Seattle Passes Smoking Ban

101 thoughts on Seattle Passes Smoking Ban

1. I always thought that the proper solution to this should be similar to that regarding drinking–require a bar/club/restaurant that wants smoking to go out and buy a smoking liscence. Let the liscencing fees go to some health-related government service. Prosecute the hell out of any violators.

   If the fee is high enough, this will create a nice bifurcation of smoking and non-smoking places, and generate government revenue.

2. I’m very much in favour of smoking bans, having lived in Victoria BC for the last 5 years…. Now that I’m in Montreal, I have to get used to smelling like smoke all the time, but in January, their ban comes into effect. Seattle’s sounds a bit draconian, but, if for no reasons but the purely selfish, high-five for smoking bans.

3. Well, too draconian a smoking ban just leads, as any high schooler will tell you (or anyone who knows their Motley Crue) to “smoking in the boys room.” Folks will just sneak frantic puffs elsewhere.

   Reasonable accomodation, ala New York, sounds fine — Seattle seems to go too far.

4. 1) I’m a smoker, and I actually don’t mind the general restrictions on smoking inside. Shit, I don’t smoke inside my apartment, I go out on the patio.
   2) Even if one accepts that secondary smoke is the most dangerous thing EVER, the outside bans are bullshit considering how the the stuff disperses, unless we’re going to ban cars/trucks/buses as well.
   3) That being said, I don’t see why you can’t call a place “The Smoker’s Lounge,” post huge warning signs outside, and let people enter at their own risk. Or maybe call it a “private club” and charge people $1 for a lifetime membership to (as I recall , that’s how they got around restrictions to have bars in a “dry” county I visited in Texas).

5. In WI we have had the 25 foot ban on smoking near entrances for years, I just guess I assumed that everywhere had them. Who wants to be trying to get in a building and have to push through a clump of smokers, getting all smelly and possibly incuring cigarette burns on clothes? And what business owner would want to have fire right up next to the building? Thats a recipie for accidental arson right there… It doesn’t seem that draconian to me, more like common sense. But then again, I can’t remember a time when smoking within 25 feet of a building was legal.

6. Staying out of taverns is a perfectly fine way to avoid having your couture from smelling like smoke as is encouraging some enterprising tavern owners to go smoke-free so that smokers and non-smokers alike may choose. Liberal as you may be, you apparently don’t have a problem with the government playing partisan over legal drugs that each kill thousands every year and limiting freedom as long as it’s not your own. You lose sovreignty over the air you breath once you enter a bar of your own volition where you know beforehand that people will be using this legal, though unhealthy, drug. The smoke exntended into your body because you made the conscious decision to let it do so by walking in that bar. It seems that feeding your alcohol addiction trumps any concern you may have for your lungs since you voluntarily frequented bars before the smoking ban.

7. Why let people stand outside at all? Someone might trip over their feet.

8. Okay, I’ll stop being pissy, sorry.

   “I’d never thought much about how Americans were viewed overseas until I came to France and I was expected to look and behave in a certain way. “You’re not supposed to be smoking,” my classmates would tell me. “You’re from the United States.” Europeans expected me to regularly wash my hands with prepackaged towelettes and to automatically reject all unpasteurized dairy products. If I was thin, it was because I’d recently lost the extra fifty pounds traditionally cushioning the standard American ass. If I was pushy, it was typical; and if I wasn’t, it was probably due to Prozac.”

   –David Sedaris, Me Talk Pretty One Day

9. I second the sentiment above: If the concern is of a “your right to smoke ends where my nose begins” sort, why not just require places that want to permit smoking to post a big notice to that effect, so nobody is “subjected” to smoke against their will? Surely people can’t walk into a place called SmokyBar with a big neon sign and then claim the patrons are “imposing” their smoke. But as a second-best alternative, I’ve never understood why something like a smoking-license, also suggested above, doesn’t have more traction. We seem to go straight from leaving it pretty much unrestricted to these near-total bans. But assuming there are both people who want smoky environments and people who want smoke-free environments, surely that can’t be optimal? If the goal is to ensure there are some threshhold number of bars or restaurants you can patronize or work at without being exposed to smoke, fine. But why does that require *every* place to go non-smoking?

10. Just because I’m anal: it’s John Stuart Mill, not Mills.

11. I always thought that the proper solution to this should be similar to that regarding drinking–require a bar/club/restaurant that wants smoking to go out and buy a smoking license. Let the licensing fees go to some health-related government service. Prosecute the hell out of any violators.

    I’ve never understood why something like a smoking-license, also suggested above, doesn’t have more traction.

    Arguments like these lead me to ask what, exactly, is wrong with bar and restaurant owners deciding for themselves whether to allow smoking or not, and posting signage to that effect? The only difference is the idea of this “smoking license,” which will lead to 1) Favoritism in how they are awarded, 2) The state taking more money from businesses, 3) People spending more time, or paying lawyers more money, to prepare their license applications to make sure everything is in order, which is really just more of 2).

    If you’re in favor of a flat-out smoking ban, fine. But trying to seem even-handed with some liscencing scheme is just silly–either take the choice away from people or don’t, just don’t make them pay the state for the privelege.

12. My campus passed a smoking ban that started this semester. No smoking within 15 or 20 feet (or so) of entry doors. They moved the stone ashtrays away from the doors and there are signs reminding smokers to step away on almost every building. I don’t mind it much as I never liked to step out of a building and right into a cloud of smoke, even though I’m a smoker myself.

    That being said, I do not think it is right for the government to dictate to business owners whether or not they may permit smoking in their private businesses.

    If a business owner would like to ban smoking in their establishment, then by all means they have a right to do so. However, if they prefer to allow smoking, they should also have that right.

