Community Board 7 Supports Bloomberg's Smoking Ban Bill

At a joint meeting of the Uniformed Services and Health and Human Services Committees on Tuesday, members of Community Board 7 voted largely in support of Intro. 256, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bill, which proposes to ban smoking in all places of employment.
After hearing presentations from the Department of Public Health, the New York Nightclub Association, and the American Cancer Society, members voted 5-1 to draft a resolution to support the bill with the caveat that smoking continue to be permitted in nightclubs, bars, and lounges.
Members agreed that an exception for such establishments would be necessary to uphold the interests of both community businesses and the surrounding neighborhoods. New York City's roughly 13,000 bars depend on smoker patronage for much of their livelihood.
Community organizations are concerned that the noise generated by groups loitering outside clubs and bars in the early hours of the morning would only increase if such a ban was enacted.
Health concerns, however, were the primary focus of testimony at the meeting. According to Dr. Colin McCord, the Department's assistant director for Chronic Disease, "tobacco and diseases related to tobacco have been identified as the most important health problem in New York City." The current 1995 law banning smoking in many public venues, McCord argued, is ineffective.
"[It] is an improvement, but is full of loopholes. Effective smoke-free workplace laws could save 11,000 lives," McCord said.
He then presented a series of statistics detailing the effects of secondhand smoke on public health. While Board members questioned some of the numbers, they voiced overall support for more stringent smoking prohibitions.
When Uniformed Services Committee Co-Chair Melanie Radley voiced concerns about the enforcement of a new law, McCord explained: "The main people who will enforce this law are the public."
In response to board member Bobbi Katz's concern over the public being asked to act as "a sort of vigilante committee," McCord argued that health inspectors and police officers would also play a role in enforcing the new legislation.
Richard Lipsky of the New York Nightlife Association then spoke on behalf of the interests of club and bar owners. While he voiced strong support of the broader goals of Intro. 256, he advocated an exemption for nightlife establishments, given their financial dependence on the patronage of smoking customers.
"The bars and clubs in this city are contiguous with the residents of the neighborhoods," Lipsky said. "If half of the people are out in the street, the community's going to be up in arms."
Other local political organizations, such as Manhattan Community Boards 1 and 5, have already voted in favor of the bill with an exemption for nightlife businesses. "For Manhattan, it's a neighborhood issue," Lipsky explained to the committees. "Don't ask the businesses to become policemen, and don't ask the communities to take the collateral damage.
"A lot of other community boards have voted against this bill because of the collateral damage," he said.
Elena Deutsch of the American Cancer Society concluded the information session with a brief presentation on the public health benefits of a smoking ban. She responded to enforcement concerns by arguing that "many municipalities have passed smoke-free workplace laws, and there has not been bedlam in the streets."
Bar owner Sean Collavin contested Deutsch's assertion that there would be few repercussions for business owners resulting from a smoking ban. "I have no problem with the bill as it is, except for its failure to accommodate accepted smoking places," Collavin explained. "I get tickets for people loitering outside my bar as it is now, and this law gives us no choice but to bother residents much more."
Michael Oleo of the Coalition for a Smoke-Free City presented the issue from the perspective of employees working in smoking-allowed establishments. "I think the right of an individual to breathe clean air probably preceded his or her right to breathe toxic smoke," he argued, "so we really need to think about protecting the rights of workers."
Board member Oscar Rios addressed Oleo's concern by pointing out the voluntary nature of employment in a facility that permits smoking on premises.
"I don't have to go to a nightclub if I don't want to," Rios said. "And no one has to work in one if they don't want to." Most other members present shared Rios's sentiments and voted in support of the bill with an exemption for nightlife businesses.
Given similar proactive legislation adopted in other American cities to reduce second-hand smoke in public areas, some local residents said they regard the adoption of Intro. 256 as long overdue.
"For me, the amount of smoke in restaurants and bars is a huge quality of life issue," Morningside Heights resident David Weinberg said.
The resolution drafted at Tuesday's meeting will go before the entire board in early December.