Think the New York City council will pass a law making small restaurants and bars smoke-free, as Mayor Bloomberg wishes?

Are you in favor or opposed? I'm in favor.

A New York Times editorial today says that if this law passes it will put the New York City alongside California and Delaware as the nation's most unaccommodating places for smoking.

I am not a New Yorker and a non-smoker. To be honest, the smoke doesn't really bother me in restaurants and bars. Since I will not be affected by any new law that passes which will ban smoking, I am fairly neutral on the matter. However, if such law passes, I forsee a huge uproar amongst smokers in Manhattan. Manhattan has a very large number of smokers.

Smoke doesn't bother me much while I'm at a bar drinking, but when I get home I notice how much my clothing stinks! Yechhh! So I guess I'm for it, 'cause it'll cut down my cleaning bills!

Getting rid of smoking in restaurants a few years ago was really a great thing...food just doesn't taste as good when you can't smell it due to the overpowering odor of cigarettes.

I'm not a smoker, but I totally disagree. As if the $7.50 packs of cigs wasn't enough, he now wants to ban smoking from bars? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy. I will be a very vocal protester of such a stupid law. Part of the ambiance of any bar is its smoke--it makes going out more of an event, not just an alternative to staying home. Some city councilman said he didn't think people would chose to go to smoking bars in NJ over non-smoking ones in NYC...we'll see. I might just to make a point.

I agree with Jess completely. Bars are where people get drunk, they are not exactly health clubs. My thoughts are, If you don't like smelling like smoke, go to a restaurant and stay out of the bars. Smoking shouldn't be banned in bars.

Smoking a lot of times goes along with drinking...at least for me and the people I know. I think that is a stupid move to ban smoking in bars. Great for restaurants where there is food..and a diversity of people, but not for a nightime hang out.

I'm a non-smoker who lives in California. Originally, when the law passed here I thought it would be good. Now looking back, I don't think it was good. There were too many smaller neighborhood tavern owners who ended up closing their doors because they lost too much of their clientele. It was kind of double edged because you can't drink in "public" so they couldn't step outside to have a cigarette either. There was lost business here.
Airports really lost a lot of business as well as many people changing planes ran into a local bar to have a cigarette and ordered a quick beer or soda even if they didn't feel like it...just to have a quick smoke. Now the bars at California airports look pretty desolate since they lost the majority of their smoking clientele.

I feel that individual owners should be able to set their own rules and not have the government dictate what they can or cannot allow in their own business. This is a case of "water seeks it's own level"....if a bar does allow smoking, those that dislike it will chose to go elsewhere. I think the individual owners should be allowed to set their own policy. If I were an owner, I'd sure object to a policy prohibiting a legal substance IN MY OWN BUSINESS. NYC should learn from California and not repeat the same mistake. Gina

Ban it in restaurants, not bars or nightclubs. California went way too far with their ordinance.

God bless Mayor Bloomberg. All cities should enact such an ordinance.

Yeh!

Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a swimming pool? Those who don't like the pee can swim on the other end!

How come tax receipts for restaurants and bars have gone UP since smoking has been banned .... kind of kills the "will lose customers" argument.

Most customers who are lost are the "761" variety: 7 cigs, 6 coffee refills, $1 on the table. Customer count sometimes goes down, average check goes up.

Just cause I like to pickle my liver doesn't mean I want my ribs smoked.

Since about 70% of US population don't smoke, which group would a prudent businessman choose as his "target" market??? I'd only chose smokers if tobacco revenue was my primary income.

I agree with non smoking in restaurants but think there would be big problems (like California) if they carry it so far as non-smoking in bars. Better let the owners decide what's best for themselves. If NYC bars are losing business because of smokers, I certainly haven't seen it.
Ben

The primary issue isn't the health of customers, who might breathe in smoke every once in a while. The primary issue is the health of employees who must breathe in smoke day after day after day, or night after night after night.

As the New York Times editorial says, framing it as a worker's health issue, as Mayor Bloomberg has done, has merit, especially since most other workplaces don't allow smoking indoors. The editorial also says that studies show that bar and restaurant workers are at a greater risk for lung cancer than other workers and that bartenders, in particular, currently have no choice but to breathe in large quantities of secondhand smoke.

