info/museum.
Blowing Smoke at a Ban Dec. 31st, 2009 By DOUGLAS QUENQUA, NY Times GIVE credit to the first guy to light up a cigarette inside GoldBar on a recent Saturday night: at least he was pretending to be discreet. Between puffs, the smoker, a 30-something man with a tight T-shirt, a gold watch and a gym membership, slyly obscured his cigarette behind the knee-high table that held his $400 bottle of Belvedere, assorted mixers and a pack of Parliaments. In turn, the cocktail waitresses flanking the room — who, at 12:30 a.m., still outnumbered the patrons — pretended not to notice. An hour later, there was no longer any need, or attempt, to be discreet. The tiny Lower East Side lounge, where the privilege to spend hundreds on a bottle of liquor is extended only to those fabulous enough to make it past the doormen, was packed and smelled unmistakably of cigarette smoke. One skinny woman in a miniskirt and black leggings perched on the back of a couch and lazily blew smoke at the ceiling; another held a cigarette overhead while dancing. Clearly, Mayor Bloomberg didn’t make the guest list. Six years after New York City passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, it is easier than ever to find smokers partying indoors like it’s 1999, or at least 2002. In November, Eater.com called it “the worst kept secret in New York nightlife” that “smoking is now allowed in numerous nightspots, specifically just about any and every lounge and club with a doorman and a rope.” A few weeks later, GuestofaGuest.com, a blog about New York clubs and bars, posted a “smoker’s guide to N.Y.C. nightlife.” “Everyone looks the other way,” said Billy Gray, 25, a reporter for Guest of a Guest, who says that he knows precisely which high-end bars and lounges, most of them in the meatpacking district or Lower East Side, will let him smoke inside. Far from deterring smoking indoors, the ban simply adds an allure to it, said Mr. Gray, a half-pack-a-day smoker. “It’s more of an illicit thrill now,” he said. “Like when you were a teenager and snuck a beer in your parents’ basement.” Plenty of New York City bars have thumbed their noses at the smoking ban for as long as it has been the law. As early as 2004, The New York Times wrote about neighborhood bars that allowed friends and regulars to light up after closing time. In 2008, at the opening of the Libertine, a Todd English restaurant in the financial district, cigarette girls handed out free smokes that guests consumed liberally. But corner bars that tolerate smoking have traditionally relied on flying too far below the radar to be noticed. By contrast, at expensive paparazzi-flanked nightclubs that appear in gossip columns, there seems to be a new brazenness. Until the Beatrice Inn — once referred to as “a low-ceiling’d smokehut” by Gawker.com — was padlocked in April amid a flurry of building violations and mounting debt, Kirsten Dunst could be found almost nightly “perched on the counter behind the D.J. booth, smoking cigarettes and bopping her head around to her boyfriend’s tunes,” according to Observer.com, the Web site of The New York Observer. That report appeared in January, just days after the Beatrice received its third smoking citation from the department of health in six weeks. Not that you have to be a celebrity. Pat Shea, a 22-year-old student, was smoking inside Avenue — which has hosted the likes of Justin Timberlake and Lindsay Lohan — at 9:30 p.m. on a Tuesday in November. Mr. Shea said he was on his way outside to smoke when a staff member told him not to bother. “I asked the busboy where to smoke and he said, ‘Oh, people just light up in here,’ ” Mr. Shea said. “I saw other people do it and then I decided, Why not?” On Yelp.com, comments posted by Kimberly K. summed up the thoughts of nonsmokers in an October review of Griffin, another high-end club in the meatpacking district: “I thought you weren’t allowed to smoke in nightclubs anymore,” she wrote. “It seemed anywhere I stood, or sat, the person next to me was lighting up and blowing it in my face.” All that smoke hasn’t escaped the attention of the New York City health department. Citations for smoking in bars and restaurants went up 35 percent this summer, to 306 citations compared with 227 for the summer of 2008. In all of 2008 there were 632 violations, compared with 592 in 2007. (Neither Avenue nor Griffin has been cited by the health department for violating the smoking ban, but this reporter, on several visits to Avenue since it opened in June, found people smoking each time. One visit to Griffin in November revealed widespread smoking.) Elliott Marcus, an associate commissioner of the health department, said that he knew where the trouble spots were. “It’s these high-end places for people who think that the rules don’t apply to them,” he said. The department has increased late-night smoking patrols. Undercover investigators roam the meatpacking district, the Lower East Side and Astoria, Queens, in what Mr. Marcus called a “cat-and-mouse game.” There is evidence that smoking bans outside New York City may also be losing their bite. USA Today reported last month that bars in Chicago and Honolulu as well as in Ohio and Virginia were openly defying bans. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have passed smoking bans that affect bars and restaurants. Smoking bans were popular a century ago but were all repealed by the late 1920s, according to Christopher Snowdon, the author of “Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking.” Most bans meet the same fate, Mr. Snowdon said: “They usually end with the same kind of passive resistance you see here.” “Its just the fact that you have a habit that won’t go away,” he added. That is a view shared by many New York City club owners. Eugene Remm, the owner of Tenjune, a club in the meatpacking district that has gained a reputation as smoker-friendly, said his staff always tells patrons to take the smoking outside. The problem, he said, is that they don’t always listen. “You tell them to put it out and then 10 minutes later they light up again,” he said. Tenjune received a citation for patrons’ smoking in December 2008, but has not been cited in 10 subsequent visits, the health department said. GoldBar has been cited for smoking violations three times in the same period. Jamie Mulholland, the owner, did not respond to requests for comment. Many observers, including Mr. Marcus of the health department, blame the club owners for lax enforcement. Bar and restaurant owners were among the most vocal opponents of the ban before it was implemented, arguing that it would drive patrons outside and cut into their drink receipts. It stands to reason that owners might be tempted to look the other way when well-paying customers begin lighting up. But Noah Tepperberg, who is an owner of Avenue and Marquee, say that is far from the truth. “I think you make more money if someone has to go out to smoke,” he said. “They’re going to finish their drink to go outside, then come inside and order another drink.” Mr. Tepperberg scoffed at the idea that a busboy at Avenue had given Mr. Shea and his cigarette a green light. “There’s no way a busboy told him he could smoke inside the club,” he said. “Our staff gets fired if we don’t see them doing their job.” Mike Satsky, an owner of a new meatpacking-district club called the Provocateur, in the Hotel Gansevoort, acknowledged that some owners did turn a blind eye. He described himself as vehemently antismoking and said he has clashed with business partners on the issue, specifically at Stereo, which closed in 2008. “There was a ton of smoking over there,” he said. “Back then I had different partners, and let’s just say not everyone saw eye to eye on the issue.” The same can be said of patrons. Amit Nizan, a 28-year-old marketing consultant, complained about friends who had been smoking inside Butter on a Monday night. “My throat is scratchy today, and it’s not from anything I did,” she said the next morning. Those who have become used to being able to go out without coming home smelling of smoke can take comfort in the words of Mr. Marcus. “Shame on these owners,” he said. “We’re going to pursue them and demonstrate that the rules do apply to everyone.” Read
