FIGHTING BACK: The Revolt Of New Orleans Business Owners Finally Begins
April 20, 2015
by John Binder
New Orleans private business owners are not going to take city regulations that could hurt business lying down.
The latest wide-sweeping regulation in the overly regulated Big Easy is a smoking ban which mandates that businesses prohibit smoking in all sections of their business venue and document to the city with complaints if indoor, illegal smoking occurs.
Over 50 business owners in the French Quarter and other parts of the city have signed on to a Civil District Court lawsuit which questions the legality of the business regulation, saying that the smoking ban is too vague and broad.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu and the New Orleans City Council are both called out in the lawsuit as defendants in the case. City Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell pushed the ordinance for months, claiming that the smoking ban was necessary for public health concerns.
The business owners who have decided to fight back include the owners of Harrah?s Casino, Pat O?Brien?s, Lafitte?s Blacksmith Shop, the Tropical Isle and restaurant owners from Broussard?s, Kingfish and Cafe Maspero. The French Quarter Business League has also signed onto the suit against the city.
At the time of a state fiscal crisis, it seems almost absurd that the city of New Orleans, known for its leisure-like drinking and smoking laws, would prop up and enforce such an ordinance.
The lawsuit says that City Council members were never given a fiscal note, which clearly stated how much the city could lose in revenue because of the smoking ban, prior to voting on the issue.
If that is the case, it would begin to make sense as to why the City Council voted unanimously to place more regulations on businesses and bars in a city which is apparently struggling with a fiscal crisis itself.
The business owners involved in this suit make a great case for private business rights. Far too often, major cities run by Democrats force private business to comply with overreaching regulation which takes control out of the hands of business and into the palm of the well-connected.
New Orleans? smoking ban is no different.
These business owners have a right as private owners to an enterprise which brings in revenue for the city to decide what they allow and what they do not allow in their venues.
The smoking ban was never necessary in the first place, as there were already over 100 venues in the city which banned smoking, including all restaurants, per state law, and many bars and lounges.
Cantrell?s ordinance was never about smoking or ?public health? to begin with. From the beginning, it was a power-grab, in order to push a narrative that business does not know what is right for business, but rather the city knows what is right for business.
The city or state never knows what is right for business and individuals. Anytime a major city or a state gets involved in a matter that it could have simply stayed out of, the issue not only gets worse, but the taxpayers ultimately pay the price.
Which is what is happening with this smoking ban.
The ban in general will surely not generate more money for the city, but decrease revenue instead. On top of that, an entire bureaucratic five-step enforcement system has been set up by the city?s health department to ?enforce? the smoking ban.
Instead of a quick, simplified and easy way to enforce the ordinance, instead, it is as if the city purposefully sought out a complicated process that will make enforcement of the ordinance a joke.
An entire smoking complaint form process, coupled with mailing it in and then having a health department official come out to the venue to ?investigate? complaints of smoking.
Investigate smoking? Are these public health officials going to take fingerprints off cigarette butts on the ground? This all sounds too ridiculous to be discussing, but these are the kinds of questions that have to be asked when a city takes such inane actions.
These business owners? fight against the city will be long and strenuous, but it is necessary for the sake of business rights and for the sake of calling out a system designed to fail.
Fight on.
Harrah’s wants city to reconsider smoking ban for casino
March 11, 2015
NEW ORLEANS — Six weeks from today, smokers will no longer be allowed to light up in a New Orleans casino. That’s when a new ordinance goes into effect. But Harrah’s Casino wants to reopen the debate.
Harrah’s Casino, the only land-based casino in the parish, says the smoking ban will hurt it’s bottom line. They say in Illinois, the same type of ban caused a 20 percent drop in revenue. The gaming giant says that in turn hurts the city’s bottom line.
“One huge impact that this will have on the city is about $3.8 million that comes back to the city from the state for support services, namely, police, fire, EMS, safety,” explained Jade Russell, a Harrah’s Casino spokeswoman.
Harrah’s also says sales tax revenue could decline by more than a half million dollars.
But one city councilman for the smoking ban says both sides brought data to the debate, some claiming it would increase revenue because nonsmokers would be more inclined to go to the casino.
“If you count the real money, including the money you spend in the cancer ward treating someone in their last illness, even if we lose some money from the casino, it won’t amount to what we really lose just in money, if you don’t even count the heartache and the shortened expectations,” said Councilman James Gray of District E.
Both sides agree that smoking is a health hazard, but they disagree on the new law.
Harrah’s wants a chance to go back to the negotiating table to talk about what it calls new, balanced solutions, possibly smoking areas with its own ventilation system as other states have.
“The ordinance itself places us at an unfair disadvantage, you know, you can drive to Biloxi. Not only can you drive to Biloxi, you can drive to Baton Rouge. You can drive to Lake Charles,” said Russell.
The city does not want to lose money but believes there’s not enough evidence to show a similar 20 percent loss here.
“None of us can be sure what the dollar value will be, but what we are sure about that is we’re saving lives,” Councilman Gray said.
The smoking ban ordinance begins on April 22.
NEW ORLEANS SMOKING BAN FACING AMENDMENTS
March 12, 2015
By Charlie Minato @charlieminato
At today?s City Council meeting, five different amendments to the soon-to-be-enacted smoking ban in New Orleans will be heard.
The new law, which takes effect on April 22, will prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos. Currently an exemption exists for cigar stores in business prior to Dec. 10, 2014 that generate more than 10 percent from the sale of cigars and locker rentals, but that could be expanded.
Ordinance 30520 would exempt Tobacco Retail Businesses, which are defined by the amendment as those that generate at least 70 percent of sales through tobacco products and accessories. They would be allowed to serve both food and alcohol, so long as tobacco sales met the threshold, but they would be barred for providing ?live entertainment? and gambling.
The amendment comes from Councilmembers Nadine Ramsey and Jared Brossett.
Ramsey is also responsible for Ordinance 30611, which would define a “cigar bar” as a business that generates 10 percent or more of its revenue from the sale of cigars and the rental of humidors. Under the definition cigar bars would not be allowed to grant entry to anyone under the age of 21 and smoking cigarettes indoors would be illegal.
This proposal is believed to be directed at exempting a single business, Habana Hemingway Cigar Bar.