If you believe government has no business regulating any safety measures for company's then you could be against this proposed ban. However, if you feel goverment does have business regulating the health and safety of workers, then you could be in favor of this ban.

Smoking is already banned in most NYC restaurants. Being allergic to smoke, I of course really appreciate that fact. But why not just have smoking bars and non-smoking bars and then the people can pick?

I say BS to the alleged Californian who says it was a mistake. BS! I'm a native Californian (San Francisco) and, if anything, the no-smoking law has IMPROVED business at local taverns and bars. The great majority of people, non-smokers, feel more comfortable, linger longer, and drink/eat more. Banning smoking was the best thing California ever did. BRAVO TO NEW YORK CITY. You won't regret it!

I think it's a great idea. I can't even stay in a smoky bar for more than 15 minutes because I wear contacts. The smoke dries up and irritates them so much I have to leave. Not to mention that your clothes, hair, etc. STINK when you get out of there!

When smokers say "I have rights too", they are wrong about being able to smoke in public places. If their smoking didn't infringe on anyone else's health or comfort then I would say sure, but it does. If you are smoking a cigerette in the building with me, I have to breath that smoke, let it get in my eyes and let the smell permeate my clothes. You are definitely infringing on my rights as a non smoker!

A bar ISN'T a public place. It is privately owned and operated and it should be the decision of the owner whether or not to allow smoking.
Smoke is part and parcel of working in a bar. Complaining about it is like signing up to be a haz mat driver and then pitching a fit because you have to drive hazardous chemicals. Or being a fireman who complains about having to work with fire.
Don't like smoke--stay out of the bars!

Opposed...there are plenty of accomodations for non smokers...smokers are discriminated against. How come somebody can shoot up and get free help from the government, but they get people hooked on cigarettes (which are legal) and they are left to fend for themselves...what's wrong w/this picture?

Come on Jess, are you really smart enough to go to Columbia but say things like "Part of the ambiance of any bar is its smoke--it makes going out more of an event, not just an alternative to staying home." Do you like the ambiance of lung cancer and emphysema? And how about "Complaining about it is like signing up to be a haz mat driver and then pitching a fit because you have to drive hazardous chemicals." If there were non-smoking bars I would agree that a non-smoker should know better than go to a smoking bar, but right now they have no choice. Should non-smokers who don't want lung cancer and smelly clothes never be able to go go out on the town?

funonsmoker - you say "How come somebody can shoot up and get free help from the government, but they get people hooked on cigarettes (which are legal) and they are left to fend for themselves...what's wrong w/this picture?" What's wrong with the picture is that people get themselves hooked. Are you saying government gets people hooked? I feel sorry for 60 year olds who started smoking back when ads showed doctors giving cigarettes a thumbs up, but I can't feel sorry for anyone who has started smoking in the last 20 years. You have to know better. It's especially sad to see teenagers smoking.

So I applaud Mayor Bloomberg. How much will businesses really hurt - are people going to stop going to restaurants and bars in Manhattan? Of course not. Nobody's going to drive to Jersey City to have a cigarette. People will get used to it and adapt (and hopefully quit). I also like Bloomberg because I recently found out he's a Red Sox fan, but I digress...

I heard a news report this morning that indicated non-smoking advocates want to include parks as well.

Bars and restaurants are NOT public places. They are privately owned establishments being operated by private owners. If Bloomberg wants to ban smoking in NYC gov't buildings, etc., fine. But he has no business banning smoking in bars. Like it or not, smoking is LEGAL. Patrons have the choice not to enter the bar if they don't like the smoke. There are also plenty of jobs so the employees are free to find a job someplace else. Of course, most of the bartenders and waitresses I know smoke too so maybe they are looking for a job that allows them to smoke at work.

And what's he going to do about the remaining cigar bars? Its kind of hard to be a cigar bar when you can't smoke. And its hard to argue that you didn't know there would be smoke in a bar that's expressly marketed for cigar smokers.

By the way, I don't smoke and I avoid bars on nights when I don't feel like being around smokers. We all have our choices to make. If you want a smoke-free bar, open one and see how much business you get.