One of our favorite bars, McSorley's [hoganstand.com], is featured in a NY Times article [nytimes.com] (reg required) on the effects of the $7.50 price of cigarette packs in the city. It's an interesting look at smoking in bars, a filthy habit that I used to enjoy oh so much (and miss on a daily basis).

With our Mayor moving to ban smoking in bars, the drinking scene is likely to change substantially. I'm not sure how I feel about it. While it'll be nice to come home not smelling of other people's smoke, bars should be havens for unhealthy behavior. I'm not keen on legislating people's behavior.

By the way, McSorley's is a fantastic place if you make it to our fair city -- you have to buy two beers at a time, and they only come in two varieties -- light and dark (I wholeheartedly reccommend the dark over the light). The bar has been around for over 150 years, which is pretty long by American standards. My father used to drink there when ye was young, and too me there for the first time when I was 16.

Here's a few shots of us enjoying ourselves at McSorley's for Phillip's bachelor party:

• Presenting The Beer. [goats.com] Our usual waiter, Tommy, likes it if you order as many beers at one time as possible, which makes for fewer trips. The waiters at McSorleys have been known to carry ten beers in each hand at a time.
• The Mustard of Doom. [goats.com] At the center of each table is a mug full of extremely spicy polish mustard, which is used as mortar in the construction of cheese, onion and cracker sandwiches. Ordering a Cheese Plate is part of the McSorley's tradition. Daring your fellow drinkers to eat large amounts of the mustard is also part of the tradition.
• This [goats.com] is what happens when you are dared to eat a lot of mustard. I wonder who challenged this poor soul?
• The beers at McSorley's are rather small, [goats.com] so you may want to have several at a time.
• Captain Brunch is loved by the masses [goats.com] for his multi-beer drinking ability.
• Cheers to McSorley's! [goats.com]

While that certainly looks like a lot of fun, I hope you all managed to crawl to the nearest strip club afterwards. This *was* a bachelor party, wasn't it?!

As someone who puts hot sauce on everything he eats, and usually another type of hot sauce on top of that, I need to try that mustard.

In Response to Incarnadine (#1183):

Our stop after McSorley's was The Ginger Man [citysearch.com], another of our favorite pubs when we're not at The Pub. They have about 70 beers on tap, large portions, and a lounge full of couches.

One of our cohorts made the very poor decision to buy everyone in our party a glass of Macallan 25 [themacallan.com]. Considering the (literally) dozens of beers we had each drank at this point, this was a Very Bad Idea.

By the time we recovered a semblance of coherence, and someone suggested that we move on to a strip club, it was about 3:30am and the clubs were closed.

The mustard is excellent. It will clear out your sinuses, as well as the rest of your skull cavities.

In Response to jon (#1184):

Well, I suppose that's forgiveable. Is it true that in NY state, you're not allowed to drink in strip clubs? Because that would really tear me apart... naked dancing chicks are only *nearly* as important as massive amounts of alcohol to a successful bachelor party. Here in PA, the laws concerning that are completely backwards:

If the dancers *only* strip down to a g-string and pasties, then the club is allowed to serve alcohol, and it's always at outrageous prices.

But if the dancers strip completely naked, the club isn't allowed to serve alcohol... but then they *do* let you bring in as much of your own as you want, beer or booze or both. Last time I went to a bachelor party at one of those, I think we brought roughly 12 cases for 7 people. And maybe some whiskey, it's kind of blurry. I also know someone who just brought in a keg and sat it in the middle of the table for his bachelor party. Go figure, eh? Just one of the many strange and archaic PA liquor laws...

Even as a non-smoker, I'm amazed by the silliness of the potential no-smoking-in-bars rules.

I understand where they're coming from. I'm irrelevant, I have a choice about where I go to drink (which is why I avoid cigar bars like the plague), it's the wait-staff they're protecting. And that makes sense. I don't know of any waiters, waitresses, or bartenders (in bars) who have chosen to work there, they tend to be doing it as a way to make money while doing what they really want to do.

But by cutting out the smoking, they're going to kill alot of these establishments. Wven the ones that survive will probably have reduced, or at least less happy patronage, which will kill the tips that these people work for.

Wouldn't it make more sense to mandate the end goal, i.e. minimum air standards in behind-the-bar type spaces, thereby forcing the owners to install better air filters or find some other way of meeting the end goal, instead of mandating the method as well?

In Response to phillip (#1203):

I think what I would do is allow bar owners to decide whether they want their bar to be non-smoking or smoking.

Then, I would give non-smoking bar owners a big tax incentive.

My gues is that about 50% of the bars would take the tax break, and that people who wanted to go to a non-smoking bar would go there. People who wanted to smoke would go to the smoking bars.

Basically, simple economic theories like supply and demand should be able to take care of this one.