    Nonsmokers have the right not to frequent establishments that allow smoking if they are so worried about their clothes or hair smelling like cigarettes, much less having to pay for dry cleaning. You know if a place allows smoking or not, and you should decide for yourself whether to give them your money or not.

13. Staying out of taverns is a perfectly fine way to avoid having your couture from smelling like smoke as is encouraging some enterprising tavern owners to go smoke-free so that smokers and non-smokers alike may choose.

    I think I’ve been to one tavern in my life. Pre-smoking ban, you couldn’t go out anywhere in New York without coming home reeking of smoke. I hang out in wine bars and lounges, not dives, and I would still come home stinkin’ every night. Arguing, “just don’t go out if you don’t want to be exposed to smoke” is silly. What about the employees, who don’t really have a choice to stay in on a Friday night? Sure, you can argue “work somewhere else,” but it really doesn’t seem like so much of a sacrifice to ask smokers to step outside before they light up.

    Liberal as you may be, you apparently don’t have a problem with the government playing partisan over legal drugs that each kill thousands every year and limiting freedom as long as it’s not your own.

    Actually, I have a huge problem with drug policy in this country — if you’ve been reading this blog for any amount of time, you’ll see that I’ve written about it before. I’m not entirely sure which issues you’re referencing with regard to legal drugs, but as far as illegal drugs go, I’m pro-legalization. I don’t particularly like to see anyone’s freedom to do what they want with their body limited.

    You lose sovreignty over the air you breath once you enter a bar of your own volition where you know beforehand that people will be using this legal, though unhealthy, drug. The smoke exntended into your body because you made the conscious decision to let it do so by walking in that bar. It seems that feeding your alcohol addiction trumps any concern you may have for your lungs since you voluntarily frequented bars before the smoking ban.

    Ok, so when all other arguments fail, infer that I’m an alcoholic. Fair enough. I am drinking a delicious Nero d’Avola right now.

    But do you cede your right to breathe healthy air simply by entering a bar? I don’t know where you live, but in a lot of cities (like the one I live in) going out to bars, lounges and clubs is the primary form of socializing — it’s not that there’s nothing else to do, but it’s pretty much what everyone does. And without the smoking ban, I don’t know of a single establishment that barred smoking. So if I wanted to go out, there wasn’t much of a choice but to inhale other peoples’ cigarette smoke. Surely, I could have made the choice to be a hermit. But I don’t much like that.

    Let me just say that I recognize that there are many compelling arguments against the smoking ban. I’m not in total disagreement with a lot of you, and I can recognize that one of the primary reasons I’m in favor of it is because I’m a non-smoker and it improves my quality of life. I like the NY ban because, in my opinion, it doesn’t infringe on the rights of smokers in an unreasonable way. I think the Seattle ban does. So for whatever that’s worth…

14. No fair, Anne. You wrote my response.

    I really don’t like the whole “stand away from the building” thing. Really, is being exposed to smoke in the open air for five seconds that much of a burden?

15. Minneapolis enacted a smoking ban last March, and I LOVE it. We go out a lot more because we don’t have to come home and take showers, do laundry, etc. We never went to the pizza place across the street except to get takeout–now we pop over there all the time for a quick bite. There are so many small restaurants and bars with great food that we can now enjoy.

    Restaurants and bars set up outside tables for the smokers, which seemed to work great. Now that winter is on its way, it may hurt them some.

    As far as the outside ban, I would love it if they enforced it around bus stops and office buildings. It’s awful to be surrounded by smoke whenever you get to or leave work. And I often have to leave the warm bus shelter because someone lights up.

16. OK, so some people don’t like the bans, some people don’t like the unrestricted smoking, and some people don’t like the permit idea for the taxation purposes. What about the reverse? Instead of punishing businesses that want smoking with a permit, why not incentives for businesses that choose to go non-smoking? Since the health of the employees is always listed as a concern, how about the government refund the businesses for their part of health insurance premiums (that is, assuming they even pay any at all…)? Has any place tried these kinds of incentives? I’d be curious to know what the results were…

17. The idea behind banning it in private businesses, and not allowing the owners to even start a place called “SmokyBar” has been, at least as I understand it, for the health of the workers.

18. Replace them with robots.

19. I live in Seattle, on Capitol Hill, and so I know the 25 ft. rule is going to be problematic – if it were rigorously enforced. It may not be. A lot of the enforcing is going to be up to the individual businesses that people are smoking outside of. As for this ban going to far, I don’t care. In this case, I just want all the smug, chainsmoking hipsters to have to take it somewhere else so that I can breathe.

20. As for this ban going to far, I don’t care.

    Because taking rights and choices away from others, even to unreasonable lengths, is fine as long as it makes me more comfortable.

21. There’s a difference between a private building or residence and a privately owned building (likely leased from the actual owner) operating a business that is open to the general public.

    And there are already OSHA and health code regulations that limit what an owner can allow to some degree…

    I think this is clearly a public health issue first.

    Secondary to that is the cleanliness/smell/etc. Smoke is in fact solid particles suspended in the air… it’s not like a gas. The particles get on your clothes, in your nose, in your lungs, etc. It doesn’t go away easily.

    There’s really no easy way to separate the two issues, since they arise from the same cause: secondhand smoke.

    I’m all for a ban. Being around smoke kicks in my asthma, smells bad, burns my eyes, makes my clothes smell like shit. You wanna kill yourself, fine. Don’t make me be a part of it. And by the way, quit throwing all your fucking butts on the streets, in the grass, or anywhere but a trashcan.

22. [Exhales]

    And by the way, quit throwing all your fucking butts on the streets, in the grass, or anywhere but a trashcan.

    I always do, but I just chucked one in the grass ’cause of the attitude.

23. Sure, your body to do with as you please…the catch is that you don’t get to do it to anyone else’s body.

    I don’t want to breathe any cigarette smoke, ever. You can’t smoke anywhere in a 10 block area where I work (more restrictive than Seattle) and this includes smoking in one’s own car. It’s a lovely thing to never have to smell it in the air or on people’s clothing.

