In large urbanized cities we often
see higher population density than in more rural areas. With people living
closer and closer together the behavior of individuals impacts the lifestyles
and in some instances the health of their neighbors in a more dramatic fashion.
In New York City recently elected Mayor Michael Bloomberg felt that smoking
inside public places presented a pressing enough problem that it needed to be
addressed through legislation.
In a December 2002, New York
Times article Michael Cooper says, “Mayor Bloomberg called the smoking ban one of the most important
things he has done in his life, saying that it would save literally tens of
thousands of lives."[1]
In the past Mayor Bloomberg had made a personal commitment to health. ABC News reported that, “Health issues
are a priority for Bloomberg, a billionaire who once donated $100 million to
Johns Hopkins University.”[2]According to testimony from Thomas R.
Frieden, M.D. M.P.H., Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, “Approximately 1,000 New Yorkers will die prematurely this
year because of involuntary smoking. An additional 40,000 New Yorkers will
suffer illnesses brought on or worsened by second-hand smoke.”[3]
Armed with these statistics, support from anti-smoking advocates and the help
of City Council Speaker Gifford Miller[4]
the Mayor proceeded to create the controversial Indoor Air Ordinance.
In
a March 24th story, ABC News interviewed
Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the Greater New York Chapter of the
New York State Restaurant Association and quoted him as saying, "The
smoking situation is one in which restaurants should be able to make the
decision on their own. It's an issue of choice and not one the City Council
should be mandating."[5]
After all, smoke in the air presented visible evidence to non-smokers of what
dangers lingered inside and based on that evidence the non-smoker should decide
to frequent the establishment or not. In effect the argument claimed that the
market should determine if businesses allowed smoking, not government
regulations. To this objection Commissioner Frieden countered, “Owners don’t have the right to expose workers
to the hazardous chemicals in second-hand smoke. The fundamental principle of
worker safety is that workers should not have to choose between their health
and their jobs.”[6] Government
regulation of work place safety had been in place for decades and the smoking
ban represented an extension of that authority.
Another
argument presented by business claimed that the economic impact of a smoking
ban created too large of a risk for business. In an effort to determine
potential economic impacts cities that had instituted smoking bans were
examined. The smoking ban proposed for New York City did not represent the
first attempt at this kind of public policy.[7]
All across the country cities and states experimented with varying degrees of
banning smoking in public places. A CBS
News story reported that, “About 400 communities nationwide have adopted
smoking bans in restaurants.”[8]
Some cities banned smoking in public places outright while others exempted bars
and taverns from the new laws.[9]
Opinions differed greatly on whether smokings bans caused a negative or
positive economic impact on bars and restaurants. Supporters of the ban mused
that since the vast majority of people did not smoke a smoking ban might bring
them out to places they avoided in the past. An ABC News story interviewed Scott LoBaido, an opponent of the ban,
who stated, “Who will go to a bar in which you can't smoke, or a restaurant
where you can't smoke. No one wants to sit around and hang out in a restaurant
if you can't smoke. They will just leave after their meal and that business
that would have stayed, ordered more drinks and hung out would be gone.”[10]
In another recent CBS News story, bar patron Elliot Kovner complained
that the government regulations were "Ridiculous. Stalinesque.
Brutal."[11] A sentiment
undoubtedly shared by many other smokers around New York City. While opponents
presented anecdotes and suppositions, supporters presented evidence. In a
recent story CBS News reported,
“Proprietors in California complained when a similar rule was enacted four
years ago, but business did not drop significantly and polls showed most
patrons backed the ban.”[12]
So it appeared that if enacted non-smokers who could now dine and drink in a
smoke free environment would counterbalance any revenue lost by smokers
leaving.
After
bitter struggles, “Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a former smoker himself, pushed
through the ban with a zeal that angered smokers and even some nonsmokers. He
stood firm even when an incensed smoker wearing a Superman suit showed up at
City Hall carrying a 12-foot-long ersatz cigarette and a sign threatening him.”[13]
In the end the voices of the restaurateurs, saloon keeps, libertarians and
smokers lost to the drive and determination of Mayor Bloomberg. To the surprise
of some and chagrin of many more “The city council approved the new law 42
to 7”[14]
and New York City would soon be smoke free.
In
the end the issue was resolved much the way Mayor Bloomberg wanted. According
to an article in The Economist “A few
last-minute concessions in the new law may allow a little leeway. Smoking
will be permitted in outdoor cafés and in the city's seven cigar bars (favorite
haunts of Mr. Giuliani), as well as in any bar that has or builds a special smoking
room that employees do not have to enter.”[15]
Other than these specific exceptions smoking would no longer be allowed inside
public places. As with most new laws there are usually some unintended
consequences. The smoking ban created a large population of smokers on
sidewalks outside bars at 2am creating a whole new set of problems.[16]
The
major actors in favor of the smoking ban ended up being Mayor Bloomberg and
some minor special interest groups that supported the ban. I am sure that the
American Lung Association and similar groups contributed but their presence was
absent from the coverage I found surrounding the ban. As stated in prior quotes
the primary opposition to the ban arose from business groups and individual
smokers writing letters to the paper and protesting in small groups. The main objections
from the minority opposition on the City Council related to the previously
enumerated arguments about choice and potential negative economic impact. In
the end the arguments failed.
The
major sticking point on the issue of banning smoking related to the concerns
around the potential economic impact. Business owners complained vigorously
that the proposed ban could create unnecessary economic impact. The evidence
from other areas that instituted similar bans contradicted that argument.[17]
The objections from business seemed largely symbolic since know real opposition
took effect. In some cities where smoking bans in restaurants took place
business actually increased, a good reason for a Republican Mayor to support
such a measure.
In
urban environments we often encounter diverse and equally strong groups on both
sides of an issue. Some issues draw the interest of social groups while other
topics stimulate the interest of business. Some issues are partisan struggles
for power and some non-partisan concerns that require all parties to work
together for the greater good. When people or interest groups stand to gain or
lose they are much more likely to take a strong interest in public policy
questions and the process used to decide them. In the case of the NYC smoking
ban both sides of the argument put forth compelling and legitimate arguments
but the power of the Mayor and his argument won the day.
Prologue:
In a somewhat bizarre turn of events “Casting aside petty differences and
forging new allegiances, UN ambassadors said they would ignore New York's
smoking ban, imposed five months ago and extended to the UN this week.”[18]
It appears the Mayor’s next battle might have international implication as he
takes on the United Nations.
[1] Cooper, Michael. The New York Times.
December 31, 2002, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final Section B; Page
3; Column 6; Metropolitan Desk. Mayor Signs Law to Ban Smoking
Soon At Most Bars
[2]CBS News . NYC Smoking Ban Debuts. 10/09/2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/29/national/main546751.shtml
[3] Thomas R. Frieden, M.D. M.P.H., Commissioner New York
City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Testimony before the New York
City Council Committee on Health on Int. 256 -- In Relation to the
Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment. Thursday,
Oct. 10, 2002. City Hall
[5]ABC News. Fighting for Their Smoking Rights. 10/06/2003 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/smokerrally010323.html
[6] Thomas R. Frieden, M.D. M.P.H., Commissioner New York
City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Testimony before the New York
City Council Committee on Health on Int. 256 -- In Relation to the
Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment. Thursday,
Oct. 10, 2002. City Hall