In Response to phillip (#1203):

It's really not possible to 'install better air filters' or even really maintain minimum air standards in behind-the-bar type spaces. In order to do something that approaches what you're talking about, you would need a) completely separate ventilation SYSTEMS, b) some way of reliably separating the airspaces to prevent bleed.

B is *relatively* easy - positive pressure, air curtains, that kind of thing.

But none of it is cheap enough for the bar owner that it wouldn't at least double the cost of your beer.

Going completely smoke free is the *cheapest* option.

On a slightly different note, I agree with Jon that bars should be havens for unhealthy behavior. The issue is that smoking is one of the very few unhealthy behaviors that a) is unhealthy for those *around* the person being unhealthy, b) actually LESS healthy for those around the person being unhealthy. Remember, second-hand smoke never went through the filter...

In Response to zamphir (#1212):

... that smoking is less healthy for the people around the smoker than the smoker. Okay, yes. *Some* second hand smoke is unfiltered. But the majority of it has not only gone through the filter, but also the smoker's lungs/breathing passages before being exhaled. Plus, the smoker is also inhaling as much of the second hand smoke as anyone else, even when he's not actively taking a drag. So explain to me again how all of this results in a greater health risk to the non-smoker?

Also, drinking *is* unhealthy to those around the drinkers, it's naive to think it isn't. Just ask someone who's lost a friend to being hit by a drunk driver, or a designated driver who inadvertently got in the middle of a bar fight, etc. It may not be as pervasively unhealthy to the people around the drinker as smoking, but you get the point.

As for the filtering thing... I don't know about doubling the cost of beer, but it would cost quite a bit to install air curtains, etc. But I happen to know plenty of smokers that would be happy to pay double for their drinks, if that bar is the only bar they're allowed to smoke in. And non-smokers would just go to another bar where smoking isn't allowed, period.

In Response to Incarnadine (#1214):

I won't belabour the point too much, but second-hand smoke has been proved to be worse than first-hand smoke. I also won't go to the trouble to produce any reliable data to back up my case - as I'm lazy. But I'm also directly related to one of the people who generated that data, so I'm also not stressed about being wrong.

Drinking *CAN BE* unhealthy to those around the drinker. Smoking *IS* unhealthy to those around the smoker.

It's a subtle difference, but important I feel.

In Response to zamphir (#1215):

Proven, shmoven. As I explained earlier, it just doesn't make any sense that second hand smoke is *more* harmful to the non-smoker. I can't even see it being *as* harmful. I'm sure that you read or heard about some study that said this at some point, and bought it. The problem with that is, there are thousands of ways to manipulate studies and raw data to produce the results you intended to achieve in the first place. Sure, *on paper*, Enron was solvent.

You might want to check this site:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

I'm not saying second hand smoke isn't harmful. It sure as hell is. Any smoke is harmful. It just can't be more harmful to the non-smoker. If you are indeed related to someone who's done a study, I'd be interested to see it.

In Response to zamphir (#1212):

They already have filters in bars, they're just not maintained, and don't actually work well, if at all. It's not about making a complete separation, but I think there should be incentives to protect the health of the people working there.

This is New York, I mean, its not like the air outside in the summer is great either. :)

In Response to Incarnadine (#1216):

First of 'davehitt.com' is about opinions. It's not a reputable source at all.

Secondly, let's look at your argument about the toxicity of second-hand smoke vs. first hand smoke.

The toxicity of either smoke is clearly dependant on the toxicity of the components at the density in question. That is, if nicotine is toxic at 10 parts per million, but is only present at 1 part per trillion, there's obviously a very low toxicity.

The smoke with the highest concentration of toxic chemicals will be the smoke that has not been filtered in any way. This is the smoke that will contribute the most to the general toxicity of the environment.

So let's look at two equal volumes of air: the smoke coming out of the filter, and both the smoke coming out of the unfiltered end and the smoker's lungs.

Let's pretend that the unfiltered end produces 10 toxic particles per million. The filter reduces that by 50 percent. The smoker's lungs then reduce that by another 50 percent.

So, the smoke going into the smoker's lungs will have 5 toxic particles per million. The smoke going into the air has 10. The smoke coming back out of the smoker's lungs has 2.5.

That means that the smoke in the lungs has 5 toxic particles per million, and the smoke in the surrounding air has 12.5.

Which is more harmful?

My father's name was Alfred Lowrey. You can do a search on scientific papers for that name, and find a reasonable body of work, particularly in conjunction with another man by the name of James Repace (who worked for the EPA).

In Response to zamphir (#1227):

of course, there's also the smoke coming off the cigarette, w/o the filter or lungs in between. ..hence the market in those filtering ashtray things.