24. You can’t smoke anywhere in a 10 block area where I work (more restrictive than Seattle) and this includes smoking in one’s own car. It’s a lovely thing to never have to smell it in the air or on people’s clothing.

    Uh, I can appreciate the arguments for the outside-doors thing, but don’t you think this is a tad much? There’s something coming out of the aforementioned cars called “exhaust” that has some particulate matter and smell. And I think Obsession by Calvin Klein sucks ass, but when I’m exposed to it in an elevator, I somehow soldier on.

25. A few libertarians trickled in here, eh? Good to see.

    Sorry, Jill. Just because you are personally happy about a ban — because you don’t smoke, or don’t like the smell of smoke, etc. — doesn’t mean you should be happy from a purely intellectual or academic or legal standpoint. Smoking is a legal activity. Business owners buy or lease property and so should be able to determine whether or not they wish to allow legal activities to go on inside their establishments. Let the markets sort this out. If a bar that caters only to smokers can’t turn a profit it will go out of business. And if it’s the health of the employee that the anti-smoking brigade wants to fall back on, they’d do well to concentrate on making smoking illegal. Because clearly, if adults can make the determination to smoke, these same adults can make the determination to work around smoke.

    Finally, a ban on outside smoking is simply un-American, particularly insofar as the legislation relies on second-hand smoke science that has been debunked over and over and over again for its force. See Penn and Teller on this. Or Larry Elder.

26. Because clearly, if adults can make the determination to smoke, these same adults can make the determination to work around smoke.

    Or just hire smokers only!

27. I love smoking bans, too. You can taste your food in restaurants for one thing and not have your eyes clouded by passing smoke in stores.

    Smokers have a twisted perspective on who should give way to who. Say I sit down on a park bench and a smoker sits next to me, lighting up. If I object, what do they say? “You can move.”

    If smokers had shown some control and courtesy before, if they had shown themselves to be self-policing, these laws would not have to be passed and enforced.

    This is not a free speech issue, but a public health one. I don’t want a teeny-weeny smokestack thrust within smelling distance of my nose.

28. Now that I’m in Montreal, I have to get used to smelling like smoke all the time, but in January, their ban comes into effect.

    I’m in Montreal too. Grew up here.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. So many cops smoke, so many politicians smoke that can’t see any real enforcement. I don’t know what it is now but a couple of years ago, 30% of people in Quebec smoked. They can’t even enforce the drinking age. As they say “I live in Quebec where the official drinking age is just a suggestion”. I remember being 14 years old and walking into government run stores (only the government can sell hard alcohol in Quebec) and buying whatever I wanted on my way to parties and then heading to bars downtown.

    Quebec, as much as I hate parts of the culture, drinks more than anywhere else in North America, smokes more than anywhere else in north America, sells more sex toys than anyone else in North America, was the first to legalize lap dances in North America. Graphic sex-ed starts at age 10. They offer free abortions anonymously to anyone over 14 years old.

    Any sort of indulgence is accepted. I can’t see real enforcement of on smoking.

29. Finally, a ban on outside smoking is simply un-American,

    Right, just behind bringing up Nazis in a discussion, is the you’re un-[insert nationality here] comment.

    I like smoking bans. Where I live, they are doing the ban in stages. Presently we are up to the one room/area where smoking is allowed. It is very stupid when the bar/club/tavern isn’t built in that manner and instead puts some tape on the ground. Because, sure, the smoke will follow the line and keep away from that section.

    However, I went to a bar on Saturday and that is one step ahead and there is no smoking inside. I hadn’t been to this place in a while but it was wonderful! I’m definitely going back there again. I could breathe! I came home not smelling atrocious and having to wash all my clothes!

30. Let’s hear it for Jeff G.

    The socialist/progressive assholes in Madison just banned smoking in all bars — bad enough — but they also banned it in cigar bars! Fuckers 🙁 Because, you know, the two cigar bars and the really cool hookah bar in this city were really hurting people — and why, folks walking into a goddamn *cigar* or hookah bar are probably shocked, shocked! to find there is smoking going on. Who knew? What’s worse is the majority of the people who are vitriolically anti-smoking never set foot in a bar in the first place. And as was pointed out, they’re relying on junk science. That’s the problem with liberals: in general, the movement is just as willing to accept crap science and imaginary statistics when they feel it justifies their preferences as the Republicans. It sure doesn’t leave much room for voters like me.

    Though I must say I like not stinking of smoke and the attendant dry cleaning, drinking without cigs is just… ugh.

    A similar idea to someone above: have a Dutch auction for smoking licenses. That way, not only could you guarantee that most bars aren’t smoking, but you could tempt government by letting them extract some of the producer surplus from the smoking bars. Of course, the bloody progressives in this town — who *still* don’t go out to bars — would never consider such an idea. Then they drive their fat holier-than-though asses in SUVs home to their supersized McMansions in creeping suburbia.

31. EricP: Yeah, enforcement could well be a problem… Let’s hope (well, I’ll hope, you can do what you want) it works………..

    But to the “bitch bitch, sure, ban something when you don’t like it, whine whine” crowd, I’m a good social libertarian. I’m in favour of legalization of pretty well any drug you care to cook up. I know a smoking ban represents an infringement on some peoples right, but I think it’s a dumb right cause it forces me into the position of deciding whether to expose myself to toxic fumes, or be a hermit. My support of a smoking ban is 95% self-interest, and if some of you get your knickers in a twist about “rights”, I don’t fucking care. This is about the only political belief I have out of naked self-interest, which is more than most “Libertarians” can claim.

    The other 5% is the public health argument, which I think is legitimate.

