New York Does Not Believe in Dancing
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:06 PM

Last year Vice Squad stumbled across the fact that New York City establishments serving food or drink cannot also host dancing (even of the spontaneous sort by customers) unless the establishments have acquired a special "cabaret" license. The numbers of legal NYC dance houses are on the rise, we are now happy to report (or repeat, rather). Another dance parade is scheduled for May 17 to protest the draconian anti-dance legislation. A pro-dance activist [imagine that we have gotten to the point where there can be such a thing as a pro-dance activist] claims that the real problem is noise, not dance, and that the smoking ban is responsible for a New York noise boost -- as Vice Squad recently noted for Paris. Speaking of the Paris smoking ban, there's a claim that Paris clubs are learning what London pubs learned after the smoking ban went into effect: smoke covers up the ambient smell of these establishments, and that can be a good thing.

Labels: Britain, dancing, France, New York, smoking ban

 
Cocaine in New York City
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:11 PM

Today's New York Times runs an article in its Sunday Styles section about the prominence of cocaine in the city's nightlife (and in the lifestyle of the creative set more generally). There's a claim that the resurgence of coke use among young New Yorkers -- a resurgence that does not seem to have much statistical evidence in its support -- is in part due to 'generational amnesia.' The idea here is that the generation scarred by John Belushi's death was driven away from cocaine, but that the younger generation has not seen the same tragedies associated with the drug. This is a version of the usual 'new drug' problem. The use of addictive drugs tends to bring current pleasure and future pain. When a drug is new, few users are paying the cost, so it looks a bit better than it will turn out to be. New or rediscovered drugs develop better reputations, for a time, than they deserve. And the lack of a convincing statistical portrait of use is one of the raft of negative consequences stemming from drug prohibition.

'Coke is the new weed,' in terms of the acceptability of its open use in certain circles, according to one quote in the article. Another observer notes that the use of cocaine is much more socially acceptable than...smoking a cigarette. There's even a claim that the campaign against methamphetamine has made users think of cocaine as a safer alternative.

Labels: cocaine, methamphetamine, New York, Prohibition

 
NYC Dance Parade
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 12:16 AM

A protest in New York City yesterday took the unusual form of a dance parade. The target of the protest is rules from the 1920s that require special cabaret licenses for establishments that serve food or drink, if dancing also is to take place there. The licensing regulations have been challenged, but were upheld in an appeals court decision two weeks ago. And so the dance parade.

Cabarets were major parts of the New York City social scene before World War I. But times changed, as chronicled in The Night Club Era, a 1933 book (reissued in 1999) by Stanley Walker:

The cabaret, during the war and immediately afterward, found the going tough. It was being smirched by a cheaper and less leisurely life, harried by the dance halls and chevvied by all manner of reformers, vice crusaders, licensing regulations and the massed forces of virtue [page 77].

("Chevvied" means, roughly, "harassed," it seems.) Of course, these disreputable pre-World War I cabarets that provoked the good people of the land were soon replaced, during Prohibition, with something perhaps even less to their liking; Walker again, from page 77:

How innocent the old-time cabarets appear, viewed after the years of the hot night clubs! And yet these places had to contend with enemies almost as persistently annoying as prohibition agents and shakedown artists. There was a serious attack in 1915, when a committee... gathered much fearsome data against the cabaret. The object of this committee was not so much to abolish dancing as to divorce it from restaurants, and divorce both dancing and eating from drinking. It was dangerous, it appeared, to eat, drink and dance in the same place.

And the legal divorce continues, unless a marriage license between food and dance is acquired.

For background information on the recent case and the enforcement of the cabaret license law, see here (lawsuit filed) and here (Goths have difficulty dancing in NYC).

Labels: dancing, New York, Prohibition

 
Inside NYC's Poker Dens -- A NY Post View
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 10:35 PM

There's a good deal of descriptive material in this New York Post Online article about poker dens in New York City. The clubs are, shall we say, quasi-legal, but recognizing their vulnerability, many of them do their best to avoid attracting undue attention:

But all these livelihoods hang by a legal thread. "It is illegal for anyone to profit from gambling," said an NYPD spokeswoman. "These houses are illegal, and we are always investigating them."

Knowing the law, the clubs try to dodge prosecution by running as private, members-only clubs. They make money by charging "table fees" — averaging $3 per player every half-hour — rather than "raking the pot " — taking 10 to 15 percent off the top of each pot, a more obvious violation of the law.

"Generally speaking, illegal gambling is the house taking a percentage of the pot," said Barbara Thompson, spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.

Club owners rely on this gray area to stay open. And they say they run clean clubs to keep police attention at a minimum. "We don't serve alcohol, and you have to be over 21 and a member to play," said the manager of the second-largest club. "We think of it as a sober environment where people can compete and socialize. If I see I guy 'on tilt' and he runs down to the ATM, when he comes back up, I stop him from getting in and say, 'You know, tomorrow's another day.' "

Labels: gambling, New York, poker

 
New York City's Public Smoking Ban
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:40 PM

Today’s New York Times brings an examination of the nearly 2-year old NYC smoking ban. The main message is that the ban has not brought any catastrophic effects, and that compliance is quite substantial. Oh sure, there are still some malcontents, and the economic impact of the ban remains uncertain, ....