In Response to zamphir (#1227):

A couple things I'll throw into this one:

Smoke dissipates in air. The smoker is filling his or her lungs with smoke; I, sitting next to the smoker, am not. It is one thing to discuss the toxicity of each type of smoke, but it is more useful to look into the total toxicity of the air taken in by a smoker vs. a second-hand-smoke receiver. Unfortunately, it also happens to be much harder to get real facts about how smoke affects the individuals than to analyze the smoke itself.

Also, when you take two quantities of air (that coming out of the unfiltered end of the cig and that coming out of the smoker's mouth), you cannot find the concentration of a toxin in the combined air by simply adding the concentrations in the original quantities of air. You have to perform a rather tricky weighted average. In no case will the resulting concentration be higher than the highest of the source concentrations unless some toxin-free air is somehow leaving the equation.

The only evidence I would find credible -- and I've never seen such evidence compiled -- would be a statistical study showing a corelation between second-hand smoke inhalation and some smoke-related disease. The corelations exist for the smoker, so if being around a smoker is a serious threat, we should be able to find corelation there too. If we were to find one, at least it would be a starting point.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a smoker and I don't like being around smoking for too long. I'm more used to it than some because I grew up around a lot of smokers, but a don't like the smell, I don't like that it gets into my clothes (especially in the winter), and I don't like that it can eventually irritate my eyes.

When smokers claim to be persecuted, I generally scoff and remark that they don't seem to know what real persecution is. I'm quite comfortable saying "I don't like being around it and favor non-smoking areas when possible" without feeling the need to justify my preference with the idea that the smoker is actually hurting me. If I see real data that shows that they are hurting me -- and descriptions of what's coming out which end of the cigarette won't suffice unless I for some reason am sucking on the lit end of said cigarette -- then I'll happily change my tune.

In Response to phillip (#1218):

Since when has NYC cared about the health of it's workers. Months ago the Daily News had a story about a study done on carbon monoxide levels in and around NYC to prove smoking in Bars is an unhealthy environment for the workstaff and patrons. The study claimed that the carbon monoxide levels in bars caused from cigerette smoke were far greater than the carbon monoxide levels at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel. Anyone who believes studies like this must be just as corrupt as the politicians passing this law. How come nobody cares about the toll collectors at all the MTA owned bridges and tunnels? These employees are being exposed to far worse carbon monoxide levels then there Barstaff counterparts! I read an article on a study done in Europe about the effects of second hand smoke in Bars and Restaurants. The European study claimed that the workstaff being exposed to secondhand smoke had inhaled the equivilence to 6 cigarettes in a year. What study are we to believe? And God forbid we take away the 7 Cigar Bars in NYC....Where would all the money hungry babyboomer yuppies go to suck down overpriced Martini's while enjoying a not so healthy smoke. What gives the Govt. the right to tell private business owners how to run there business? How come second hand smoke is such a big issue in the 2 most polluted City or States in the Country....Los Angeles...NYC.....Think we can blame other factors for the high cancer rates in these areas. Why don't we concentrate on the high cancer rates (mostly breast cancer) on Long Island. Are we contributing second hand smoke to these high cancer rates on LI or is the Govt. hiding the truth about why cancer rates are so high on LI. To ban smoking all together is against our 14th amendment rights and the law will not work.....and to all you who say it works in California...It doesn't. California allows smoking in designated outside areas in Bars and Resturants. This may work in California where the average temperature year round is 70 degrees. How many outside bars will be open in the New York Metro area in the middle of February? The answer 0! This law will cause many businesses to lose money they have invested in there Business and will cause numerous amounts of trouble for Bar owners in the months to come!

I'm not going to get into the debate of who has what rights about smoking, just going to offer the info I have on air filtration. There are ventilation systems that can be put in that will greatly reduce the overall toxic:clean air ratio. While these systems are going to be more costly than a standard ventilation system, especially when put in to replace an existing system as opposed to a new one, the cost would not be so great that it would cause a doubling of the price of the beer, or any increase at all, especially when you consider the loss of business that would occur were the bar to be smoke free. My immediate experiance with these systems was to put a bar which allowed smokers into a smoke-free airport. The system was a success, and the bar attracted a significant amount of business. Further on the plus side, they were able to convince Phillip Morris to finance the air system, which PM was happy to do with a few stipulations, such as "push our product". I think companies such as PM and RJR would be fairly easily swayed to do such things in bars in other cities where those laws have been/will be passed to ban smoking in bars.

I live in California, where we pioneer this radical left-wing behavior of restricting 'rights'.....

I'll tell you what to expect.

1) There will be swarms and swarms of people protesting and 'disobeying' as soon as it goes into effect.

2) Eventually, the bruhaha will die down and people will gradually stop smoking in the establishments

3) Everyone will stop noticing that people aren't smoking in bars/restaurants/etc

4) You'll run into someone who is smoking in a bar/restaurant, and you'll quickly realize that the smoke is destroying the taste of your beer/food and you'll realize that the law was actually a good thing.