    In short, I like smoking bans, and you don’t have to. But if you have a problem with me supporting smoking bans, write a letter to the editor or start a petition or blog it up, cause I don’t give a shit.

32. Right, just behind bringing up Nazis in a discussion, is the you’re un-[insert nationality here] comment.

    I don’t mean in an unpatriotic sense. I mean it in the sense of impinging upon individual choice and liberty, and doing so based on bad science.

    Sorry if you find the terminology too un-nuanced. I was trying to be exact. Perhaps instead of feigning outrage over the terminology you might concentrate on the points.

    As to those of you who continue to insist second hand smoke is exposing you to toxic fumes, there is simply no compelling scientific evidence to that effect.

    Finally, why should you have more of a say in how a businessman chooses to run, say, a tavern than s/he does? No one’s civil rights are being violated when others engage in a legal activity. And bans like these are precursors to other bans (peanuts in schools, perfume on planes, etc.).

    Be careful what you wish for. Because the nannystate will eventually turn around and take away something YOU care about.

33. For all your huffing and puffing and attempting to breathe fire, goddamn if I can’t bring myself to give a shit.

    Replace “toxic fumes” with “I smell like shit, my clothes smell like shit, I’m coughing, and I feel like shit all day the next day.”

    I’m not saying _I_ should have any say at all in how someone runs their business, but the government has the right to enact legislation to protect public health. It has the right to enact legislation about the levels of certain substances in drinking water, levels of whatever toxic whatevers in the work-place, and so on. Now, you can say “whatevs, just don’t work at a place that allows smoking”, but it sounds fucking stupid to say “whatevs, just don’t work in asbestos pits” or “just don’t work in places with lots of radition” or whatever. The government both _has_ and _excercises_ the right to make reasonable restrictions (and I _do_ think the restriction is reasonable, or at least the inside part) on the was businesses operate in order to enact a relatively large public good.

    I don’t want to get into a game of “does not does too” over toxic fumes, but I HOPE you’ll grant that PARTICULATES in the air have an adverse effect on peoples’ respiratory systems. Making people who indulge in a habit that greatly increases the amount of particulates in the air of an enclosed area step outside to indulge in said habit is pretty fucking reasonable. If the Nanny State eventually turns around and makes me step outside to do something I care about, I’ll put on my jacket and go.

    It’s not liek smoking is being banned outright. You’ll look like a bitchy teenager if you scream fascist at somebody who asks you to step outside. It’s not a huge constraint on your rights, and it hasn’t had a massive effect on the hospitality industry in other cities where similar bans have come into effect.

    Like I said. For all your huffing and puffing and attempting to breathe fire, goddamn if I can’t bring myself to give a shit.

34. Business owners buy or lease property and so should be able to determine whether or not they wish to allow legal activities to go on inside their establishments

    This circular logic never makes sense. If smoking in a bar is illegal, then there’s not a problem, because it’s not allowing “legal activities to go on”. QED.

35. The health standard used by smoking ban advocates doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There are a lot of otherwise-legal things that people do that impose significantly greater harm on the innocents around them – if the “teeny weeny smokestack” folks are worried about that, then how about the much greater effect of automobile exhaust? You all should walk to work so that I don’t have to smell your foul exhaust fumes from my bedroom window.

    No, health concerns are a smokescreen. What’s in play is twofold: a straightforward, selfish desire to have one’s own preferences be the norm (which I understand, and do myself – we’d all like the world to run the way we’re most comfortable with), coupled with a frankly pissant authoritarian fetish – I’m going to make those AWFUL people live the way I want them to.

    The distinction between Jerry Falwell and smoking Nazis is that at bottom, Jerry Falwell really does care about your soul; the smoking people could give two shits about your health.

36. Earl, I assume you’re talking about Madison, WI? That sucks about the ban. I’ve spent several nice evenings in Maduro. I think you’ve got a good point about how a lot of the people writing the smoking bans don’t go out to bars anyways. Kind of like how most motorcycle helmet laws are written by people who’ve never riden one. And before anyone jumps on me for that, yes, I always wear a helmet. No double entendre intended, but that works, too. 🙂

37. Unintended consequence of the Irish smoking ban in pubs is that boys reckon they have a better chance of “pulling” if they follow the object of their disires outside the pub and offer her a ciggy. There was an article in some newspaper where the benefits of being mostly alone in a relatively quiet environment were put across quite neatly.

38. It is heartwarming to see such concern for Our Public Health. So listen: I take it we’re all in favor of a ban on condomless sexual activity too, right? This cervical cancer problem is a real blight on the ol’ public health. What right do these fuckers have to go around spreading diseases like that? I don’t want any toxic semen near my cervix! If some guy chooses to give himself human papilloma virus, well, I guess that’s his business, but that doesn’t give him the right to endanger the health of others now, does it?

    Of course it doesn’t. Good, glad we’ve got that all settled.

39. Smoker for choice here. One who thinks there should be more non-smoking environments available, so that choice actually becomes meaningful. We’ve just had the smoking debate in the UK, and I was astonished by how many non-smokers vitriolically object to the idea of anyone smoking anywhere at all. Providing you have a space to go to and drink, have fun, whatever, I don’t understand why my smoking in a separate building upsets you so much.

    That said, I agree that there are idiots on both sides of the debate. While I’m not lumping you in with this, Jeff G, I don’t think it’s very helpful to query the science around second-hand smoke if what you’re interested in is building a compromise. And I agree that a little smoking courtesy wouldn’t do any harm – I *try* to maintain that myself.

    Finally, Michael, I agree that the leap from permitting smoking to an outright ban seems like a very sudden one, and I love the idea of the public health incentives offered to non-smoking bars. I’ve never seen that mooted before.