Four of the seven members of the City Council are behind Ordinance 30552, which would remove penalties for individual violators of the new smoking law. Instead, the only individuals subjected to fines would be the operators of businesses found in violation of the law.
Ordinance 30578 would allow for smoking with five feet of an enclosed area, 25 feet of enclosed public property and five feet of bleachers or grandstands?currently laws are written that would prohibit smoking in those circumstances.
Finally, Ordinance 30619 would allow for the creation of designated outdoor smoking areas at at bars, restaurants, casinos and other licensed gambling areas.
This smoking ban has become particularly important for the cigar industry because the annual IPCPR Convention & Trade Show will come to New Orleans this July. The trade show has already been granted the necessary waivers needed so that smoking will be allowed in the convention center and private events.
Amendments to the smoking ban are nothing new.
A plethora of amendments were hotly contested – many being decided by a 4-3 vote – before the smoking ban passed unanimously. Changes were made that removed certain enforcement, including a restriction on smoking near entrances of buildings, while a measure to remove the cigar bar exemption failed.
In addition to tomorrow?s vote, Harrah?s, which operates a 115,000-square-foot casino on Canal Street, indicated yesterday it would like the debate about smoking in gambling areas to be reopened
Five Characters in Search of a Reason for New Orleans’s Smoking Ban
February 16, 2015
By William Sullivan
New Orleans’s city council has unanimously approved a city-wide smoking ban in all bars and casinos, making it the latest big city to pass such a smoking ban without the courtesy of a popular vote.
The ban itself, like the others that came in cities before it, is purported to promote the public welfare. Non-smokers, government officials argue, have the right to have their lungs be unafflicted by dangerous secondhand smoke if they choose to visit or work in any establishment. In the case of New Orleans, teary-eyed city councilman James Gray II read aloud the names of people he knew who died of lung cancer, which “convinced” lawmakers to approve the smoking ban.
While we can all sympathize with Mr. Gray for his losses, we should also point out that knowing people who died of lung cancer does not mean that their having lung cancer was due to secondhand, or “passive,” smoke. In fact, new evidence suggests that the link between passive smoke and lung cancer is negligible at best, so it’s altogether unlikely that their having lung cancer had anything to do with passive smoke inhalation. His impassioned plea is thus nullified, at least in the context of the stated reasoning for offering the smoking ban in the first place.
A recent study, for example, detailed in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, followed 76,000 women and ultimately showed “no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke.” That’s a pretty unambiguous and confident conclusion.
But old lies die hard, and never harder than old lies that the government has been fully invested in perpetuating and disseminating for decades. The Centers for Disease Control, a government agency, still reports that nearly 3,400 people die each year from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke exposure.
Why such a glaring discrepancy? In brief, the problem with such conclusions as the CDC’s is that they are predicated upon “case-control studies” which are widely known to suffer from “recall bias,” according to Daniel Fisher at Forbes. That is, people with a disease are more likely to recall exposure to something that can be blamed for their condition.
In other words, the statistics supporting the CDC’s outlandish claim are conclusively tainted.
But some scientists are more honest about new findings. According to Gerald Silvestri of the Medical University of South California, the study just “confirms what researchers already believed,” despite pervasive lies still told by the CDC. Another researcher involved in the study took the honesty a step further, saying that “the strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is the norm.”
And there at last, we reach the quick. It’s not about secondhand smoke harming people. Again, if it were, the reasoning for a smoking ban is largely unsupported by credible evidence and the efforts should be rescinded. This is all about coerced behavior change and conformity to a government-approved lifestyle which is to be decided upon by our betters.
I understand that this is a topic that often transcends ideological positions. After all, I’ve spoken with many conservatives and libertarians who’ve argued the merits of smoking bans, and usually when pressed, they’ll admit that they support them simply because they personally don’t like smelling the smoke, that their kids shouldn’t have to be exposed to it, or something along those lines. And they then find themselves comfortably in league with leftist social engineers on this subject, arguing that because they don’t like it, no one should be able to do it in public place, and so forth.
This may be an unpleasant revelation for some, but this is a liberty issue in which there are only two sides: the side of liberty and the side which seeks to subvert it.
New Orleans is a very interesting arena for this dichotomy. Let us first understand that the city itself is rich with history and there is much to see and do there. But what you choose to do there has always been very much a function of a free choice, and the liberty therein. For example, if you enjoy history and are there with your young children, you may visit Jackson Square, the excellent World War II museum, the Garden District, etc. You would not take your young children to Bourbon Street visiting bar after smoky bar among the revelers who came to New Orleans for an entirely different purpose than you.
Now, one may cast derisive judgment at the drunken revelers’ actions, or their ambition to visit for the purpose of such indulgences. But their rights should be equally protected. That is what liberty requires. If, indeed, individual liberty is among the protections you claim to champion.
Business owners in New Orleans certainly have always had the right to allow or not allow smoking in their establishments. (Many that I’ve encountered in the French Quarter do not allow it.) The individuals employed by these businesses likewise have a choice to either work or not work in these establishments. The individuals patronizing these businesses also have a choice to either visit or not visit those establishments based upon their preference. Who is lacking a choice in this matter?
An early twenty-something young woman tried to answer that question for me at a blackjack table at Harrah’s Casino near the French Quarter, just before the smoking ban was decided upon by seven city council members, absent the opinion of local business owners or a popular vote.
My wife and I visited New Orleans for a few days last month for a brief getaway, which we typically try to do once or twice a year. While playing, I first overheard that New Orleans’s officials were mulling a smoking ban, just two days before it passed by decree of the city council. “It’s just going to be decided by the city council. People aren’t even gonna get a vote,” said a local player at the table, forlornly.
I explained to him that the city of Houston similarly passed such a law, and I agreed that such a decision should be left to a popular vote, and that the city’s businesses should have influence in such decision-making, especially for a city like New Orleans which relies so heavily on the bar and gambling industries.
“I think it’s a good idea,” the young twenty-something woman told me. “I shouldn’t have to breathe in that awful stuff. It’s about freedom and choice. And if someone smokes in here, I don’t have a choice but to breathe it.”
Those were her exact words. “It’s about freedom and choice.”
