Some say workplace smoking ban a drag

Tacked to the wall in the back of the Village Ma karaoke bar in New York City is a makeshift ‘No Smoking’ sign, handwritten on looseleaf paper.

Posted outside the smoking lounge of Boston University’s George Sherman Union is an official notice warning smokers of their similar fate when Boston’s smoking ban takes effect next Monday.

While officials and businesses in Beantown prepare for Cinco de Mayo revelers to migrate to the outside stoop, New Yorkers are coping with the ramifications of a smoking ban that took effect March 30. Smokers face possible loitering charges for taking their habit to the sidewalks, while bartenders and owners worry about losing money.

‘The problem has been with tabs,’ said New York bartender Courtney Trammell. ‘Sometimes they get drunk, go out for a cigarette and walk out on you.’

Carlton Ballen, a karaoke DJ at Village Ma, said business has dropped off due to the ban, and fewer regulars are coming in. And the customers who do come spend less time in the bar, he said, therefore bringing in less money.

‘When people smoke and drink in the same place, they buy more,’ Ballen said. ‘Now they’re constantly outside.’

But the sidewalk has become a social venue of its own.

‘Customers have been pretty pleasant about it,’ Trammell said. ‘You can meet people outside, and it becomes a more social thing.’

The smoking crowd’s shift outside opens the door to many problems for smokers and business owners alike. The streets and sidewalks are now littered with cigarette butts, while police officers are cracking down on loitering.

‘We get fined inside, and then we get fined outside,’ Trammell said.

But some owners find ways to avoid the fine of up to $1,000 imposed for allowing smoking indoors. Bars hold private parties with cover charges to get around the law and legally permit smoking, according to Trammell.

Jeffrey Huang, a 25-year-old smoker from Queens, said he doesn’t mind heading outside to light up. His only qualm with the new ruling is that citizens were not allowed to vote on the ban, he said.

‘It should have been voted on,’ he said. ‘At least it adds a little more legitimacy to the decision.’

Since the law was primarily designed to protect employees, Huang suggested that individual establishments and their workers be able to decide whether smoking should be permitted.

‘We don’t live in a communist state,’ he said. ‘It’s not because I can’t smoke in a bar; it’s the principle behind it.’

Smokers in the GSU smoking lounge criticized BU for adhering to the citywide ban. Lucas Zanzi, a Metropolitan College sophomore, suggested the university take the issue to court to allow smoking.

‘I’m sure BU could find a way to avoid this but they don’t want to bother,’ he said. ‘It seems like smokers have no rights anymore.’

Zack Fieldman, a College of Engineering freshman, agreed, saying the ban is proof that smoking has become less acceptable. But he said he will eventually quit, and the rule will then help him.

‘If anything, it’ll be good for me, and I won’t smoke as much,’ Fieldman said.

Many opponents to the ban said they still see benefits to a smoke-free environment.

Ballen said he met a ‘gorgeous girl’ who was a smoker at a bar, and immediately noticed her bad breath, an observation he would have never made before smoking was banned.

‘I didn’t realize how bad [the smoke] was until it was banned,’ he said.

The basis for the ordinance in New York – and the 69 other cities implementing or considering a ban – was a number of studies that showed employees in smoke-filled bars suffer the same negative effects from secondhand smoke as smokers do.

A study measuring nicotine levels in the hair of smokers and nonsmokers has been widely used in support of smoking bans across the country. It found that nonsmokers working in bars have similar nicotine levels to those of active smokers, according to World Health Organization scientist Dr. Wael Al-Delaimy, the study’s principal author.

‘The smoking ban is a logical step to prevent tobacco health risks among nonsmokers in the hospitality industry, who happen to be the highest risk group in the population because of the heavy exposure,’ Al-Delaimy said.

But while employees may benefit from better health, some worry that businesses will suffer.

However, a survey of sales receipts from restaurants and bars in the nearby town of Brookline, which has been smoke-free since 1994, found the policy did not adversely affect total business.

Brookline commissioner of Public Health Alan Balsam, who staunchly fought for bans in Boston and Cambridge, used the study as proof of the policy’s success.

‘There was no significant decline in aggregate revenue, but my suspicion is that some individual businesses did lose revenue,’ he said.

Brookline bars have faced harsh competition from neighboring bars that allow smoking, Balsam said, so the Boston ban will alleviate the strain.

‘[Boston] surrounds Brookline on three sides, and so our business community is at a competitive disadvantage if Boston has smoking,’ Balsam said.

Aengus O’Leary, owner of O’Leary’s Pub on the Boston/Brookline line, said most have grown accustomed to smoking outside, and he has not lost business to other bars that allow smoking. He said he understands the health benefits of banning workplace smoking and most customers do as well.

‘Things have changed,’ he said. ‘Years ago you used to be able to smoke on trains, planes and public transportation.’

Boston City Councilor Mike Ross (Back Bay, Fenway) said the ban would be beneficial overall, and he would be working closely with bar owners to address any problems.

‘I don’t think we want to see the smoking ban close anyone or shut down any businesses,’ he said.

Ross also said the perception of bars as smoky atmospheres would gradually fade due to the ban.

‘Many years from now, we’ll look back at this and say ‘how was this ever allowed to exist?” he said.