    [makes note; rushes off to write to MP]

40. In theory, as someone who *hates* smoking (I hated it when my parents did it anywhere around us kids), I wouldn’t care if smoking is allowed in some establishments. I certainly wouldn’t care if smoking were allowed in places expressly for that purpose (cigar bars, hookah bars, whatever). On the other hand, before the smoking ban in Massachusetts, there was never a bar I went into that was no-smoking. Maybe there weren’t a lot of people smoking, but no one specifically banned it–bar-owners believed it would hurt business too much.

    The problem is, if you’re looking to create choice by having some places smoking and some not, how would you do it? The only idea I’ve seen on here that I like is a kickback to places that don’t allow smoking. And not just some stupid no-smoking section; as someone pointed out, the smoke never stays over there.

    I think my tone has been pretty civil throughout this, but I gotta say, W/R/T to secondhand smoke being poison=junk science, don’t give me that crap. It doesn’t take a freakin’ rocket scientist to know that stuff is terrible for you, and it’s really damn unpleasant besides. Sometimes when I’m talking to a co-worker who has been outside smoking, I start to cough from the smoke on their clothes, let alone being outside with them.

41. It is heartwarming to see such concern for Our Public Health. So listen: I take it we’re all in favor of a ban on condomless sexual activity too, right? This cervical cancer problem is a real blight on the ol’ public health. What right do these fuckers have to go around spreading diseases like that? I don’t want any toxic semen near my cervix! If some guy chooses to give himself human papilloma virus, well, I guess that’s his business, but that doesn’t give him the right to endanger the health of others now, does it?

    Of course it doesn’t. Good, glad we’ve got that all settled.

    Look, the spreading disease analogy doesn’t work. That’s because, at least in theory, you can avoid sleeping with these people or make them wear a condom (I’m not going to get into the sexual politics of that right now; obviously that doesn’t always work). But the problem with smoking is, you sometimes just can’t get away from it. It diffuses through the air. So if you’re not standing right next to the smoker, you’ll get a slightly less concentrated dose, but you still get it.

    I know people like their smokes, but why the hell is this where the debate about civil liberties happens, instead of being focused on the government wiretapping everyone without specific court order? I’m glad Congress is finally starting to consider that just maybe the Executive isn’t God.

42. Jeff G, I’m not about to debate the viability of studies of smoking as a health hazard. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a seroius nuisance, regardless of whether it could kill me. I can’t breath in the presence of sigarette smoke – my sinuses burn and my eyes get teary. I know that’s not such a rare response (although it does seem that in my case, it’s relativly strong). Why does your wish not to think about others trump my need for air? Seriously, don’t you see how inconsidirate that is?

    All that aside, I’m also surprised by the way most western countries seem to be moving straight from no restriction to a total ban. Until a couple of years ago I lived in Israel, where things seem to be changing more gradually (at least in Jerusalem). The law there mandated total seperation (i.e, with walls and doors, not imaginary lines in the air) of smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants, and at least 60% (I think) of the seating space to be non-smoking. It worked rather well when it was enforced – it meant that larger establishments could have seperate smoking rooms that really didn’t bother people in the non-smoking section, and even though it’s not an ideal solution for workers, it does mean that they don’t have to be constantly surrounded by smoke.

    The law didn’t apply, unfortunatly, to bars and pubs – everyone assumed they’d lose buissness if smoking wasn’t allowed, which just shows you that the market doesn’t take care of itself. No one ever actually *tried* to open a non-smoking bar. If they would, they could have discovered that all those non-smokers who’ve “never set foot in a bar” might have avoided them just because of the smoke. I know I would love to have a bar I could go to. (I live in Holland – no smoke ban here, yet).

43. Im thinking that even though I am now a non-smoker that when they come for all your fat people Im not gonna lift a hand. I think it’s hilarious that alcohol abuse, which is invloved in at least 75% of all violent crime and responsible for drunk driving deaths every day is much less resticted. At 30 I got carded constantly for cigarettes but not alcohol. It’s easy to pick on smokers because even smokers dont want to smell or reap the ill effects of smoking – it’s an addiction. When someone (like that company that fired people for smoking) starts coming after the fat people next, dont come crying to us smokers, ex or no.
    Like the man said, just because it makes your life more comfortable doesnt make it the right thing to do.

44. Paraphrased Matan: “Because the actual statistics and science don’t agree with my intuition they must be wrong. Full speed ahead.” That’s pretty amazingly stupid and absolutely equivalent to, eg, the Republican stance on birth control.

45. PS: some places smoking and others not: auction off smoking licenses the same way we auction off pollution licenses. Even better w/ a dutch auction repeated annually. Since liquor licenses are handed out by a commission in most cities, you can absolutely limit the number of smoking+drinking licenses to some constant fraction of the number of liquor licenses.

46. And if it’s the health of the employee that the anti-smoking brigade wants to fall back on, they’d do well to concentrate on making smoking illegal. Because clearly, if adults can make the determination to smoke, these same adults can make the determination to work around smoke.

    Can they? Tell me, is smoking allowed in your workplace? What makes a bar,club or tavern any different than any other workplace?

    That Girl, your logic is flawed. You can stand next to someone who’s drinking and you won’t get drunk. You can stand next to someone who’s fat and you won’t get fat (it’s not catching, you know, and there’s no such thing as fat cooties). However, you stand next to someone who’s smoking, and you have no choice but to breathe in the smoke.

    Also, I’m curious as to what people think is the interest a bar really has in allowing smoking. A bar’s primary business is selling alcohol. To the extent that cigarettes are sold, it’s usually through a vending machine, or people bring their own. They’re not really making money off smoking per se.

    Now, voluntary smoking bans are fine for new bars, because they’re new and have yet to build a clientele. They won’t have any regulars bitching about a ban and taking their business elsewhere. But an established bar voluntarily starting a smoking ban is in effect unilaterally disarming and will be at a competitive disadvantage. Whereas if a ban is universal, all bars are in the same place.