“It’s certainly about freedom and choice,” I responded. “You were free to choose to walk into this casino, and you did, knowing that there’d be smoke. What about the freedom for business owners to offer their products and services to clients who prefer to smoke? What about the rights of the smokers who wish to have the freedom to choose to go to places where they can be free to smoke?”
“They’re free to go outside and smoke,” she said.
“No,” I responded, “they wouldn’t have chosen to go outside to smoke. They would be forced to do so based upon what you and the city council happen to think is good for them, without ever considering what smokers or the people of New Orleans want. That’s not freedom. Smokers and the businesses providing for them today would lack freedom in that scenario.”
An exceedingly nice septuagenarian woman on my right had been shaking her head up and down as I spoke, and said, “I agree 100 percent. I do not smoke, and never have. I choose to come to casinos a couple of times a year. But it shouldn’t be the government’s place to tell businesses and people that they can’t do something that is totally legal.”
The gentleman to my left, who appeared to be in his fifties, chimed in saying, “That’s right! What’s the casino going to do, place a clear chip for all these smokers in here every ten minutes to hold their place as they go outside and smoke? How much money would the casino lose?” he asked the young woman.
“A lot, probably” she replied.
“Yeah, a lot,” said the man. “And who says it’s okay for the government to tell a business owner that he has to do something that the customers don’t want and gonna lose him money?” he asked emphatically.
“Well, it’s bad for you and people shouldn’t be doing it anyway, so maybe the government has to do that,” the young woman said, visibly uncomfortable but obviously not realizing that she’d completely abandoned her argument that smoking bans were about freedom while admitting that they are about coercion — the opposite of freedom.
No one at the table had been smoking up to this point. But upon hearing her say this, the man to my left pulled a cigar out of his pocket and lit it proudly. He said nothing more on the subject. But the statement was there. “This is America. And you’re not going to tell me how to live.”
That young woman chose to leave the table.
There’s a lesson in that man’s statement. A particularly important lesson to remember as the federal government seeks to regulate our consumption via the internet at a much larger scale.
Councilman proposes barring penalties for those smoking in bars
Proposal would exempt patrons from fines
Feb. 04, 2015
BY JEFF ADELSON
The ink is barely dry on New Orleans’ recently expanded smoking ban, and it won’t go into effect for more than two months, but there’s already a proposal on the table to amend the measure by preventing individual smokers from being punished if they light up in a bar or casino.
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Councilman Jason Williams, is not expected to come up for a vote at Thursday’s City Council meeting, though it could be on an agenda in the near future.
The ban the council passed two weeks ago essentially bars smoking or using electronic cigarettes in nearly any indoor business, including bars and casinos that were exempted from the 2007 state law that prohibits smoking in restaurants and other workplaces. There are still exemptions for cigar bars, hookah bars and electronic cigarette shops.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu signed the ban into law last week. It will take effect April 22.
Penalties for violations range from a $100 fine for a first offense to $500 for a third offense within a 12-month period.
Under the law as passed, those penalties could be levied against the smokers themselves or the owners, managers or employees of the establishment where they were smoking. The measure also allows the city to revoke the permits of establishments where there are violations.
Williams’ proposed change would eliminate the possibility that individual smokers could be fined ? an idea he said is aimed at ensuring it would not be used to target minorities.
That would be an extension of a previous amendment he succeeded in adding to the ordinance that takes enforcement out of the hands of the New Orleans Police Department. He said that change was intended to make sure officers can’t use smoking as a pretext for searches or harassment based on an individual’s race.
“This makes it clear so when I’m dead and gone or no longer on the council, there’s not someone that says anything on the books can be enforced by the NOPD,” Williams said.
Council members Jared Brossett, James Gray and Nadine Ramsey all have signed on as co-sponsors of Williams’ proposed amendment. Those four members together pushed through a number of changes to the ban before the council adopted it, narrowing its scope and eliminating provisions that would have prevented smoking outside near doorways and in other outdoor areas.
It was not clear Wednesday where Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell, who sponsored and championed the ban as it made its way to adoption, stands on Williams’ latest proposal.
The amendment would put the entire onus of enforcing the ban on bartenders and others working at the establishments, who Williams said are in the best position to control what is happening in their businesses.
“Bartenders are going to be the best and most reliable enforcement,” Williams said.
Ramsey last week introduced but then withdrew an ordinance that would have exempted Harrah’s New Orleans Casinofrom the new requirements. The councilwoman’s staff said she believed Landrieu had sought the exemption and withdrew the proposal after learning he did not support it.
City Council passes smoking ban
January 22, 2015
By Jaclyn Kelley / Eyewitness News
NEW ORLEANS ? Thursday New Orleans placed many greater restrictions on smoking within city limits. The city council approved a measure that will ban smoking in and around schools, bars and restaurants, but it did not come without a fight.
After a heated and, at times, emotional debate, the city council made history, making New Orleans the largest city in Louisiana to go virtually smoke-free.
The crusader behind Smokefree NOLA, Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell, savored the moment as smiling supporters embraced each other and wiped away tears.
“Today is a good day and we are doing the right things for the right reasons,” says Cantrell.
After a hard-fought battle, the city council voted unanimously to pass the ban. However, the decision did not come without a heated debated that got emotional for those who have seen the deadly effects of smoking and second-hand smoke.
“We are a decade late to a discussion that has already been had,” says Paul Sanchez, a local musician who supports the ban.
“Your vote is about the most precious asset this city has, our service people and our musicians,” says another supporter. “These people are the money makers for the city.”
The city council also passed a number of amendments that will soften some of the smoking ban’s restrictions, including an amendment that allows smoking at outdoor areas like parks, as well as along Bourbon Street.
“We have a situation in the Quarter where people are getting robbed, raped and murdered and you are discussing this crap about 25 feet from this and 5 feet from that, what the hell are you people drinking,” says an opponent of the smoking ban.
Cigar bars, e-cigarette shops and hookah bars will be grandfathered-in to allow smoking inside those businesses, but that’s not enough for the vaping community.
“Why did you put e-cigarettes into this bill?” says the Chris Flowers, the president of the Louisiana Association of Electronic cigarette retailers (LAECR).
“When you are voting on reconsideration for amendments to amendments, this is not an ordinance that’s ready to pass,” says another member of the LAECR.