Nightlife Six Years After Ban, Smoking Returns to NYC's Bars and Clubs November 19, 2009
by Scott Solish The worst kept secret in New York nightlife is that smoking is now allowed in numerous nightspots. Mayor Bloomberg's 2003 law was meant to effectively eliminate all smoking inside bars, and for a while it seemed to work. It was possible for non-smokers to spend a night at their favorite bar or club and not come home reeking of Parliaments, as smokers were forced to step outside to light up. Memories. By 2006, indoor smoking seemed to slowly reappear, starting with a handful of tiny little joints popular with A-list crowds and quickly spreading to just about any and every lounge and club with a doorman and a rope. Now, as soon as one person lights up, the rest of the smoking sheep follow along, and before can say Joe Camel, the whole room is filled with sweet Carolina smoke. Neighbors love it because it keeps noisy smokers off the streets, and smokers love not having to go outdoors for their fix. It seems the only places that are still enforcing the ban are the dingier and more low key bars that probably were the home of many a smoker before the ban. From what operatives here have witnessed, It's obvious that the smoking ban is failing on a number of levels. Numerous lounge and club owners are turning a blind eye to their smoking customers breaking the law as they realize that the likelihood of the City catching them in the act is almost zilch. Meanwhile, non-smoking employees and customers, for whom the law was passed, are forced to inhale the second hand smoke. So what can be done? Beyond increasing enforcement, what if the City created an opt-in clause that would allow bar owners to pay for the right to allow smoking? Their employees would know that they were working in a smoking-friendly environment, patrons would feel free to light up, and the City would see a bit of revenue. The annual charge (based upon capacity) would have to steep enough to make owners think twice about allowing smoking, but not so steep that no one would sign up. The fines for allowing smoking without a license would be steep, say four times the annual fee, so that owners will live up to their responsibilities. Is it perfect? No. Workers stuck in the smoking venues may not find it so easy to relocate. But it would represent a huge step up from the free-for-all that exists today, allowing customers to know where they could have smoke free fun, reduce the number of venues that the City's enforcers have to inspect, and possibly bring in some money for our beloved and cash strapped City. Win, win win. Read
NYC: the city that never smokes A proposal to ban lighting up in New York’s parks has exposed the puritanical agenda behind the crusade against smoking. 26 October 2009
Basham and Luik The truth about second-hand smoking is finally out. Thanks to some unusual candour on the part of the anti-tobacco brigade in New York City, we now have official confirmation that banning smoking in public has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the health of non-smokers from second-hand smoke, but everything to do with stigmatising both smoking and smokers. Closer to home, new evidence from the National Health Service (NHS) shows that the public smoking ban in England has made absolutely no positive difference in smoking rates, despite claims made by its champions that it would. In September, Dr Thomas Farley, New York City’s Health Commissioner, proposed banning smoking at all of the city’s parks and beaches (1). Dr Farley’s rationale for the ban has nothing to do with the risks that outdoor smoking pose to non-smokers, but rather with preventing people, particularly children, from having to see anyone smoking in public. Farley says, ‘We don’t think children should have to watch someone smoking’. Farley also defends the extension of the smoking ban to outdoor areas by arguing that it is ‘part of a broader strategy to further curb smoking rates’. New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, confirmed earlier this month that he would implement Farley’s proposal, arguing that the public is ‘overwhelmingly in favour’ (2). Why have the champions of banning smoking everywhere, even in private accommodation, suddenly come clean about the driving force behind their crusade? The answer is that they have essentially won the war over public smoking. But why is this the case? The answer, sadly, is that for the past 15 to 20 years, the public has been bombarded with a carefully orchestrated government-funded anti-tobacco campaign to convince them – in contradiction of the scientific evidence – that smokers pose a deadly health risk to non-smokers, particularly children. The scientific evidence has never supported the case against public smoking. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s seminal early 1990s report on second-hand smoke was severely flawed. Its critique of second-hand smoke was only sustained through a careful exclusion of non-confirming evidence and a non-traditional application of the statistical test known as confidence limits. The report was subjected to a scathing analysis by a US federal court, which rejected its scientific claims about the dangers of second-hand smoke, a finding that even on appeal was not reversed (3). Moreover, a scientific study conducted by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer found that there was no statistically significant association between smoking in the workplace and social settings and lung cancer in non-smokers. Indeed, the majority of studies about second-hand smoke and lung cancer in non-smokers have found non-statistically significant associations both in workplace and domestic settings. Of course, none of this startling lack of scientific evidence has moved beyond the scientific journals and into the public domain, which means that the debate about public smoking is a non-scientific debate. And this means that it can proceed on virtually any grounds, unchecked by the need for careful and verifiable scientific evidence. The anti-smoking movement has always known that the evidence about the risks of public smoking, or private smoking for that matter, to non-smokers was marginal, at best, and nonexistent, at worst. But this was fundamentally unimportant. Preventing people from smoking in public was never about real health risks - that is, it was never about protecting non-smokers so much as it was about stigmatising smoking and smokers and making it difficult for them to smoke. So with the science of second-hand smoke