47. zuzu:

    You don’t drink in the office do you? But you drink in a bar. So clearly, it’s different from other workplaces. Don’t like cigarette smoke? Don’t work in a bar. At least in Madison, WI, virtually everyone who worked in bars was hired when it was smoking so they went into it as an adult with full knowledge. If you are anti-smoking and don’t want to smell like it, you have a choice: don’t go to bars or deal. Oh, and you can stand next to someone smoking and not get sick — as statistically rigorous studies show. Hell, a quick thought about dosing would probably have led you to the same conclusion.

    The interest a bar has is lots of people, including me, clearly enjoy nicotine with their alcohol. Even people like me who smoke nowhere else. If the majority of bar goers wanted bans, I’m pretty sure I’d have seen a lot more voluntarily non-smoking bars, but few exist. The conclusion one draws it that the majority of the clientele either likes smoking or deals.

    Essentially, this is at the crux of why I’m not a liberal and never will be: I find it wrong to control other people’s behaviour because *you* don’t like smoking, which is really the only rationalization you’ve been able to come up with. At least KnifeGhost was honest.

    Michael:
    Yes, Madison, WI. And Maduros and the Casbah will probably go out of business this winter when people can’t stand the cold to smoke. Two of my favorite bars 🙁

48. Earl, nobody’s provided “the actual statistics and science” here, so what doesn’t square with Matan’s experience _isn’t_ “the actual statistics and science”, but Jeff G’s assertion. If we’re playing battling-assertions here, then it’s perfectly legitimate to cite experience. And, again, I think it would represent a bizarre physical deviance if the _particulates_ in second-hand smoke didn’t cause the same health problems as, say, working in a dusty area. Particulates, no matter from what, are bad for your lungs.

49. You don’t drink in the office do you? But you drink in a bar. So clearly, it’s different from other workplaces. Don’t like cigarette smoke? Don’t work in a bar.

    I don’t drink in my office, no. Despite the occasional need to. However, I’m sure most bar employees are not encouraged to drink on the job, either.

    And it’s a bar, not a smoking lounge. Their primary reason to be in business is to sell alcohol, not cigarettes. That people smoke there is incidental to the main purpose of their business. That main purpose does not go away if cigarettes are eliminated from the equation. They may lose a certain percentage of their clientele when the ban goes into effect, but when a ban is universal, they’re not losing those customers to other bars. In addition, there are other customers, those whom you would advise to suck it up or leave, who would start going to bars again. And the smoking customers will either suck it up and start stepping outside to smoke, or drink at home.

    Oh, and you can stand next to someone smoking and not get sick — as statistically rigorous studies show. Hell, a quick thought about dosing would probably have led you to the same conclusion.

    I didn’t say anything about getting sick. Unless you equate breathing with getting sick.

50. I’m a Seattle nonsmoker who voted for 901 — despite the 25 feet thing, which most agree is overkill. In practice, enforcement (or lack thereof) will moderate the ban to achieve its spirit: no smoking inside public places, nor clustered around the doorway.

    The idea of a market-based solution (i.e. some smoking bars, some non-smoking bars, let the consumers vote with their feet) just doesn’t work for me because I usually go to bars for specific events (live music). Should I have to sacrifice going to shows in order to signal business-owners that they should start opening smoke-free music venues? I don’t think I should have to bear that burden. Frankly, it’s been enough of a burden breathing other people’s smoke for all these years.

51. Earl, nobody’s provided “the actual statistics and science” here, so what doesn’t square with Matan’s experience _isn’t_ “the actual statistics and science”, but Jeff G’s assertion. If we’re playing battling-assertions here, then it’s perfectly legitimate to cite experience. And, again, I think it would represent a bizarre physical deviance if the _particulates_ in second-hand smoke didn’t cause the same health problems as, say, working in a dusty area. Particulates, no matter from what, are bad for your lungs.

    Thank you. Yes, I was being cavalier in saying that it didn’t “take a rocket scientist” to know that secondhand smoke is bad. Obviously, having that supported by research is better than not having it supported by research, but I get extremely frustrated when research is deliberately obfuscated by the industry it would hurt (I don’t know for sure if the tobacco industry is as bad in this regard as ExxonMobil and climate change).

    Anyway, what is the actual question here? Whether secondhand smoke is as bad as smoking the cigarette yourself? Whether it’s addictive? The second point, I’m willing to let go, but as for the first…

    And Earl, paraphrasing someone by putting completely different words in their mouth is really, really rude and insulting.

52. KnifeGhost: the statistics are all over scientific journals. Go look them up if you like. As for particulates, you breath them in all day long. but being around second hand smoke — particularly in a bar — will result in very low dosing. So your intuition isn’t born out by people tried to verify it.

    zuzu: The point of a bar clearly isn’t to sell alcohol — I can buy alcohol at grocery stores or liquor stores. A bar’s business is selling an amusing place to *consume* alcohol. People want to consume cigarettes with their alcohol. If there were a large pool of customers who avoid bars because of smoking, then we would have seen them. I think the experiences of bars post-ban and pre-ban (ITO not offering smoke free bars) show that a large pool of these people don’t exist.

    Sarah: yes, exactly — if you want to see a show but you desire to see the show less than you desire to not be around smoking, then you shouldn’t see the show. Again, using the force of the state to impose your personal preferences on other people is… wrong.

    Matan: First, it oughtn’t (but apparently does) take a rocket scientist to think about dosing. Second, you still aren’t seeing the obvious and have decided, a priori, that you don’t believe the studies that exist becaues they disagree with your personal beliefs. Many of the studies haven’t been paid for by industry — and whether they were or not, you can still read them and critique their methodology. Anyway, my point holds — whether you are offended or not is immaterial. You are doing nothing different than the anti-science wing of the Republicans who ignore science because they dislike the results. If that isn’t to your taste, perhaps you should change your behaviour instead of complaining about my accurate characterization.