Other staunch opponents, like Harrah’s casino, says its revenue will take a big hit, along with the city and other businesses.
“The impact to us will be a decrease in visitors coming through our doors, which impacts our employees, our tipped employees in particular,” says Logan Gaskill, the Vice President of Human Resources and Community Relations for Harrah’s New Orleans.
The smoking ban will take effect in 90 days.
Thoughts on The New Orleans Smoking Ban Hearings
January 19, 2015
For those of you that are unaware, there is a wide reaching ordinance being proposed by New Orleans Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell that would ban smoking and all forms of vaping virtually everywhere in the city, inside and out. There has already been talk of amendments amongst council members, but that is not what I am going to talk about in this post. What I want to share is my experience and observations on what took place at the two town hall sessions before the council’s Community Development Committee on Weds., Jan. 7th and on Weds., Jan. 15th.
Round One…
Hearing #1 took place at 10 am in the morning. The first thing that I noticed upon arriving was the number of people in attendance. The place was packed to capacity and many people were not allowed in to listen or to fill out a speaker card. I took a quick glance around the room and I immediately noticed that the room had been divided into three factions, one with smoke and vape-ban proponents heavily armed with t-shirts calling for a smoke free New Orleans. Smoke and vape ban opponents were identifiable by stickers provided by Freedom To Choose Nola . There was a sizable pro-vape ban contingent that brandished “I am not a smoker… anymore!” t-shirts that lined the back wall and portions of the adjacent wall. I chose to sit amongst the 2nd group.
The first segment of the hearing was allotted to a panel of health industry lobbyists that took up a good portion of the 1st hour, leaving the public only one minute to speak per person in the remaining hour. All three factions had an impressive turnout, but a quick glance around the room told me that there were more opponents than proponents of the ban; and that’s not bad considering the amount of time, preparation, and money that is often afforded to pro-ban campaigners. Passing bans around the country is their job after all, and they’re quite good at it. Each panelist went on about the dangers of 2nd hand smoke and the need to protect employees from exposure in the workplace. When the panel (there were no detractors) was finally finished the public was invited (one by one) to speak.
My first observation was that ban proponents were well organized. They stayed with the uniform message of protecting workers and musicians from 2nd hand smoke while making it a point to wax quixotic on the new(er) danger of “passive aerosol”. They had the head of the Musician’s Union (of which I was briefly a member) Deacon John, musician Irvin Mayfield (who owns a smoke-free venue on Bourbon St.), the head of the local Musician’s Clinic, smoke-free volunteers, and a small smattering of smoke-free bar owners all calling for a smoke free New Orleans. Presumably, the latter group was merely in it just to “level the playing field”. Though not in attendance physically, even the local radio station has been campaigning with them (..my band was scheduled to do an on air performance a few months back…we were cancelled by management and never asked backâ?¦Coincidence? I can’t prove it, but I believe that there is a price to disagreeing with smoke ban proponents) via on-site ads and sponsored smoke-free shows. Never mind the fact that most live music venues in New Orleans, save for Bourbon St. (and there are even smoke-free venues there), are already smoke-free. The more trendy and upscale Frenchmen St. is currently about 95% smoke free. I only know of one venue there that allows smoking. Oh, and God bless him, they even had a minister get up and speak in favor a smoke free NOLA. I am sure that he is the type to frequent bars, live music venues and drinking establishments.
Listening to the pro-ban side and realizing the amount of power attached to it, my heart sank knowing the risk that I’d be taking as a local musician by speaking out against this ban, but I choose to speak out anyhow; it’s the way that I’m wired. I’ve never liked it much when other people tried to tell me how I lived my life. The first song that I ever sang in a band was a Who cover songâ?¦.’nuff said.
Those opposed to the ban in its entirety were comprised of local casino representatives, local bar and casino workers (and there were a lot of them), an owner of several bars on Bourbon St., residents of the Quarter, and as far as I could tell, one lone musician: me. Even though I know musicians against that are the ban, I was the only musician to SPEAK out against the ban that day. There were quite a few of people in our amalgamated and loosely aligned group of ban dissidents. In fact, it appeared to the eye that there were more us us than “them”. Why didn’t more musicians speak out against the ban? My only guess would be that getting up there in front of so many powerful people can be quite the intimidating experience, especially in a climate where many of your potential employers are supportive of the opposition. Disagreeing with the establishment can be a scary thing when gigs and money are already scarce.
Our group was nothing like the more organized pro ban group that occupied the left side of the chamber. We had no professional lobbyists speaking on our behalf, no formal welcome committee, and no real organization. We each got up to tell our story (in one minute) on how and why we had come to oppose the ban. The reasons given varied from being about the potential for lost job and tourist revenue, lost revenue for the state (and thus, for the state police), lost freedom, lost private property rights, a loss of social cohesion and diversity, and the catastrophic loss of the laissez-faire attitude that New Orleans has come to be known and loved for. There was no one on our side to contest the “settled science” on 2nd hand smoke or the “dangers” of aerosol/vapor, save for me of course. My years (about 7 now) of reading and conducting research on the science and politics of smoking (and now vaping) bans have afforded me the luxury of coming across some potent and valuableinformation that calls the “settled science” of decades past into question. This is what I attempted to base the first 30 seconds of my time speaking on, with the remainder of my time spent on questioning why they would want to ban vapor products that harbor the potential to save lives. I showed them my Ploom tobacco vaporizer and I told them that this is what helped me to transition away from smoking entirely. I also told them on how I had used it in a crowded non-smoking bar on Frenchmen St. and how no one had even noticed that I was doing so until a couple of patrons saw me partaking in the hand to mouth motion, of which one made it a point to marvel at the brilliance of the technology. The point that I was trying to make was that clearly my little vaper pipe is annoying to no one, not even in a non-smoking venue, so why ban it? I mentioned how vapor technology has the potential to save lives. I closed by saying that I oppose the ban in its entirety and that I supported the right of the property owner to choose between being a smoking or non-smoking establishment. I wanted to say more, but that was it: minute up.