now never discussed, the anti-tobacco movement feels confident in moving the argument forward and revealing the starkness of its real agenda. There is no compelling evidence that second-hand smoke poses a health risk to anyone in open spaces like public parks and beaches, but that is beside the point. The new push seeks, first, to demonise smoking and, second, to exert a brazen paternalism in which it is made virtually impossible for smokers – for their own good, of course – to light up in any public space. There are profound difficulties with both of these objectives. For one thing, where is the justification for banning unhealthy behaviours from the public square simply on the grounds that someone might see them? Or, indeed, what is the justification for banning unhealthy behaviours from public viewing full stop? This opens up substantial room for prohibiting an enormous range of other behaviours which are neither immoral nor illegal, but simply unhealthy. For example, by parity of reasoning it could be argued that children should never have to see anyone eating unhealthy foods in public, or indeed see anyone who is fat in public. Surely, there must be some evidence that seeing someone engaged in unhealthy behaviour puts others at risk. But where is this evidence? For another thing, there is the issue of whether such measures actually work. For example, the NHS recently released a study on the effectiveness of the public smoking ban (4). The fact is that certain groups, such as young males, are smoking more after the smoking ban than before it. So, not only are such bans not supported by science, they are also not supported by the evidence on their practical effect in changing behaviour. Finally, any policy by which the government engages in stigmatising the legal behaviour of its adult citizens is repugnant in a democratic society. Fundamental to democratic government is the respect that it owes to its adult citizens’ choices about legal behaviour and, more fundamentally, how they choose to live their lives. Paternalistic interventions, whether through stigmatising or other means, can only be justified in the rarest of instances. What the evolution of the debate over public smoking shows is how little science has to do with the anti-tobacco crusade, how disingenuous that crusade is about its real motives and goals, how easily the crusade on tobacco can be extended to other causes (most notably the war on obesity), and how fundamentally dangerous it is to a society both free and democratic. Patrick Basham directs the Democracy Institute and is a Cato Institute adjunct scholar. John Luik is a Democracy Institute senior fellow. They are co-authors of Hidden in Plain Sight: Why Tobacco Display Bans Fail. Previously on spiked Patrick Basham and John Luik argued that tobacco displays did not lead to young people smoking. Christopher Snowdon looked at how critics of smoking bans are labelled as ‘deniers’. He also interviewed David Goerlitz, aka the ‘Winston Man’. Rob Lyons looked at the crazy world of England’s smoking ban and accused UK health campaigners of smoking smokers out of polite society. spiked writers around the world reported on the global crusade against the ‘evil weed’. Mick Hume reflected on what the ban says about today’s society. Dolan Cummings argued that freedom should not be for sale. Or read more at spiked issue Smoking. (1) New York Eyes ‘No Smoking’ Outdoors, Too, New York Times, 15 September 2009 (2) Mayor Bloomberg vows to snuff out smoking in parks, beaches, New York Daily News, 1 October 2009 (3) For more on the EPA study, see An epidemic of epidemiology, by Rob Lyons (4) See Statistics on smoking, NHS, 29 September 2009 [pdf] Read
57% of nonsmoking New Yorkers have toxic residue By Christina Boyle and Kathleen Lucadamo April 8th, 2009 New Yorkers are getting burned by second-hand smoke, according to a study released Wednesday by the Health Department. An alarming 57% of nonsmoking New Yorkers - 2.5 million - have toxic residue in their blood because of second-hand smoke, the agency reported in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research. "Households with a smoker should set a 'no smoking' policy at home to protect the family," advised Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. The high traces of cotinine, a by-product of nicotine, in nonsmokers' blood puts them at greater risk for cancer and heart disease, he warned. Cotinine is not harmful itself but it signals exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, officials said. And in New York, second-hand exposure was far higher than in other, less urban, parts of the country. Nationally, 45% of nonsmoking adults showed elevated levels of cotinine. The study found that Asians and low-income New Yorkers were the most likely to have high cotinine levels. Since the blood survey is the first of its kind, researchers don't know if cotinine levels increased or decreased among nonsmokers in recent years. Despite regulations that ban smoking in bars and offices, New Yorkers are unavoidably exposed to tobacco smoke on sidewalks, near buildings and subway entrances, health officials said. Frieden urged New Yorkers to quit smoking to protect others from smoke damage and has launched graphic TV ads to highlight the impact of the addiction on families. Read=================
Response:
This story shows the total failure of smoking bans: The date of the data is 2004, a year AFTER the NY ban, and a year when NY, CA, and DE were the *only* states to ban bar/restaurant smoking. And yet NY's "exposure level" was 57% - far higher than the national average of 45%. The people who pushed the ban *knew* that it wouldn't actually reduce exposure to secondary smoke, but they pushed it anyway as a "Big Brother" type program to increase social pressure on smokers to quit. The problem they faced was that such a social engineering admission would have doomed the ban to failure - so they dressed it up as "protecting nonsmokers." A lie, just like all their other lies. Some of the other posters here have touched on one of the main "other lies" as well: there's no evidence at all that having "detectable" levels of cotinine in one's blood has any health effect at all. If you lived on a farm you'd probably have "detectable" levels of gasoline chemicals from running the tractor once in a while, but to scare farmers about the "air pollution poisoning" they're getting would be ridiculous. If you ate a single M&M your blood sugar levels would have a "detectable" rise, and we all know blood sugar levels are linked to deadly diabetes, limb amputation, and an early grave. But anyone who started screaming about protecting a child from eating an M&M would be certifiably insane. In short, this is simply a piece of yellow journalism - a story designed to sell papers or push politics by irresponsibly playing on people's fears. The NY Daily News should be ashamed. Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
================= Response: Michael Siegel, MD, MPH Study on Cotinine Levels Among NYC Adults Being Used to Implicate Importance of Brief Tobacco Smoke Exposure on Sidewalks and at Building Entrances Read
