The World's Loudest Cigarette: Six Years of the Smoking Ban

Six years ago this week, a smoking ban was imposed on bars, restaurants and other venues in New York City. While the atmosphere inside bars has improved and there are studies that suggest that there has been a significant improvement in the health of nightlife operators and patrons, there have also been secondary effects that threaten the health of the nightlife industry in general. The city has unintentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) created a situation that puts clubs at odds with local residents and ultimately threatens liquor licenses.

History

Before the election of Michael Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, bars and clubs were bastions of smoking. Federal studies found that 61% of heavy alcohol users also smoked, often performing both acts simultaneously. The image entering a smoky bar and approaching a sexual interest by asking for a light were common in many venues in the city. Anyone who went into or worked in a bar accepted the concept that smokers would be there and that they would be able to smell the smoke on their clothes and in their hair long after they left the venue, whether they smoked or not. Back when the world was young and I worked in Webster Hall, I had to sneak outside several times a night for the chance to breathe fresh air. Cigarette smoke triggers my asthma, so for me working in the basement was like working in a burning building. It wasn’t the smartest thing I ever did, but a

hustler does what he has to do, especially when he’s starting out.

In 2002 after Bloomberg became mayor, one of the first things he pushed for was a ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and clubs. The debate leading up to the passage of the law was hotly contested on both sides. Groups that advocated the ban claimed that operators inside the clubs were the most vulnerable to the dangers of second hand smoke because they were exposed to it several hours a night for several nights per week. They claimed a ban would both improve the long term health of operators and improve nightlife business because it would attract people who didn’t smoke into the environment to spend money. Groups that came out against the ban did not deny the health benefits, but they did argue that there would be economic and social effects that the law did not take into account. They also claimed that there would be increased friction from the community because of the noise generated from patrons standing outside to smoke from 5 PM to 4 AM.

The Sound of Smoking

Some people think that a few people standing outside a venue will not substantially increase the level of street noise. But that concept only considers the smokers themselves. They don’t see that smokers, especially female smokers, provide a powerful incentive for groups of fanatics to hang out in front of a club, especially the ones who didn’t get into or got thrown out. In a twisted effort to get noticed and prove their superiority, these individuals will shout, get into fights, honk their horns if they are in their cars, or try to talk to girls from their cars and back up traffic behind them which causes other cars to blow their horns. This sad mating ritual cacophony will die down when the girls finish smoking and go back inside, but it will begin again when the next group of girls comes out of the club to take their place.

The relationship between street noise and smoking outside should not have come as a surprise to anyone involved in the development of the smoking ban since the NYNA informed city that the smoking ban would lead to noise complaints. But when operators requested the ability to hire Paid Detail officers to deal with the inevitable noise the result was the worst of all options. The smoking ban was put in place and the request for Paid Detail was rejected, allowing the smoking ban to become a major contributor of street noise. When street noise increases, 311 complaints from local residents increase. When complaints increase, local community boards can use those complaints to have a venue’s liquor license revoked. Without a liquor license, a bar or a club can’t compete in the market and is forced to close. There is a direct relationship between the smoking ban and the increase in noise complaints against clubs. As the ban enters its 6th year operators need to find a way to keep patrons healthy and stay opened.

Coping Strategies

Different venues use different tactics to deal with the ban. Any venue that has been built or renovated since 2003 could factor the law into their design. The ones that could afford it added heated courtyard lounges like Cielo, rooftop access like Above Allen or fire escape access like APT to give smokers access to the open air without putting them out on the street. Venues that don’t have that option rope off areas in front of the venue to separate the smokers who already made it past the velvet rope from the throngs still trying to get inside.

There are also growing instances of venues that do not rope off areas out front, or create special sections for them. Some operators have come to the conclusion openly or privately that it is easier and more cost effective to simply break the law. Smoking in clubs reported to be on the rise in New York City, either because enforcement has dropped off, or because the fines are low enough that paying them costs less than complying with the law or getting noise complaints. While this minority of operators might not openly reject the law, they have come to the conclusion that the cost of paying the fine is less than the cost of erecting smoking areas or subjecting their liquor licenses to revocation based on noise complaints from smokers standing outside. Some solutions have worked better than others, but one thing the clubs won’t do is discourage smoking by their clientele since by some operator estimates, smokers account for 40% of patrons.

A More Viable Solution

There is an alternative that protects the health of patrons and operators, keeps noise levels down outside of venues and allows patrons to smoke all at the same time. There are air filtration systems on the market that have been approved by the Department of Health and are currently used by infectious disease wards in hospitals to clean the air. These systems reportedly are the size of a humidifier and one of them can keep 1,250 square feet of interior air cleaner than the air in Central Park, even if 60% of the people are smoking inside. The NYNA proposed that if a venue was primarily a bar, lounge or club and not a restaurant then they could have one filter installed for every 1,250 square feet of interior space and become exempt from the ban. This request was not included in the final version of the law.

The best options available for the industry are to continue to lobby officials on the state or and local level that patrons can smoke inside without health risks, through the use of technology like filtration units. They can also try and work with local community leaders and law enforcement to gain the power to control or reduce noise outside the venues through Paid Detail. Finally, they could work to sever the links between street noise and liquor licenses so that loud patrons don’t lead to closed venues. Whatever tactic operators decide to use they need to insure that the smoking ban isn’t harmful to nightlife health.

Have fun.
Gamal

Are Police the New Health Inspectors or Tax Collectors?