Then came the e-vapers with their “I am not a smokerâ?¦.anymore” t-shirts. As a vaper myself, I have to say that I was quite pleased to see them thereâ?¦..more for the side of freedom I thoughtâ?¦As a proponent of harm reduction, I have to admit that I felt a sense of pride for them. Then one by one, vaping proponents took to the podium and proceeded to side with the pro-ban side by expressing their distaste of smoking and all things tobacco (I vape tobacco..I also have a couple of mods, but whateverâ?¦). I was mortified. They had thrown smokers (many of whom are musicians and my friends) under the bus. How could they have become so judgmental I wondered? Truth be told, only a few vapers had the chance to speak at the first session. No worries I thought, for surely the remaining vapers in the room would speak out on behalf of freedom of choice in the next round.
The pro-ban side began throwing in its two cents (mostly coming from health advocates) on how vapor should also be banned. The look on the faces of vaping advocates was pure astonishment, and rightfully so, for the same trusty strategy used against smokers was now being used on vapers. They/we were now getting thrown under the bus with the smokers. The clock hit 7:00 pm on the wall and the first session was over, much to the protest of many vapers who did not get the chance to speak. There were shouts of protest and a few vaping advocates were ejected from the room. The representative from the ALA was allowed to speak a SECOND time giving her the last word of the evening. Then the committee voted 3/2 to bring the ordinance, with amendments (more on the amendments as they become clear to me), to a vote before the entire council, but not before holding one more “open” public discussion to allow for more public “debate”.
Round Two…
Weds., January 15th @ 5:00 pm marked the beginning of the 2nd Town Hall discussion on Councilwoman Cantrell’s proposed ban on smoking and vaping in New Orleans.
Expecting another packed house, I arrived early. As expected, the pro-ban side had their army of ban proponents there before everyone else. It didn’t look good I thought as I sat there on the opposite side of the room anticipating the arrival of more like minds. Then much to my relief, more and more people began to fill up the chairs around me. Once again there was also a sizable group of vapers in the room by the time the session was about to get underway, but not as many as the week prior. In the end it appeared to my eye that room had about an equal amount of pro and anti-ban proponents, along with the vapers, who tried to remain autonomous from the first two groups. This time there was an allotment of two minutes, rather than one, for each speaker. The room was divided roughly into three factions, just as it had been the week before, with the exception of some loosely integrated pockets.
On the fence about whether to fill out a speaker card for a 2nd time, I took the liberty of speaking once more. What the hell, I figured, I might as well try to finish what I couldn’t squeeze in the week prior. One minute was not nearly enough time to get my point across the last time, and I have since learned that neither is two. It takes a special set of skills to make a case about something in two minutes, but I’m learning.
Each side had roughly the same message as the week prior, save for some new and novel arguments relating to wild and far reaching claims about the dangers of 3rd hand smoke, and the possible use of cannabis in e-cigs. There was even reference made to the idea that e-cigarettes could be used for crack cocaine. There was also a fear that vaping could serve to “re-normalize” smoking (courtesy of the ALA representative). Ban proponents therefore made a special effort to focus on the demonization of e-cigarettes and aerosol. “E-cigarette aerosol is filled with formaldehyde, diethylene glycol, and tobacco specific nitrosamines..” cried one ban proponent. Vaping enthusiasts were not thrilled, and neither was I. I could see them shaking their heads in utter disbelief at the exaggerations being put forth by various health proponents. Ban proponents evenbrought in Louisiana Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) to speak in favor of the comprehensive ban:
“I’m hopeful that next Thursday you get the support you need to make New Orleans and its citizens healthier,” she said. “This ordinance is a critical instrument in fighting for healthier air for all of us.”
OK, why is the government lobbying government to take away the rights of its own constituents I wondered? I thought that this was supposed to be a forum for the RESIDENTS and BUSINESS owners of New Orleans! How does a community defend itself from regulatory overreach when its own government is lobbying against the very constituents that it is supposed to represent? Furthermore, aren’t our representatives supposed to represent ALL of the people? Quickly I began to realize how futile my argument was. The decision likely had already been made.
They even brought in a pediatrician to speak on the danger that 3rd hand smoke poses to children when their parents come home with the smell of smoke on their clothes after being in a smoking allowed bar. No, I am NOT making that part up. He really said that 3rd hand smoke is dangerous and that “the children” need to be protected from it. In addition, there was one woman who howled into the microphone that she felt sick because she could smell the smoke on the clothes of the woman sitting next to her. “I feel like someone has just shot novacane into my nose” she howled. No. I am not making that part up either. Suspicious minds think that she merely had an adversion to sitting next to anyone on our side of the room that harbored an alternative opinion different to her own. She and her significant other proceeded (after her speech) to pick up their things and move to the center of the chambersâ?¦..where it was at least 1/2 full with smoke and vape ban opponents. Frustrated, she and her significant other picked up their things and left.
On Vapers and Quasi ANTZ Support…
I would like to conclude this post by saying this:
For those who are not familiar with the tactics of anti-tobacco campaigners, much of what I have described thus far should come off as being quite shocking. I have to admit that many of the claims made by anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine campaigners still continue to shock the hell out of me to this day; however, what really stunned me the most was when one after another, vaping advocates proceeded to side with anti forces, often clapping their hands and nodding in agreement with many of the claims made by pro ban speakers. WTF? How can they believe all of the lies about 2nd hand/3rd hand smoke and the “10 gazillion chemicals” in tobacco smoke and then in the same breath (pun intended) act surprised when the very same people exaggerate the risks from “passive vaping”? How could they be so blind I wondered? Even if we do manage to get vapor products exempted from this proposed ban, don’t they realize that the prohibitionists are masters of incremental subjugation with only an end game in mind? I realize that many vapers feel that they need to separate vaping from smoking. I get that. Vaping is NOT smoking. However, as a vaper myself I surmise that throwing smokers, service industry workers, and private business owners under the bus will only serve to leave us standing all alone when they come back for us next year; and they WILL be back for us next year. Count on it. They are already on our front porch. Furthermore, for those vapers who loathe all things tobacco, I have one question:
Don’t you remember where you came from?