NY Times: OK to Defend American Taliban, But Defending Big Tobacco Verboten? Clay Waters 2009-03-27 It's enlightening to see what topics New York Times editors find disturbing and newsworthy and which ones they shrug off or ignore. New York's new senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, is a Democrat who is nonetheless under strong [1]suspicions [2]at the liberal Times for her support of gun rights and her previous representation of a white conservative district. On Friday's front page, she came under fire via a stash of old ammo in a story by Raymond Hernandez and David Kocieniewski. "As New Lawyer, Senator [3]Defended Big Tobacco [4]." Gillibrand is in trouble for defending Big Tobacco as a lawyer representing Philip Morris back in 1996. The Philip Morris Company did not like to talk about what went on inside its lab in Cologne, Germany, where researchers secretly conducted experiments exploring the effects of cigarette smoking. So when the Justice Department tried to get its hands on that research in 1996 to prove that tobacco industry executives had lied about the dangers of smoking, the company moved to fend off the effort with the help of a highly regarded young lawyer named Kirsten Rutnik. Ms. Rutnik, who now goes by her married name, Gillibrand, threw herself into the work. She traveled to Germany at least twice, interviewing the lab's top scientists, whose research showed a connection between smoking and cancer but was kept far from public view. She helped contend with prosecution demands for evidence and monitored testimony of witnesses before a grand jury, following up with strategy memos to Philip Morris's general counsel. The industry beat back the federal perjury investigation, a significant legal victory at the time, but not one that Ms. Gillibrand is eager to discuss. The Times was looking for remorse: Asked whether Ms. Gillibrand had any misgivings about representing the tobacco company, [spokesman Matt] Canter responded by e-mail: "Senator Gillibrand worked for the clients that were assigned to her." The paper's balancing section was very brief: During her most recent congressional race, Ms. Gillibrand, who is a former smoker, accepted $18,200 in campaign donations from tobacco companies and their executives -- putting her among the top dozen House Democrats for such contributions. Many Congressional Democrats do not accept tobacco money. Mr. Canter said the senator should be assessed based on her record in Congress, where she has voted against the industry's interests on several occasions, including supporting cigarette tax increases to help expand children's health care. And Todd Henderson, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, argued that it would be unfair to assess lawyers by whom they represent. "Nobody would want to live in a world in which lawyers are judged by the clients they take," he said. The Times would certainly not want anyone to use professor Henderson's criteria to judge Obama Justice Department appointee Anthony West. Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed [5]West [6]as the President's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Division. So what's news? West (hat-tip the inimitable humorist James [7]Lileks [8]) was the defense lawyer for John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban fighter captured in Afghanistan after 9-11 and sentenced to 20 years in prison. A search indicates the Times has not breathed a word about the West nomination either online or in print, much less brought up West's controversial client on the front page, as it did with Gillibrand's ties to evil tobacco companies. The Times evidently has no trouble with an Obama Justice Department appointee having represented a Taliban fighter and enemy of America, but is immensely bothered by Gillibrand having represented American tobacco companies, who were after all selling a legal product that people purchased freely. Read
Inside NYC's Smoking Speakeasies
It's been five years since Mayor Bloomberg slapped a cigarette ban on the city's bars and nightclubs. But at trendy hot spots like Rose Bar and the Beatrice Inn, plenty of fashionable New Yorkers are breaking the law and lighting up. November 30, 2008
By Sara Cardace By the time the clock strikes 12 on a stormy Thursday night in November, the city's well-heeled libertines are out in full force at the Gramercy Park Hotel's sumptuous Rose Bar, where celebs such as Kate Hudson and Gossip Girl's Ed Westwick like to live it up. Nearly every plush ottoman and banquette in the house is taken, and there's a crowd four deep trying to order $19 ginger fig martinis at the bar, money in hand. But credit cards aren't the only thing they're clutching. Is that a lit Marlboro? Sniff…sniff…why, yes, it is. One unconcerned brunette walks the entire loop of the room with a cigarette in hand. A hipster-casual A&R type is chain-smoking just feet away from the DJ booth and bar, where French record obsessive Max Pask is lost in his work. Nearly a dozen people make it past the doorman and light up shortly after. A spokesperson for the nightspot notes, "The Rose Bar is extremely vigilant in preventing smoking by our patrons. There is a full-time staffperson whose sole responsibility is to monitor and prevent smoking within the bar." But tonight, perhaps, that person had the night off. A pretty Southern newlywed seated at the bar looks around and says with a naughty smile, "I'd been going outside to smoke, but I guess there's really no point, is there?" It's been five years since Mayor Mike Bloomberg banned smoking in bars. And no offense to Hizzoner, but if this is the best the city can do to put an end to nightlife cigarette culture, we can kiss all hope of a balanced budget goodbye. In his defense, maybe the mayor has no idea. We're guessing he doesn't hit the Beatrice Inn very often—and that he wasn't at Citrine last month, when "Page Six" spotted Shannen Doherty smoking like a chimney at a private party. But that classic combination of cocktail-plus-Camel Lights has made a comeback in a major way. Maybe it's the desire to exert control over your personal rights when you have none over your crashing IRA. Or maybe it's just that New York socialites and scenesters are lawless. Whatever the reason, public ashing is back in. "The exclusive spots do tend to let you smoke because it's an indication that anything goes and that the powers-that-be aren't going to snuff out a good time," says Grub Street blogger Daniel Maurer. "Look at [chef Todd English's new restaurant] the Libertine—not exactly a hot spot, but they had cigarette girls doling out cigars and ciggies during the opening party" back in September. Muses 21-year-old scenemaker (and Page Six Magazine columnist) Liam McMullan, "There was a time when people were more uptight about enforcing the ban—and maybe they still are on the weekends, but if it's a weeknight or if you're at a private event, it's not really enforced." "I have definitely smoked cigarettes at SubMercer," confirms a girlish 28-year-old writer, who lives in the East Village, in a confessional tone. "I went ahead and lit up because everyone else was doing it and nobody was hiding." (SubMercer chose not to respond to these claims.) A chic, strawberry-blonde fashion account exec recalls, "Both times I was at Home and Guest House I ended up smoking in the side room—once at a private party and once on a regular Saturday night. No one said anything. At the big, trendy clubs they just want people to stay and buy more booze." And though a rep for Home and Guest House notes, "It's our policy that there's no smoking in the club," this 30-year-old