But a vast majority of bar and restaurant patrons interviewed last week, including self-described hard-core smokers, said they were surprised to find themselves pleased with cleaner air, cheaper dry-cleaning bills and a new social order created by the ban.

One disgruntled group, it seems, are bartenders, who are no longer the center of a social scene that, to some extent, has moved outside to smoking areas, and who also have to play smoking cop.

Labels: New York, smoking ban

 
Drug War Lunacy Declines in New York
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:54 PM

New York State is reducing the severity of the punishments it attaches to some drug "crimes" -- better 30 years late than never. It's a start, I suppose, but only a start: "Two longtime goals of drug law reformers — giving near-total sentencing discretion to judges and allowing some offenders to avoid prison entirely in favor of treatment — are not included in the agreement."

The linked article quotes Governor George Pataki: "'Now we put in a new law that will rationalize that sentencing (structure) and make the punishment fit the crime,' he said." But with "victimless" drug crimes, the punishment can never be calibrated to the crime, if there is any appreciable punishment at all, because the proscribed activity itself does not create any non-consensual harm, or even create a significant probability of creating such harm. So adult vices are sometimes punished harshly, and at other times are ignored or legal or even celebrated. The calibration of the punishment is made to swings in the popular mood, not to the harmfulness of the outlawed behavior -- a theme that Vice Squad has sounded before.

Labels: drugs, New York, sentencing

 
Confessions of a New York Escort
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:10 PM

That's the title of a new blog, generously brought to Vice Squad's attention by the proprietress -- who also had kind words for Vice Squad. Here's the beginning of the self-description:

I'm a twenty-something New York escort. I love Prada, Seven jeans, and Jimmy Choos. I'm also totally addicted to Starbucks' grande non-fat white mocha and working out.

So why am I writing this blog? I have an inner exhibitionist that just needs to be let out.

And here is one of the New York Escort's recent posts, concerning a polite recommendation from the Bangkok Mass Transit Authority that people refrain from having sex in the back of the busses.

Labels: New York, prostitution, sex

 
Anti-Smoking Measures in NYC Taking a Toll on Smoking
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:06 PM

It looks as if much higher taxes and the restaurant and bar smoking ban have contributed to an 11 percent decline in the number of adult smokers in New York City -- this according to this New York Times article (registration required), sent to us by Friend of Vice Squad Will Pyle. The decline was measured by two large-sample surveys, one dating from mid-2002 and the second conducted approximately one year later.

"City health officials and opponents of smoking said they believed that the decline was caused primarily by sharply higher tobacco taxes that went into effect in 2002, including an increase to $1.50 from 8 cents a pack in New York City.

The drop also coincided with a new city law banning smoking in bars, a new state law prohibiting it in restaurants and bars, and the Bloomberg administration's aggressive anti-smoking campaign, which has included advertising and the distribution of free nicotine patches to thousands of people."

Labels: New York, smoking ban, taxes, tobacco

 
Cracking Down on Canadian Tourists Who Look Like They Might Be Marijuana Smokers
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 8:27 PM

OK, Vice Squad comes late to this story, which was mentioned by Last One Speaks a couple days ago. But having just read the account in this week's Drug War Chronicle, I can't resist passing along an excerpt:

"Dehler and Gudz were sitting eating a bagel in Cooper Square Park in Manhattan's Lower East Side when they were set upon by undercover narcs who claimed they were smoking marijuana. They were not, said Dehler and Gudz, only having lunch before a trip to the Museum of Modern Art, when two scruffy looking men in civilian clothes rushed them, yelling something about smoking marijuana. Thinking they were being mugged, Gudz screamed for help. According to Dehler, the undercover cops punched him in the face and threw him to the ground. Although no marijuana was found, both Gudz and Dehler were arrested and jailed at the 9th Precinct for nearly 24 hours.

"I got brought in front of this big bull sergeant who looks at me and says, 'Do you like to fight with cops up in Canada?' I said, 'I don't know what's going on. I'm willing to apologize to the arresting officer,'" Dehler told the Ottawa Citizen. "He interrupts me and says: 'If that was me arresting you, you would be in the hospital right now.' He said, 'Take him in the back and strip search him and give him the whole nine yards.'"

The NYPD strip-searched Dehler and Gudz and repeatedly blocked their efforts to contact friends, family, or attorneys, Dehler said, but a good Samaritan who witnessed the encounter contacted the Canadian consulate. Gudz was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing justice, while Dehler was charged with attempted assault, resisting arrest, harassment and disorderly conduct. All the charges have since been dropped, but the couple is out $5,000 in legal expenses and has, for good reason, developed a jaundiced view of the Big Apple and the United States."