I don't mind people smoking, I myself smoke the occaisonal cigar, and very rarely, cigarette. Since this passed in CA, the above mentioned has happened. I don't mind people going outside to smoke, and I'll join them if I want to. When I was a kid, I didn't get the smoking/nonsmoking sections (They're in the same room! What's the point!) but now I agree that it was a good decision (I thought it a bad one when it passed, illegal restricting behavior, etc.). Like I said, you won't notice that its actually a good thing untill the above happens.

great boozer - visited it last week when in NYC - the 1st day of the smoking ban and everyone that needed a hit was outside in the cold. Reminded me of the ever decreasing style of pubs we can see in England - it's the kind of place my old man would've haunted til my mam made him get his act together...nearly.
The dark is best and the mustard does the cheese a big favour.
Irish waiter guy (Mick - surprise) was a top man that wouldn't see you with an empty glass.
Thought we were going to have a crawl round the E Village but it was too good to leave and we stayed in McSorleys all night long.
Fine by me
jamie

In Response to Incarnadine (#1185):

In the Chicago area, there are 3 strip club types. If you go all nude, no booze and 21 and older. If you go topless only, you can have booze, but still 21 and older. If you have topless only and no booze, you can have 18 and older. I don't think anywhere uses pasties. I think the all nude places used to have a byobb policy before, but I'm told they are no longer around.

As for the smoking, I am a rare smoker, but I like to mix my vices. Bars seems to be the last refuge of the smokers these days. There are so many other places that are smoke free in the city, I feel that the bars are my fortress of smoking in a social setting. I fully think that smoking is a terrible habit, and very unhealthy, but it's a signifigant part of the bar culture. I could hardly imagine walking into my local bar without the haze of smoke. Something has to hide the uglyness of my bar comrades before the beer kicks in.
I think the suggestion of tax breaks for smoke free bars is the most attractive idea. Although the ideas of filters has it's merits, I think the cost of impleminting an effective system would be prohibitively expensive. While the smoking drinkers may be willing to pay, how many bars have the capital resources to installsuch a system all at once?

On the second hand smoke issue, while studys may have been done, I cannot follow the argument that second hand smoke is worse. As gas and particles disperse into the surrounding volume, their concentration decreases with the cube of the radius (in a still room). Therefore, your risk increases dramaticly the closer to the source of smoke. Now, everybody who is breathing in this air, smoker and nonsmoker, get an equal dose while at an equal distance. The smoker , as he/she is holding the ciggarette is almost sure to be closer, he/she gets the strongest dose. This is added to whatever toxin is taken in from the actual smoking of the ciggarette.
Aparently, the study really proves that ciggarette smoke is a magical cloud of particles and gas that is driven by satan to infect the lungs of helpless innocents who are merely close to a smoker.

Second hand smoke does do bad things, so does the second hand effects of alcohol. While it is true that a second hand smoker is constantly putting out toxins that do harm to those nearby, and a drunk driver is an occurence that may happen, and less often. Still, a smoker's second hand smoke only increases the chances of deadly effects, which translates to the same thing. A smoker MAY cause cancer in a neighbor, and the effect only manifests itself on occasion. Alternately, it is rare that a person spends an evening lighting up at a bar then watches as a guy nearby him is immediately bashed to a pulp from his second hand smoke.
It is a kind of irony. My mom's dad died of leukemia, probobly from smoking. And my mom's mom was killed by a drunk driver. My dad's dad from liver cancer, possibly from drinking. In my family alcohol has claimed more lives, and also is responsible for more lives of people who were not participating.

A law banning smoking in pubs is being brought in in Ireland too effective from next January 1st. As a non-smoker I think its great! The worst thing about a morning after is smelling like stale smoke. There's been the usual tripe from smokers about how it'll be unenforceable etc. but the govt are levying fines fines directly onto publicans who permit smoking so I imagine they'll be rather quick to enforce the ban.

A lot of people have also made comments like Jons that "the drinking scene is likely to change substantially" but I just don't see how. We tend to be rather fond of the odd glass of sherry over here ;)so smokers are unlikely to forswear drink completely and the culture is geared away from drinking at home. That leaves them with the options of running to the jacks or outside the pub which given Irish weather is somewhat unpalatable. All this should reduce smoking which can only be a good thing right?

         

In Response to Dynedain (#3602):

If you think spending 3 hours in a smokey bar once or twice a week is bad, try 8 hours 4 or 5 nights a week. That's what life is like for the bartenders, waitresses, bus boys, and bar backs. That was one of the major pushing points on the California law. It doesn't matter whether you smoke or not, you should still respect the right of someone else not to smoke.