fashion exec from Hoboken, N.J., is willing to break the law. Why? As she notes, "There's just something about smoking and dancing. And life, especially here, is so stressful that no one wants to deal with getting your coat and going outside and having to tell the doorman you are smoking but not leaving—it's just too much of a project. I am pretty much willing to smoke anywhere and see what they say before I would volunteer to go outside!" And apparently the zeitgeist is doing its part as well: "The general consensus," says blogger Daniel, "is that New York isn't as fun as it used to be—and cigarette smoke is a visceral reminder of the good old days. And a much better one than glow sticks." One metrosexual assistant fashion stylist, 32, is similarly dismissive: "Like there aren't enough things to worry about right now?" he snorts. "No one has to go to a bar. No one is required to go to a club. So by going in you're signing on to everything that's going on inside. I mean, I would love to put a ban on house music but instead I just don't go to dance clubs. It's not like I'm walking around Target with a cigarette in my mouth!" He did try to quit for a couple of years, but recently pushed the idea to the back of his mind. "Honestly? The world's crazy enough these days. I'm not going to deny myself the pleasure of a cigarette. It's the only vice I've got left!" It seems that the smokers aren't the only ones longing for simpler, more self-indulgent times. Some- times it's the club owners too. Though the publicist for GoldBar says the club "has a no-smoking policy," one pixiesh downtown magazine editor, 28, recalls a particularly bacchanalian smokefest she had at the glittering Nolita spot over the summer: "I was hanging out there with a group of friends when, around midnight, our waitress came over and placed ashtrays down on the tables in front of us. Shocked, I asked her if we were allowed to smoke inside and she said yes. I jokingly asked her if Mayor Bloomberg knew about this. She rolled her eyes and continued to put down more ashtrays. We also danced up a storm—isn't that illegal too?" (Answer: Probably.) Back in 2003, Mayor Bloomberg was zealous in pushing through the law forbidding smoking in NYC bars and restaurants, arguing, "People will adjust very quickly and a lot of lives will be saved." The New York Nightlife Association waged war against the ban, but antismoking advocates retaliated by calling the police to tattle on offenders. City officials even arrived at Vanity Fair's headquarters at 4 Times Square in 2003 after an employee called in to report editor in chief Graydon Carter for ashing on the job. ("I find Mayor Bloomberg's smoking laws to be nothing short of asinine and their enforcement to be nothing short of harassment," Graydon has said.) Still, just last month, the mayor touted the success of the prohibition. "It turns out that it is economically good for the bar and restaurant business," he bragged. "It's certainly good for everybody except the funeral parlors." A spokesperson for Bloomberg tells Page Six Magazine they believe the compliance rate to be at 94 percent. And while the mere presence of an ashtray can get bars slapped with a minimum $200 fine, what's a couple hundred bucks to club owners who are unloading a free-flowing stream of double-digit drinks and $400 bottles of Ketel One to the city's rich and trendy? "I think the fines are actually extremely low," says nightlife blogger Scott Solish of DownbytheHipster.com. "If someone's smoking and the inspectors happen to come, it's a relatively small amount to pay. To [bars], it's worth it. To enforce the smoking ban you'd have to pay for additional staff, hire more people to manage the door—it's just an additional hassle." So, instead, bright young things are smoking their cares away—and the scene feels like a return to the anything-goes speakeasies of yesteryear. "It started at certain places," Scott notes, "and people got used to the fact that late at night, those places were going to allow you to smoke. So they take it from one place to the next." Brian Michels, owner of the legally smoker-friendly bar Circa Tabac (the Olsen twins have reportedly chain-smoked their way through lunch there), puts it succinctly: "When you're out for a good time you want to indulge. And what goes better with a martini than a fine tobacco product?" He also links such smoky cravings to the Big Apple's current economic woes. "It's the Depression-era kind of thing, sure," Brian says. "When things get bad in the world, liquor and tobacco sales go up. The economy goes down, bankers rob the country and people get frustrated and resort to…vices." Indeed, a 2002 University of Michigan study estimates that cigarette consumption goes up by nearly 10 percent in stressful times, such as after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Admittedly, it's not the easiest thing in the world to police your patrons, particularly when they're celebrities seeking to take the very decadence you're promoting one step further. Former MisShapes doorman turned publicist Thomas Onorato is sympathetic to bar owners and argues the ban has created a "no-win" situation for many of them. "Certain exclusive venues could turn a blind eye to it within reason, especially if they are dealing with famous or influential people," he explains. "Taking into account the current economy and [the fact] that most venues are set up to primarily do bottle-service business, anything to keep the cash flowing and keep important customers happy makes sense to some business owners." Some of the city's trendiest spots even make smoking itself an exclusive act. "I smoke at the Beatrice all the time, but not everyone can get away with it," notes a 27-year-old East Village Web editor and party-hopping regular who dares not speak her own name, lest her privileges get revoked. (Calls to the Beatrice Inn for comment were not answered.) "If you're a girl, a guy who's a regular or a guy who's famous, you can light up wherever you want, including on the dance floor. If you're someone the staff doesn't know, though, they'll come tell you to put your cigarette out—even as five people around you are puffing away in plain sight." From the tone of her voice, something tells us she's not just blowing smoke. Read
KING BLOOMBERG MIKE IS A MAYOR RUN AMOK By FRED SIEGEL November 22, 2008 When Mayor Bloomberg deployed his vast personal and political power to overturn the term limits law, he began to demystify the public relations image he had purchased at considerable expense. It was only then that New Yorkers began to recognize the danger of making Gotham's wealthiest man its chief executive. That recognition is the reason his approval rating slipped by nine points in the latest Marist poll. The public chose a mayor; they didn't expect an elected monarch. POLL: Not As Many Folks Like Mike Now The latest furor over his unaccountable power is his unlawful refusal to send out property tax rebate checks that have been due since Oct. 1. "We have no money . . . this is not a legal issue, it's a fiscal issue," he says, an argument that boils down to "I know better." But the cupboards are bare because Bloomberg has emptied them for his own political ambitions. While the stock market was heading south, Bloomberg, one eye on a potential presidential run, raised his approval numbers by expanding the city payroll. Since 2004, he