The fact that smokers are habitually thrown under the bus by the ANTZ is par for the course in our neo-healthist (the irony here is that I’m somewhat of a health nut myself, but whateverâ?¦) world. It’s not “right” nor just to tell other people how to live their lives, but that is what we have come to expect from anti-smoking campaigners these days. What I didn’t anticipate was being sideswiped by fellow vapers, most of whom are former smokers like myself. I understand the anger amongst some against (certain) tobacco companies for what appears to be an effort to put many independently owned vape shops out of business, but how does directing your ire towards the people that you are purporting to care about help our cause? Why take out your anger, however direct or indirect, on smokers and other small business owners like yourself? That’s what the ANTZ do. We don’t need to perpetuate the lies and exaggerations of 2nd hand smoke in order to demonstrate that vaping is not smoking when the science is already clear on that. Why not focus on the bigger picture?
The Lesson Learned…
The cause of freedom is not contingent upon the wants of one faction over another; that is the game that the ANTZ use to take freedoms from ALL of us. In any war the first casualty is truth. First they come for me, then they come for you. No one wins in such an environment. This is not a zero sum game. Freedom and the over all message of harm reduction are synonymous with one another. Selling out for short term gain equates to long term loss for everyone and on a multitude of levels. Unfortunately, there are some people out there that think that it’s their job to take away the people’s freedom.
READ MORE and see the blog.
COP HOP: WILLIAMS PROPOSES CUTTING NOPD FROM SMOKING ORDINANCE
January 20th, 2015
Councilmember LaToya Cantrell’s proposed ordinance on smoking has generated a lot of controversy. It’s not just tobacco types who are upset with the legislation. Even ardent opponents of smoke have criticized Ordinance 30,455 for placing enforcement on the the New Orleans {Police Department (NOPD) during a crime spree. Today (1.20), Councilmember Jason Williams introduced an amendment to address the issue.
Williams’ amendment eliminates the NOPD from the proposed enforcement role. In a release, Williams said, “Crime in New Orleans is my number one concern. Citizens do not feel safe, and constituents continually tell me that reducing crime should be my top priority. I support the ban on smoking indoors. And applaud Councilmember Cantrell on her hard work to bring the Smokefree New Orleans ordinance to the City Council. However, I cannot support an ordinance which places any additional burdens on the NOPD. I will not support the ordinance unless it makes clear that the NOPD should not enforce the ban on smoking. Rates of crime are increasing while our police force is shrinking. Our citizens feel unsafe, and so I must do everything I can to promote their safety, and support our police force to reform and improve. The police must focus on violent crime – murders, rapes, and armed robberies. We should not delay officers for even a minute in order to address smoking in bars.”
The Councilmember went on to add that he also does not want to create the potential for more conflict between police and citizens. He explains, “I don’t want police to use the provisions of this ordinance to conduct pretextual stops, which are ultimately a form of harassment, too often inflicted on the minority populations of this city. Provisions of the ordinance could easily be abused by an officer looking to stop an innocent citizen.”
Mitch Landrieus Unarmed “NOLA Patrol” Will Fine Smokers, Not Fight Crime
Jan. 13, 2015
By John Binder, The Hayride
An initiative by New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu to create a 50-member, unarmed group of officers, known as “NOLA Patrol” will likely be fining smokers for smoking indoors if the New Orleans City Council votes next week to establish a smoking ban across the city for all businesses, bars and public places. Essentially, NOLA Patrol, according to Landrieu, will free-up New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) Officers by taking over issues in the city like traffic issues and code enforcement.
One issue NOLA Patrol will not be helping with is fighting crime in the city, which has gotten progressively worse over the last couple of months, specifically in the French Quarter.
However, NOLA Patrol members will be receiving a salary of $25,000 a year, which has had many residents and New Orleans public figures question why Landrieu would spend money like that on an unarmed police force, when he could be spending it on the under-funded and short-staffed NOPD.
The city is set to dish out approximately $2.3 million to the NOLA Patrol, which set of local business owners last year, as they wondered why the city would spend money on an unarmed police force. The funding for NOLA Patrol derives from a hospitality-industry fund, according to NOLA.com. And with the prospects of an overreaching smoking ban throughout the city, the question has been brought up about who is actually going to enforce this smoking ban, which will likely hit smokers with a $50 fine.
Well, according to New Orleans City Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell’s proposal, business owners will be the enforcers of the smoking ban. They will be allowed to refuse service to individuals who smoke inside their establishment. And if the business owners don’t mind smokers in their establishment, they will get hit with a fine from the city, which could range up to $100. Additional offenses by a business owner could go up to $500.
So, if the smoking ban is passed by the City Council, Landrieu and the council have decided that the NOLA Patrol will take on the task of fining smokers and keeping them out of public parks and whatnot.
But, we question if Landrieu of the City Council has ever wondered what this unarmed patrol group will do if they run into a situation where they are facing individuals who are armed and dangerous?
NOLA Patrol is solving no problems for the city. Crime will not be decreased, but smoking will be. However, which one is the bigger problem?
Smoking ordinance vote in New Orleans deferred until Jan. 22
January 12, 2015
By Alex Woodward @alexwoodward Google
New Orleans moved a step closer to banning smoking in most public places last week after a proposed smoking ban including prohibiting smoking in bars and casinos had its first public debate before a City Council committee. The full council will consider the ordinance on Jan. 22.
Supporters and opponents packed the council’s Community Development Committee meeting. After three hours of often-heated argument, the committee voted 3-2 to approve a long list of changes to the original draft.
District B Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell announced plans to introduce the measure last summer, and in November she unveiled a 25-page ordinance banning all tobacco products (including electronic cigarettes) from public areas and prohibiting smoking within 25 feet of a business. Last week’s amendments exempt cigar bars and hookah lounges, allow smoking in approved bar patio areas and change the 25-feet rule to 5 feet.
Debate among bar owners, musicians, health advocates, e-cig vendors and smokers ignited a three-hour meeting, with a crowd spilling outside the council chamber at City Hall. Several people shouted for a chance to speak when time for public comment ran out. Musicians, including Deacon John Moore, Irvin Mayfield, Paul Sanchez and Bonerama’s Craig Klein, voiced support for the ordinance.
“My primary concern is the health of those people who are the backbone,” said Moore, whose voice broke as he read a statement to the committee. “I’m tired of witnessing beloved artists dying from the effects of secondhand smoke. … Many are the standard bearers for the indigenous culture we love so dearly.”