    So yes: despite repeated attempts, we don’t have a strong basis, grounded in science, to believe that second hand smoking is as bad as smoking… or even bad.

    earl

53. Earl:
    Cite your sources, please. Not trying to be snarky, just that searching the internet blindly for said scientific sources is not my idea of a fun afternoon. You’ve made the claim, you’ve said that there are “statistics all over the scientific journals”, now please back them up.

    Sorry, gang — years in academic venues have developed a knee jerk reaction to “studies say…” .

54. I have to say I’m with Earl here:

    The point of a bar clearly isn’t to sell alcohol — I can buy alcohol at grocery stores or liquor stores. A bar’s business is selling an amusing place to *consume* alcohol. People want to consume cigarettes with their alcohol. If there were a large pool of customers who avoid bars because of smoking, then we would have seen them. I think the experiences of bars post-ban and pre-ban (ITO not offering smoke free bars) show that a large pool of these people don’t exist.

    What it does create, as we will see since my town is about to pass a smoking ban (or has it already?), is a great number of people arrested outside of campus bars for public intoxication. In the targeted areas, there is no place for smokers to go except outside where police officers are known to purposely stake out arrestable students (i.e. those who choose to walk home from the bars instead of DRIVE).

    The ban in my town specifically targets campus bars, is put forth by people who do not frequent those bars, in the name of good health. In my town’s particular case, this ban is obviously more about policing student sin than protecting public health.

    That said, I am a smoker. I do resent being told that I shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in a private business, specifically a business people frequent to pour poison down their gullets for a high.

55. The point of a bar clearly isn’t to sell alcohol — I can buy alcohol at grocery stores or liquor stores.

    Sure, but you can’t buy it by the glass. And just try to bring your grocery-store six-pack into a bar to drink it. Split hairs all you want, but the money bars make comes from the sale of alcohol, not the sale of cigarettes.

    People want to consume cigarettes with their alcohol.

    Clearly, not all people want to consume cigarettes with their alcohol, or nobody would be happy with smoking bans.

    If there were a large pool of customers who avoid bars because of smoking, then we would have seen them.

    If they’re not going to bars, we’re not seeing them, are we?

    I think the experiences of bars post-ban and pre-ban (ITO not offering smoke free bars) show that a large pool of these people don’t exist.

    What are these experiences post-ban? It’s been pretty universal that smoking bans are NOT causing the death of bars, except perhaps those few that weren’t doing that well anyway.

    As for pre-ban, I don’t know how many ways I can say this: any bar with an established clientele, some of whom are smokers (even if the smokers are in the minority, which they usually are) is NOT going to enact its own smoking ban when other bars are not doing so. It would be stupid, and against their economic self-interest because the portion of their already-established clientele who are likely to and — and this is key here — CAN go elsewhere to smoke while drinking. Even if that figure is 10% or 25%, that’s going to be a significant chunk of business. And it’s also unlikely that people who’ve avoided bars because of smoke are going to suddenly find out that this one bar out of thousands is now smoke-free, and go in great enough numbers to make up for the loss of the smokers.

    Like I said, unilateral disarmament is a stupid policy, and it’s no wonder that bars didn’t individually impose their own voluntary bans.

    Contrast to a new bar that opens with a no-smoking policy — if that’s always the policy, they lose no business because of it. There’s no risk of losing established customers.

    Finally, I don’t know why you’re hung up on harm as a motivator for people liking smoking bans. Unpleasantness is also a factor.

56. specifically a business people frequent to pour poison down their gullets for a high.

    But they’re not pouring anything down *your* gullet.

57. Clearly people don’t go to bars to get healthy. What’s the point?

58. The point is, my drinking (or not drinking) in the same space as you does not affect you. Your smoking in the same space as me affects me.

    Sort of a bodily autonomy thing.

    If the sole argument against smoking bans is that nonsmokers should just suck it up and deal, why can’t that be turned around? Shouldn’t smokers just have to suck it up and deal sometime, particularly if they’re in the minority?

59. Fuck it, I don’t care anymore.

    First, I don’t buy the _assertion_ (and that’s all we seen on here) that second-hand smoke isn’t harmful. Earl, the onus is on you to provide it.

    Second, even ignoring health, it’s not a huge curtailment of personal freedom to say to a person that they’re totally welcome to do something, but we ask that you step outside to do it.

    I like smoking bans, and nothing anyone has said here, or could say here, will change my mind about them. The slippey slope “just wait until they come for YOU” argument doesn’t stand up, because by analogy, all they’d be doing is making me stand outside. Jesus, I’m fucking oppressed. The assertion that second-hand smoke isn’t harmful is irrelevant — it’s gross. I still don’t want to breathe the shit.

    There are certainly enforcement issues, and they should be addressed. But on general principles, I’m for smoking bans, and if you don’t like that, I don’t fucking care.

60. Also, campus imposed a smoking ban within 25 feet of any entrances. This is fine, I think, and perfectly within the rights of the university. What I have a problem with: the only enforcement for this measure requires students, staff, and professors to rat each other out.

    Big problem.

61. It sounds like the problem you have has more to do with overzealous enforcement than anything else.

62. For what it’s worth, the studies done on secondhand smoke in workplaces are widely variable in situation and outcome, whereas more salient social issues pertaining to public health, like the eight factories in my wee town that pump out clouds of pollution you wouldn’t believe, car emissions, etc., would benefit everyone long-term, not just those who wish to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment.

    And though I totally have sympathy for the bodily autonomy angle, I still don’t see the purpose of banning tobacco in bars. Like I said above, it’s all poison. We’re not talking about health spas.

63. Yes, my issue does have to do with enforcement, but in thinking about it further, it has to do with class division as well. We’re talking about a ban enacted by the local elite that largely affects college students and the working class, both of which are entirely unrepresented in local government. This doesn’t bode well for me at all.