has hired at least 40,000 new city employees, while bringing his own mayoral staff to record levels. Similarly, to help clear the way for a third term, Bloomberg has been shoveling out considerable money in the form of newly negotiated u nion contracts with the Policeman's Benevolent Association, DC37 and the Corrections Officers that run above the rate of inflation. If it wasn't above an elegant gentleman such as the mayor to stoop to such measures, you might call this what Tammany Hall did: vote buying. Bloomberg is only too happy to raise property taxes on the unorganized middle class if that's what it takes to keep the power of the city's politically well-organized u nions in his corner or on the sidelines come election time. People assume that because of his successful career in business, Bloomberg is a manager and not a politician. That gets things exactly backwards. As mayor, he's been little interested in management. When the Staten Island Ferry crashed, killing 11 people, the politically well-connected Transportation Commissioner was spared a reprimand, let alone fired. When the mayor was informed that a set of subway switches had burned out and couldn't be replaced for months or even years, guaranteeing massive delays, Bloomberg nonchalantly said fine, that's the way it will have to be. He reversed himself only after howls of public protest. When a blackout produced by Con Ed incompetence left more than 100,000 Queens residents without electricity for a week, Manager Mike declined even to visit the affected areas until the press began to hound him. Even then he declared, "I think [Con Ed CEO] Kevin Burke deserves a thank you from this city. He's worked as hard as he can." It took 13 construction-related deaths before the mayor was moved to replace the City Building Commissioner. Bloomberg touts himself as a CEO who can negotiate the best deal for the city. But part of running the city includes bargaining with people he can neither give orders to, nor buy like the City Council. That's made Bloomberg a singular failure in Albany, where the mayor tried to steamroll his ill-conceived congestion pricing plan through the Assembly. The plan, which seemed designed as much to provide Bloomberg with a green issue for his presidential campaign as to decongest Manhattan, met with a skeptical response. Bloomberg's reaction was to blame his defeat on "gutless" opponents. While arguing over whether to reauthorize Off Track Betting, the Mayor clashed with the normally mild-mannered Governor Paterson, whose support is essential for the city; Paterson came away describing the mayor to the Post's Fred Dicker as "a nasty, untrustworthy, tantrum-prone liar who has little use for average New Yorkers." While Bloomberg has been little interested in management, he has been superbly self-promoting. Early on he sold credulous journalists on the idea that he was a post-partisan mayor, a man who rose above conventional party politics. This is in a sense true. He has been only too willing to buy support from either of the major parties to achieve his own ends. A self-described "liberal Democrat," he shipped out with the Republicans under a flag of convenience in order to run for mayor in 2001. He then abandoned the GOP to become an independent, and his staff is now exploring the chances of his running as a Democrat for re-election in 2009. But talk of party labels misses the point. Bloomberg runs his own personalized political party. He is not so much bi- or non-partisan as his own political pole, one that offers Michael Bloomberg as the sole program. * The traditional danger with party candidates is that they can be bought up by special interest groups. Bloomberg reverses the old game; he's won office by buying up the interest groups. When in office, Bloomberg - like most mayors - used public funds to keep the organized interests happy while putting the city at fiscal risk. But Bloomberg adds a twist, by dipping into his own vast treasury to buy support through "anonymous" gifts to non-profit institutions. For years, our so-called "business savvy" mayor has only one strategy: Spend. In 2007, the city took in 41% more in taxes than it did in 2000. And yet that wasn't enough to cover Bloomberg's gargantuan vote-buying spree. During Bloomberg's first six years as mayor, notes The Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas, city spending shot up about 50% - from $41 to $62 billion. That meant that even in the midst of an unprecedented boom, Bloomberg's genius required the city to incur record levels of debt. One method of buying support has come in the form of lavish subsidies to his wealthy developer friends. Early in his administration, when Bloomberg was still presenting himself as a reformer, he promised to end the practice of "bribing companies" to stay in New York. Yet that is exactly what he did in the case of developer Jerry Speyer, part owner of Yankees, who is building the New Yankee Stadium, and Fred Wilpon, owner of the Mets. Between direct and indirect subsidies the city is committed to spend nearly a billion dollars on the two very profitable teams in what amounts to a transfer of money from working stiffs into the pockets of the wealthiest New Yorkers. The Industrial Commercial Incentive Program, meanwhile, designed to retain business that might flee the city's onerous taxes, has doubled under Bloomberg. Today roughly 6,000 business received a half a billion dollars in the kind of rebate relief that the mayor now wants to deny to middle class homeowners. For those who object to his tax strategy, Bloomberg always has the same response: "we're just not going to return to the dark old days of the '70s, when service cuts all but destroyed our quality of life." It's not clear if this argument is willfully ill-informed or merely self-serving evasion. But it was John Lindsay's tax hikes in the years leading up to the fiscal crisis that sent the city spiraling down into effective bankruptcy. The upshot was that in the 1970s, the city work force faced major layoffs, which only deepened the downturn. We're again headed down that path. Even as Bloomberg hikes the wages of senior workers who are crucial to the leadership of their respective u nions, and hence Bloomberg's royal re-election bid, he's threatening sizeable layoffs for the newest hires. The city was only rescued from the Lindsay/Beame policies when the stock market revived in the early 1980s. That was the beginning of the long boom built on highly leveraged financial firms that has now come to a definitive end. Bloomberg is so committed to his ideal of the "luxury city" run by and for the wealthy and organized interest groups that the Wall Street collapse took him completely by surprise. Like Lindsay's successor, the hapless Abe Beame, Bloomberg seems not to understand what's happening around him. His budget projections are based on the notion that the future economic path will be shaped like a U, but it's more likely to look like an L. New York, which became ever more dependent on Wall Street's high rollers to create each new job a thousand-dollar meal at a time, is going to have to rethink its economic future. Wall Street as we knew it is never coming back. The high taxes and over-regulation Bloomberg prefers pushes out the small- to medium-size businesses that will have to drive much of our economic growth in the future. * We're likely to look back on the