Labels: Canada, marijuana, New York, policing

 
Relatively Neglected Costs of Smoking
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:20 PM

The health risks of smoking have received a good deal of attention for some time now. Oddly, one of the major sources of smoking "externalities" (the health costs are primarily "internal") receives surprisingly little attention: fire. "According to the National Fire Protection Association, smoking is the number one cause of fire-related death and fires started by smoking kill nearly 1,000 civilians each year and cost victims close to $560 million in damages. On June 28, 2004, New York will be the first state to adopt fire safety standards that will require all cigarettes sold in New York State to be low ignition strength, making them less likely to cause fires if left unattended." This quote is drawn from this article, which concerns new anti-smoking ads that will focus on fire.

Another external cost that is connected with smoking that often goes unremarked upon is cigarette butt litter. (OK, this isn't at the same level of seriousness as fire.) Recently two Vice Squad members walked two blocks in Chicago, counting the visible cigarette butts on the ground, but without taking extraordinary efforts in detection. More than 100 cigarette remains were identified.

See how Vice Squad members entertain themselves?

Labels: Chicago, New York, smoking

 
New York City Returning Cars It "Borrowed"
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 5:43 PM

Legal niceties can be soooo tiresome. Some smarty-pants judges told New York City that it wasn't respecting the "due process" rights of the owners of cars that were seized from accused (but not convicted) individuals. That was in September, 2002. In January, 2004, another federal know-it-all judge suggested that hearings where those car seizures could be challenged were needed, pronto. Turns out NYC is better at taking cars than holding hearings, so they are now trying to return the cars, some 6,000 of them. If I were an owner, I wouldn't hold out for a car wash, oil change, and full tank of gas.

According to the New York Times article (registration required) sent to Vice Squad by an attentive reader, "The vehicles had been seized from suspects in a wide range of offenses, including drunken driving, patronizing prostitutes, and crimes involving guns or drugs."

The rules governing such seizures in the future, as ordered by one of those activist judges, include a requirement that the suspect receive a "request for hearing" form at the time the vehicle is seized, and that the hearing be held within ten business days of the request. Further, the hearings themselves "should address three issues, [the Judge in the January ruling] wrote: whether probable cause existed for the arrest, whether it is likely that the city would prevail in an action to forfeit the vehicle, and whether it is necessary for the car to remain impounded to ensure its availability as evidence. The judge said the department would have the 'burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to all three issues.'" So the rule of law wins one in NYC.

The Times article concludes with updates from the New York counties of Nassau and Suffolk, which figured in a previous Vice Squad post on asset forfeiture:

"The Nassau County Legislature voted unanimously last night for an amendment to allow a seizure only after a conviction. The amendment would also require hearings in which owners can seek to get cars returned, especially if the owner is not the arrested driver, and in hardship cases in which other people need to use the car. Legislators said the changes should satisfy the courts, which found the existing law unconstitutional.

In Suffolk County, Legislator Cameron Alden has proposed a change that would entitle car owners to seek a hearing before an independent hearing officer, instead of the current procedure of applying to a police officer, which a judge has struck down as unfair."

Labels: asset forfeiture, New York

 
Civil Disobedience in Bloomberg's NYC?
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:38 PM

Friend of Vice Squad Will Pyle informs us of two articles in the latest Vanity Fair (disclaimer: Will saw the magazine at the dentist's office) attacking the New York City smoking ban. Christopher Hitchens spent some time in the Big Apple attempting to break as many minor laws as he could; smoking in bars was one expedient to which he resorted, it seems. The other article is the letter from the editor of Vanity Fair, Graydon Carter. A story in the New York Daily News provides a sample:

"Under current New York City law, it is acceptable to have a loaded handgun in your place of work," Carter fumes in his editor's letter, "but not an empty ashtray."

Labels: New York, smoking ban

 
Uncivil Disobedience of NYC's Smoking Ban
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:39 PM

Today's New York Times reveals (registration required) that many bars in NYC are ignoring the smoking ban when the conditions are right. Those conditions seem to have something to do with the time of night and the composition of the crowd. In one case, there is a British pub-style "lock in," where the door is locked and the crowd inside lights up -- a sort of informal transition from public house to private party. In other cases, the transition occurs without any attempt to preclude entry. Apparently winter also helps to bring about the right environment, in that the alternative of stepping outside for a smoke is less attractive in cold weather.

Vice Squad friend Will Pyle informs us of last Sunday's smoking-ban article in the Times, in which an unanticipated consequence was revealed: bartenders were cleaning off drinks from patrons whom were thought to have left, but in reality had only stepped outside for a smoke. (The bars then replace the drink gratis, cutting into profits.) Today's article notes that NYC smokers have adopted the Southern California custom: place a napkin over your drink when you leave your seat for a smoke break.

Labels: New York, smoking ban