By Gamal Hennessy

Imagine this. You’re sitting in your favorite bar nursing a drink and wondering how you’re going to convince the waitress to give you her phone number. Without warning three cops walk in, push behind the bar and start poking around with their flashlights, making everyone in the room very nervous. As you gather up your belongings and discreetly make your way towards the door, would you assume that this was a raid? Would you guess that the cops were looking for drugs, guns or child pornography? Would you believe they were looking for fruit flies?

Fruit flies are drawn to alcoholic beverages and bar owners are required by the state law to keep them out of liquor bottles as a matter of public health. As part of the routine inspections by the Department of Health (DOH) bars are inspected for fruit flies and any venue that has fruit flies on or in the bottles is subject to a fine that could run between $700 and $1,000 per infested bottle. This is a normal part of the nightlife business and isn’t really a cause of concern among operators. The problem arises in the way the law has recently been enforced. Even if you are a nightlife native who frequents various venues, you have probably never seen a DOH inspection taking place. That’s because inspectors keep a relatively low profile while conducting their business. Patrons usually have no idea what is going on and they don’t have to. But there have been reports of layoffs at the DOH, which could mean fewer inspectors. But inspections still need to be conducted, especially since every violation can lead to fines that cash strapped city and state governments are desperately looking for. So somehow the DOH has been replaced with the NYPD who is anything but low profile when they come into the bar.

One operator commented on the climate that the NYPD creates; “By sending a uniformed officers from the NYPD behind your bar with a flashlight looking for fruit flies and whatever else they can find at the height of your business hours creates a stressful situation for you and your customers. It looks like a crime was committed in your place and they are looking for evidence. It gets people talking about your establishment in ways you don't want.”

Bar and lounge owners in various parts of the city have described this scenario happening in their bars with increasing frequency. Some operators think that the NYPD has been given a mandate to perform random inspections as a way to “find” violations and provide the city and the state with much needed revenue. Various operators have voiced opinions about the situation: “What they are thinking is that they are going to get funds for a broke state and city no matter what the consequences. No thought is given to the outcome except that those cops better come back with some violations. With cops conducting their random inspections, we are at the whim of whoever is giving these cops the orders to do these. It is much more invasive and detrimental to our businesses. “I don't think this has anything to with revenge against a particular venue. All bars are suffering this treatment. This has more to do with the city's need to collect more revenue in the shape of fines and the fact that they've laid off a number of health inspectors.”

So instead of increasing state revenue by working with the nightlife industry, local government is trying to increase state revenue by intimidating and attacking it, using the police as its instrument. We have pointed out in previous articles that ending the backlog in liquor license applications and increasing the number of venues would actually increase state revenue significantly. And as dangerous as fruit flies are to public health, the police are probably better utilized deterring and preventing crime outside of venues instead of poking around behind the bar looking for bugs. We know that the state wants to use liquor consumption as cash cow and nightlife is an economic resource that the city can use for its benefit, but only if it takes more of a cooperative stance instead of being antagonistic.

Unfortunately, some operators don’t see things getting better because they don't feel the lobbying efforts are strong enough to support their position. “With all due respect to our lobbying groups, I really don't think they have the stomach for this kind of fight. We are just going to have to put up with this intrusive behavior by our government and keep our bars as clean as possible.”

So if you see a couple of cops climb behind your favorite bar, it might not be a raid. It might just be an abusive health inspection.

Have fun.

Gamal

So Where Are the Cops?

By Gamal Hennessy

Several people were stabbed over the weekend outside a TriBeCa club. The violence that occurred is the latest incident involving this venue and is sure to be used as an example of out of control nightlife here in the city. Unfortunately, incidents like this might be inevitable given the current position of the New York Police Department. Until nightlife venues are given the same police protection as other venues, violence will be a part of the nightlife experience.

Deco has several aspects to it that make it a less than ideal example of a New York venue. According to Matthew Chayes of New York Newsday, Deco has been operating without a liquor license since January 3, 2009 and it was the scene of two shootings in 2007. On Saturday night, two people were allegedly slashed with razor blades by Mario Olmedo. Later that same evening there was a report that three more people were attacked with blades outside the same venue.

Newsday wasn’t able to contact the operators of Deco for a statement, but the ripples are already being felt in the industry. Operators who were planning to move the Flatiron performance space Cutting Room to TriBeCa withdrew his scheduled appearance before the community board yesterday because he didn’t want the backlash from Deco to influence the decision on his liquor license.

It is an unfortunate fact of nightlife that fanatics and amateurs get most of the attention when it comes to news stories about nightlife. Very few pages are written about the tens of thousands of patrons who go out, have a good time and get home safely without slicing each other up in the street. It is objectionable that these incidents occur in spite of the fact that nightlife advocates have repeatedly requested the ability to have uniformed police officers patrolling the streets near venues during peak hours. One of the major points that came out of the Nightlife Summit of 2006 was a specific request by the New York Nightlife Association to have paid police patrols outside clubs to enforce laws that club security can’t enforce outside the venue. This request was, and continues to be rejected by the NYPD because it could potentially breed “corruption between the club owners and the cops.”

Serious violence is rare in nightlife, but as long as there are fanatics out there, the potential for violence exists. But while the NYPD protects itself from potential corruption, operators are held responsible for violence that they do not have the authority to control. They suffer the wrath of the irate community board members looking for any reason to shut down our venues. We as patrons are left to fend for ourselves among the fanatics when we go out, creating a situation where some of us will have to go to the hospital when our night is over.

Have fun.
G