Bloomberg years as a time of lost opportunities to build on the gains of the Giuliani years. Between 2003 and 2007, the vast flow of revenues produced a boom that gave the city a chance to dig out from under its massive debt and restructure its labor contracts. Instead, Bloomberg's agenda added costs that will plague the city long into the future. There is no better monument to Bloomberg failures as a CEO - of his arrogant inability to negotiate, of his purchased reputation - than with New York's education system. Bloomberg, who has had whole subway cards plastered with ads and full-page spreads in the newspapers touting his educational "achievements," has done a far better job of promoting himself than improving the schools. He has nearly doubled the education budget. Yet his "reforms" have created considerable chaos in the schools, which have now been re-organized three times to little educational effect. What the changes haven't produced, Bloomberg's vast PR operation notwithstanding, is improvement on the national education tests. His education legacy to date: the debts that will have to borne by a work force ill-prepared for the economy to come. Bloomberg says he's beyond politics. He's right. We're living in his monarchy, subjects to his unwavering faith in himself. Fred Siegel, senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation, is writing a book on the making of modern liberalism. Read
Ex-Inmate Loses Lawsuit Over Secondhand Smoke By JOHN ELIGON Published: May 14, 2008 A man who was notorious among the city’s law enforcement officials for being a leader in the illegal numbers business has lost a lawsuit against the Department of Correction that blamed the Rikers Island smoking policy for his bladder cancer. A jury voted 6-0 on Friday to reject the claim of the man, Raymond Marquez, who pleaded guilty to illegal gambling charges in 1996 and had to pay a fine of $1 million. Mr. Marquez was arrested two years later on similar charges and spent 29 months at Rikers waiting for his trial. It was during that time, Mr. Marquez said, that he was exposed to secondhand smoke that led to the cancer diagnosis in 2000. (Mr. Marquez was acquitted of the crime he was charged with in 1998.) At that time, prisoners could smoke in the inmate living area. In 2003, when the city passed its public-smoking ban, that practice ceased. Mr. Marquez, 78, filed the $15 million suit despite the fact that he had been a smoker for 30 years. David Marquez, Mr. Marquez’s son and lawyer, said that his client had not inhaled deeply when he smoked, and that by the time he went to Rikers, he had not smoked for 23 years. “There are medical books, current and past, that say that the risk for bladder cancer in someone who has smoked dissipates over 20 years to the level of a never smoker,” David Marquez said Tuesday afternoon. The lawyer said he was considering appealing the jury’s verdict. He said his father was not in the dire stages of cancer. Scot Gleason, the lead lawyer for the city in the case, said he believed he sold the jury on two major points. “We never violated any laws,” he said. He said he also persuaded the jury to consider society’s attitudes toward smoking at the time Mr. Marquez was in Rikers, 1998-2001, not what they are now. “The way we as a society have treated secondhand smoke has evolved over time,” he said, adding that there was a time it was perfectly acceptable to smoke in the workplace or anywhere in a restaurant. But David Marquez said that the ventilation system at Rikers was untested and inadequate, and that the people running the jail had a responsibility to keep the ventilation up to standard because of the high rate of smoking. “The landlord had an obligation to maintain the place in an environmentally safe condition,” he said. Dating to the 1950s, Mr. Marquez, who had the nickname Spanish Raymond, was at the top of the illegal numbers business. He was something of a Harlem celebrity, touting flashy clothes, cars and jewelry. Read
Region’s smoking rate is among highest in state Nov 18, 2007 By CHINKI SINHA Utica, N.Y. - The Mohawk Valley’s large numbers of low-income families and refugees are factors contributing to the region’s high smoking rate, experts say. Read
Mall Will Go Smoke Free County official calls Carousel policy 'the right thing to do' October 18, 2007 By Rick Moriarty, Staff writer Smoke 'em if you got 'em, but not at the Carousel Center. Starting Jan. 1, the mall will ban all smoking on its property, including sidewalks, parking lots and loading docks. Smoking has been banned by state law inside the mall since 2003, but it is allowed in outdoor areas. The new policy will apply to shoppers and employees alike. Rob Schoeneck, the mall's general manger, said the total ban is part of the mall's efforts to be the premier shopping center in the region and to promote a healthy work and shopping environment. He said health experts have determined that no amount of secondhand smoke is safe, even in outdoor areas. "The evidence continues to grow regarding the health dangers of secondhand smoke," he said Wednesday at a news conference announcing the policy. Dr. Cynthia Morrow, Onondaga County commissioner of health, said she knows of no other shopping center in the Syracuse area with a smoking ban that includes outdoor areas. "We certainly think it's the right thing to do," she said. "We hope others will follow." Martha Ryan, senior director of cancer control for the American Cancer Society in the Central New York region, said she could find no other shopping center in the country that bans smoking in outdoor areas. Ryan said the ban could help smokers by encouraging them to quit and will protect nonsmokers because they no longer will have to breathe in secondhand smoke as they enter the mall. She said 3,000 nonsmokers die each year in the United States from secondhand smoke. "The idea that smoke outdoors quickly dissipates is false," she said. Read
Board of Education bans tobacco-related items Sept 28, 2007
William J. Kemble
RED HOOK - School board members on Thursday voted to ban from school grounds "clothing, bags, lighters and other personal articles" that have tobacco logos or other smoking-related "identifiers." Trustees said methods for enforcing the ban will be addresses in the near future. Board members were split on whether visitors to schools or district-sponsored events should be asked to change their clothes or leave the grounds if they wear tobacco-related items. "I'm not looking make this the smoking police or the wardrobe police that says, 'You've got a Camel hat,'" board President Sean McLaughlin said. "Are we creating a policy that's unenforceable?" he wondered. "The downside to that is why have (the rules) if they are not enforceable? Why create them?" Trustee Kelly Mosher said the policy was developed by a district committee that intended for the restrictions to include clothing and items belonging to visitors, not just students and school employees. "That was the idea," she said. Under the policy, the banned clothing and items also would be prohibited "in school vehicles or at school-sponsored events." Also, tobacco-related advertising "is prohibited in all school-sponsored publications," the policy states. Trustee Frank Knobloch said the preponderance of subtle ads could create enforcement problems. "You are not going to be impressed with how many tobacco ads there are out there until you forbid them," he said. Trustee Johanna Moore said resistance is likely if the policy is enforced. "It could get ugly if people are asked to leave an event if they aren't dressed appropriately," she said. Penalties for students found smoking on school property is a three-day suspension and required participation in an intervention program. Read