Others, like smoker Elizabeth Stella, said the ordinance goes against the attitude New Orleans embraces. “It’s not New York, it’s not Seattle, it’s a party town,” she said. “A bar is not a health spa and alcohol is not a spa drink.”
A group of health advocates has led the campaign supporting the ordinance. Those advocates are the Louisiana Public Health Institute (LPHI) and the SmokeFree New Orleans Coalition which includes the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Louisiana Cultural Economy Foundation and other groups.
Opponents, such as the French Quarter Business League and Bourbon Street bar owner Earl Bernhardt, have fought the proposed measure on economic grounds. Logan Gaskill, human resources director for Harrah’s New Orleans Casino, said, “Working in a smoking environment is only one of the components of working at Harrah’s.”
District E Councilman James Gray told Gaskill people aren’t in a position to choose where they can find employment given the current job market. “[With] an employer of your size, I’m going to be little affected by, ‘If they don’t want to work here, they don’t have to work here,'” Gray told Gaskill.
Electronic cigarette users “vapers” also are targeted in the ordinance, which cites uncertainty over safety and difficulty of enforcing e-cig use as reasons it would be prohibited. Vape supporters argued that e-cigs not only can be used as a smoking cessation tool, but that if cigar bars can be grandfathered into the ordinance, then there’s no reason that it can’t also allow for e-cig use in vape shops.
At-Large Councilman Jason Williams said e-cigs were not properly vetted in the ordinance, which includes them in a ban because of early reports from the Food and Drug Administration alleging harmful chemicals in e-cig vapor. State lawmakers last year passed a measure prohibiting the sale of e-cigs to minors.
Gray and Williams were the two nay votes, with Gray saying he supports a ban, but wanted more time to approve the new amendments. Cantrell and committee members Susan Guidry and Stacy Head voted yes.
The measure was to be taken up at the full Council meeting on Jan. 8, but Cantrell deferred it to Jan. 22.
New Orleans’ proposed smoking ban sparks fiery debate before City Council
January 07, 2015
By Richard Rainey, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
Sweeping legislation that would ban smoking in most businesses and public spaces across New Orleans sparked fiery debateWednesday in the City Council chamber.
The distilled arguments boiled down to the jeopardy second-hand smoke puts on the health of employees and musicians who work in bars and casinos against the possibly deleterious economic impact of a smoking ban on mom-and-pop shops and large-scale employers like Harrah’s Casino.
As both sides cited various reports and data to bolster their points, Councilman James Gray asked for more time to understand the issue.
The debate attracted a crowd that crammed into the council chamber, so many that several people had to be turned away. Shouts erupted from the crowd at the end, airing complaints that many people weren’t allowed to speak.
Nonetheless, Councilwoman LaToya Cantrell, the proposed smoking ban’s author, asked that the council’s Community Development Committee approve her amendments and send them to the full council. She said there would be plenty of opportunity to continue to vet the issue.
Cantrell, Susan Guidry and Stacy Head voted to add in the changes and move the entire law package to the full council. Gray and Councilman James Gray voted against both measures.
Cantrell said the ban would appear on the council’s agenda for its Thursday meeting, but that she would move to defer it to a later time.
It appears that some form of a smoking ban has a good chance of passing, with Gray, Guidry and Cantrell expressing support for it based on improving working conditions.
Check back with NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune for a fuller report.
Smoking ban debate heats up in City Hall
JAN 7, 2015
BY ALEX WOODWARD
New Orleans City Council chambers filled with supporters and opponents of an ordinance that could ban smoking in most public places, including bars and casinos.
New Orleans could be one step closer to banning smoking in most public places. A proposed ban – including prohibiting smoking in bars and casinos” had its first public debate today in New Orleans City Council chambers, where supporters and opponents packed the council’s community development committee meeting. Following three hours of discussion, debate and heated argument, the committee approved a long list of changes to the original draft by a 3-2 vote.
Read More
Owen Courreges: Will New Orleans become a city of killjoys in 2015?
December 29, 2014
By Owen Courreges
New Year’s Day is now nearly upon us. As has always been the case, the libations will flow and drunken debauchery will rule the streets. We will celebrate having endured one more journey around the sun on this world of ours by getting blotto.
Of course, there was a brief period when that wasn’t the case.
“The first day of the New Year was observed, rather than celebrated by New Orleans, with hushful Sabbatical ceremony, a reporter for the Times-Picayune observed during Prohibition.
“People appeared like actors in a play who were not quite sure of their part, he continued. “[I]t must be confessed that New Orleans is the veriest amateur in sedate behavior on New Year’s Day.
Suffice to say it sounds like New Years Day during Prohibition had all the pomp and vitality of a funeral dirge. People didn’t even know what to do with themselves. It wasn’t until New Year’s Day in 1934 that sanity once again reigned as legal hooch returned to the streets.
If there is one thing New Orleanians should take from this history, it’s that we need to ignore the killjoys, people who are constantly nit-picking every vice and activity. The killjoys aren’t good for New Orleans and they never have been. The killjoys care about their own sedate enjoyment, and they readily turn to the power of the state to enforce it.
The past few years have seen a marked increase in killjoy operations. We are now debating a broad indoor smoking ban that applies across-the-board to all bars, including hookah lounges and cigar bars, and even regulates smoking anywhere near a regulated a business. It even includes e-cigarettes, which have no serious verified health impacts.
Why the overly expansive regulation? Because killjoy, that’s why.
This year we also saw the city bring an ABO enforcement action against the The Country Club, a Bywater restaurant and bar known for its “clothing optional” policy, following an alleged rape that took place on the premises. Although the victim in that case supported the retention of the “clothing optional policy, which had nothing whatsoever to do with a sexual assault, the city nevertheless forced The Country Club to repeal it anyway.
Why did the city push its prudish demands? Again, killjoy.
The list goes on. Earlier this year we saw the city crack down on what it deemed to be illegal T-shirt shops in the French Quarter. Instead of focusing on higher-end shops selling t-shirts that cater to a wealthier clientele, the city seemed to zero in on the purveyors of cheaper t-shirts (which are sometimes adorned with crass messages like “I Got Bourbon-Faced on Shit Street”. In some cases, the city acted without any reason to believe the establishment was actually violating the law.
Why focus on t-shirt violations in America’s murder capital? Hey, we’re talking about killjoys, not killers.
Finally, this April the council mercifully voted down a stricter Bourbon Street noise ordinance. Killjoys wanted to bring noise on Bourbon Street under control, but after they had chronically overplayed their hand in the past, the council simply wasn’t willing to pass even a relatively limited ordinance. Nevertheless, the killjoys will certainly try again.
Why? Because killjoys never give up.
Killjoys are certainly making their voices heard, and it’s a problem. They divert scarce enforcement resources away from the areas where they are needed, instead using them to fight their pet Puritanical causes. Sometimes killjoys use our Byzantine myriad of laws and zoning restrictions to get their way. Other times they want new laws. In all cases, they want the city to have their back.
New Orleans needs to be a killjoy-free zone. It goes against our nature to keep everything sedate, sober, and synchronized. It doesn’t come within our scope of experience, and it’s not the type of thing we’re begging for instruction in. Sure, we all have a tendency to become cranky and oversensitive at times (particularly as we age) but that’s not an excuse for collectively raining on everyone’s parade.
Thus, when celebrating the dawn of a new year, I implore everyone to resolve to fight the killjoys, and perhaps more importantly, to avoid becoming one yourself. That’s a resolution we should all keep.
Owen Courr’s, a New Orleans attorney and resident of the Garden District, offers his opinions for UptownMessenger.com on Mondays. He has previously written for the Reason Public Policy Foundation.
Smoke signals
The Big Easy contemplates banishing smokers to the pavement
Dec 20th 2014
IN A bar at the edge of the French Quarter, Voltaire Casino, a 30-something teacher, sips a beer, sucks on a cigarette and discusses politics. Jazz is in the air and the ceiling is a haze of fumes: it is a picture New Orleans has sold to the world for decades. Yet soon the glowing red tips may be extinguished”or at least forced outside. After years of failing to ban smoking in bars and casinos across the state of Louisiana, campaigners have turned their attention to winning a municipal ban in the Big Easy. A local councilwoman has written a proposal: a vote is due by March.
Louisiana is far from the only holdout”and it has at least banned smoking in restaurants and offices. Across America, 24 states have not enacted full anti-smoking laws, banning smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces, according to the American Non Smokers Rights Foundation, a pressure group. Most are in the South, where smoking rates are higher (see map). Nationally, 19% of Americans puff away, but in Louisiana 24% of adults do.
James Varney, a columnist on the Times- Picayune, a paper in New Orleans, argues that “end-of-the-line dives require a haze of cigarette smoke”, and that jazz musicians would never have looked so cool without their burning tabs in hand. Some bar owners say that they will be put out of business. A few local politicians worry pragmatically that revenue from the city’s many casinos will fall away if yellow-fingered gamblers cannot burn tobacco as they burn money.
Yet smokers themselves seem less than outraged. Mr Casino says that a ban in his favourite watering holes would be irksome, but it’s not gonna stop me from drinking. At another dive bar in the southwest of the city, Seth, a heavily tattooed smoker in a fleur-de-lis baseball cap, says that a ban “would hurt a little, I guess, but I’d just go outside. In New Orleans, licensing laws are fairly loose: many bars run until dawn. If bar owners really were determined to allow people to smoke, it seems unlikely that a ban would stop them.
Already, in fact, non-smokers have plenty of places to go. Healthier Air For All, a Louisiana pressure group, lists over 100 joints in the city where drinkers can avoid returning home stinking of fumes. Indeed, many of the city’s best jazz bars operate with restaurant licences. Jazz fans these days are fairly likely to be prissy liberals with an aversion to death sticks. In the end, that will do for the city’s smoky culture as much as meddling government.
Read and see the map.
State police expect New Orleans to lose millions if smoking ban is passed
Louisiana State Police expect New Orleans to lose millions of dollars if smoking ban is put in place.
December 18, 2014
Cole Avery, NOLA.com | The Times-PicayuneBy Cole Avery, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
A report by the Louisiana State Police shows the city of New Orleans could lose more than $86 million in two years if the city passes a smoking ban.
Representatives presenting the report to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board on Thursday at the request of the board members.
“This board doesn’t have a dog in that hunt. We’re neither for nor against smoking or smokers, but I do believe the board has a responsibility since it is our duty under the law to promote economic development through gaming in this state — and gaming huge footprint in New Orleans — we have a responsibility to put in the public record what might happen if a ban in put in place,” said board chairman Ronnie Jones.
LSP made their projections based on data collected from other states and a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They reported Delaware saw a 12 percent decrease in revenue in the year after a smoking ban was put into place. Atlantic City has a 24 percent decrease over two years, and Colorado is down 8 percent since a ban was put into place despite expanding the total number of gaming options.
In Louisiana, restaurant revenue is down 24 percent since a ban took affect in 2007, and revenue in bars in hotels is down 10 percent since 2007.
Gaming in restaurants in general is down 1,400 machines for a decrease of 52 percent in revenue since 2006.
Using the data from Louisiana smoking ban effects and the PwC study, LSP determined New Orleans could lose $86.4 million from gaming revenue and $17.4 million in fees in two years. The drop would be due to a decreased patronage.
LSP stressed the calculations were based on extrapolations from available data, not a study they conducted.
Jones also worried about the financial hit workers might take from decreased tips.
“It’s not just about the gaming revenue. There’s a larger picture here at risk, potentially, based on what we know. We can’t estimate what that would be other than we know there will be an impact,” Jones said.
New Orleans City Council members Susan Guidry and LaToya Cantrell introduced a proposal in November that would ban smoking in most public places. The issue could come up again in late January or early February.
Cantrell’s office released a statement saying she plans to meet with representatives from the Gaming Board to discuss the projections. She cited a studies that contradict the LSP report and show there would not be an impact on revenue.
“Councilwoman Cantrell is extremely mindful of utilizing evidence-based, peer- reviewed economic data to see what the actual impact will be on the city in terms of revenue, tourists visits, conventions and other categories. A study on the economic impact of the smoke-free ordinance on the local economy overall is being developed,” the statement read.
It continued, “It should also be remembered that the main intent of the smoke-free ordinance is to protect bar and casino employees, entertainers and patrons from the death and disease caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. This exposure not only severely affects their health but also drives up city and state medical costs, something state police report did not take into consideration.”