A report from the New York City Community Health Survey: NYC Vital Signs August 2007 Who's Still Smoking? Cigarette Use Among Adults in New York City Read
Smoking Is Legal; Smokers Are Not Second-Hand Citizens 6/24/2007 Smoking is legal. Prohibition didn’t work in the ’20s with alcohol and it won’t work now. If you think the county can afford to pay ‘‘smoke police’’ then you have another think coming. Why don’t you pay to have people arrested for smoking on the streets that ALL people pay for. I am a tax payer as well as hundreds of other people. And guess what??? NON-SMOKERS are not the only people that walk down the streets of Jamestown or any other street in this country. If you believe all the hype, rhetoric, and false statements about the dangers of second-hand smoke then I guess you believe what ever you want to believe. Why doesn’t the government outlaw cigarettes completely? Why does the government subsidize the tobacco industry? Why is it that the smokers pay one more extra tax that non-smokers pay? Where did all the money go from the Tobacco Settlement Agreement? What is all the money from the American Cancer Society, Lung Association and Heart association spent on. Do some research. I have been researching these questions for more than four years now. If the government were to outlaw tobacco, where do you think they would go to make up the loss from the taxes?? Your pocket. Watch what you wish for because it might come back and bite you. This smoke law is social engineering, engineered by do-gooders and special interest groups. With all the money spent on television ads from these groups and the pharmaceutical industry, every American citizen would have health insurance. The elected officials in government were not put in office to protect us from ourselves. Everyone is an individual. This is not a perfect world nor will it ever be. Smoking is a legal product and smokers are not social outcasts. We are not second hand citizens. Look around this county and see how many bars, bingo halls, and restaurants have closed or are struggling. How many clubs can you say are doing well since the ban. I can tell you: none. If anyone wants to research this just ask the establishments if they have lost revenue and how many donations they can give now to the differents organizations that they used to give to. It’s really pathetic when the market place can’t dictate what is good for their business. We are not ‘‘publicly owned.’’People come to these places by CHOICE. This is AMERICA. LAND OF THE FREE. Free to pay taxes and let the government dictate our lives. Brenda Perks Mel’s Place Falconer Read
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves GOP June 19, 2007 NEW YORK - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race. Read
Report: Many Bars Ignore Smoking Ban May 27, 2007
More and more bar and clubs across the five boroughs are reportedly allowing patrons to smoke – violating the city's four-year-old ban. According to the New York Post, smokers have been lighting up freely in many expensive clubs and local pubs. Smoking in city bars and restaurants has been a violation since 2003. Venues that do not comply can be hit with fines or even shut down after repeat offenses. But some club workers told the paper they would rather pay fines than deal with neighbors who complain about smokers on the sidewalk. The Department of Health says it has handed out about twice as many violations in the past year as the year before, and shut down nine businesses that didn't comply with the ban. Read
CIG BAN? WHAT CIG BAN? May 27, 2007
By ANGELA MONTEFINISE CITY HOT SPOTS SMOKING AGAIN Picture of a woman talking to to a man while smoking caption: May 25, 1:35 a.m. Bungalow 8 515 W. 27th St., Manhattan While Mayor Bloomberg tries to make the world safe from greenhouse gases, his cigarette ban is going up in smoke. Scores of trendy clubs and neighborhood pubs across the five boroughs have become smoking speakeasies, where bartenders and bouncers regularly ignore the prohibition launched in 2003. The Post spotted scofflaw smokers openly puffing away in a dozen bars and clubs in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island during the past few weeks - including celebrity hangouts Bungalow 8, Tenjune, Butter, Marquee, Plumm and Guest House. The violations The Post witnessed include: * A bartender and 15 patrons smoking all night inside Doyle's Corner bar in Astoria on the rainy night of May 16. The same scenario was witnessed several weeks earlier. * A half-dozen hipster patrons at Brooklyn Ale House in Williamsburg smoking openly at the bar and at back tables early Saturday morning. * A bartender at Boat in Brooklyn saying, "It's 12:30. You can smoke now," as they passed out makeshift ashtrays last Wednesday night. Earlier, she told a patron to stop smoking, but after her announcement, a number of patrons started up again and the bar was filled with smokers for another hour. * Dozens of smokers puffing on the dance floor and in the VIP area at the Marquee club on back-to-back nights as security guards looked the other way last week. * At least 10 people smoking in Chelsea's small, exclusive club Bungalow 8 Thursday night. A security guard walked past the smokers to tell The Post, "You can't take pictures in here." * Half the patrons of the Annadale Inn in Staten Island lighting up in the wee hours after the bartender closed the window gate to keep out prying eyes several weeks ago. * Several smokers blowing smoke in the small basement of Lit Lounge on Second Avenue last week. "They used to" enforce the smoking ban, Brett, a Marquee regular, told The Post last week. "But they barely pay attention now." Smoking has been prohibited in bars, nightclubs and restaurants since March 2003, after the Bloomberg initiative became law in the fall of 2002. Establishments are responsible for prohibiting smoking indoors, putting up "no smoking" signs and eliminating all ashtrays. Smokers are not punished. Fines of up to $2,000 can be issued for every violation, and after three in one year businesses could lose their licenses. From April 2006 to March 2007, nine businesses were permanently shut due to smoking. The city Department of Health said most businesses have been compliant, although there are violators. "We can't be everywhere all the time," a spokeswoman said. Agency statistics show 199 establishments hit with 542 violations from April 2006 to March 2007, compared to 162 establishments getting 258 violations in the prior 12-month period. The number of complaints dropped from about 3,000 to 2,000 from last year to this year. "It's a lose-lose," said an employee of a popular club on West 27th Street. "If we send people outside to smoke, people in the neighborhood got annoyed about the noise. If we let them smoke inside, we get hit with fines." Allowing smoking indoors is "the lesser of two evils," he said. Katie Browne, 26, a New Jersey paralegal and frequent clubgoer, said she has noticed a rise in smoking at nightspots over the past year. "I hate it. My clothes
|