64. And though I totally have sympathy for the bodily autonomy angle, I still don’t see the purpose of banning tobacco in bars. Like I said above, it’s all poison. We’re not talking about health spas.

    It’s all a matter of choosing your poison. I choose to drink, but not smoke. A smoker near me is making the decision for me.

    Put another way, if 10% of the people at a bar are smoking, 100% of the people in the bar are breathing smoke. Whether they want to or not. If 10% of the people at a bar are drinking, only 10% of the bar is drinking. The other 90% aren’t getting buzzed.

    And maybe they’re there for a pool tournament or because they like the band. Not everyone at a bar is there just to drink, and not everyone who’s there drinking is drinking enough to kill their livers (after all, moderate drinking has some health benefits).

65. KnifeGhost:
    it’s not a huge curtailment of personal freedom to say to a person that they’re totally welcome to do something, but we ask that you step outside to do it.

    That’s true – if its YOUR house or YOUR bar.

    It’s when you say “step outside” to people in someone ELSE’s bar that you’re curtailing freedom – the freedom of the bar owner to decide for herself how to run her business.

    Clear?

66. I’m a Seattle nonsmoker who voted against the ban. The 25-foot rule is an overreaching that should have been rejected, and the backers of the ban would have gotten the message and drawn up a ban that was less arrogant in its scope.

67. I think the whole debate just boils down to how many smoking voters are in an area. Where the smokers outnumber the nonsmokers, there will not be bans. Where the nonsmokers outnumber the smokers, there will be bans. It seems the only personal freedoms we get to enjoy are those that the majority seem fit to allow us.

    Indiana is like 7th in Adult Smoking Prevelence (I looked up a fact lol), thus over the state we have some bans but overall we are very smoker friendly. I think in my town it is up to individual businesses, and you better not mind smoke if you go into a bar because EVERYONE smokes. Mind you, I didn’t mind because when I went, I smoked. Now I don’t smoke, but I also don’t go to the bars (they are VERY redneckish.)

68. Precisely what jenofiniquity said.

    I don’t like smoke; I grew up with my mother being put in the ER multiple times due to secondhand smoke; I know a number of friends I’d love to see out at the clubs who can’t go because the smoke will send them to the hospital. (No, they don’t go to the clubs, which y’all imply should give them no voice in the matter – because they *can’t*.)

    But the ban as written is too overarching and will rightly not be enforced and/or will rightly get struck down. I’m amazed it passed. Couldn’t we have passed the monorail (again) instead?

69. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that stated: “Against abortion? Don’t have one.”

    Applying that same logic:

    “Against smoking in privately owned businesses? Don’t go inside.”

70. Morfydd just brought up something that everyone seems to have ignored so far: regardless of the validity of studies on long-term effects of second-hand smoke, there are some serious short-term effects for a non-trivial number of people.

    my asthmatic father rarely goes out for a beer with friends, or a dinner out, or to see live music, unless the establishment is completely non-smoking or has a well segregated smoking area (and there are not many of those where he lives). because otherwise he spends the rest of the evening (and frequently part of the next day) reaching for his inhalers because he’s having breathing problems.

    in this country, we have gradually recognized that people with disabilities and health problems deserve equal access to both public and private venues. do we not have building codes now that require private business to install handicapped bathrooms and wheelchair ramps? so why is it so bad to help those with respiratory issues be able to enjoy their lives and not have to be hermits? we’re not just talking about annoyance with cigarette smoke; we’re asking folks to step outside so that others can breathe.

71. Right now, there’s a hot debate going on in my city about whether or not to enact a smoking ban. I predict it will probably pass, as damn near eighty percent of the population in the city are nonsmokers. When I was younger, I was more willing to tolerate the smoke in order to go hear some live music, but now I’m not—I’m just not willing to feel and smell like I’ve had my head in a chimney all night. That’ll be another factor too; my city has a much higher population of people in their thirties and forties than people in their twenties.

    With that said, I still don’t care one way or the other if the ban passes; I’ll still continue to frequent nonsmoking establishments and avoid the smoking ones. Where I live, there are options for food and music that don’t involve smoke. Even if the ban doesn’t pass, the strong debate has really brought it out to business owners around here that there’s a lot of money to be made from nonsmokers; every day on the radio some business or another is touting their “new! nonsmoking policy!”

    But, in the interest of my lung-cancer-friendly friends, it would be nice if smokers had a choice also. The debate gets heated because a business can’t really be “both”.The debate also gets heated because of the lack of options. Until the number of smoking or nonsmoking businesses reflects the population, many nonsmokers are going to push for smoking bans—I understand how smokers feel about being pushed out the door, because that’s how I feel about being pushed out the door. If there were no nonsmoking options for live music, and/or no nonsmoking options for good food, I’d be one of those up-in-arms nonsmokers circulating petitions too.

    The only argument likely to sway me in favor of a smoking ban is the one about the right to a smoke-free workplace. Jobs are hard to come by in the rust belt, particularly for women who’ve been out of the workforce for a while—and divorced former homemakers comprise the majority of the waitstaff and a significant portion of the bartenders around here. It’s easy to say, “well, they should just choose another job!” but it’s much harder for people with a high school education and few options to do. Bartending pays much better than retail.

72. Robert: Quoting myself with emphasis.

    “it’s not a HUGE curtailment of personal freedom”

    I’m not saying it isn’t a curtailment, I’m saying it’s not huge, and no amount of cheek-puffing will change my mind on it.

73. Finally, why should you have more of a say in how a businessman chooses to run, say, a tavern than s/he does? No one’s civil rights are being violated when others engage in a legal activity. And bans like these are precursors to other bans (peanuts in schools,

    Right, why should *I* have a say in anything? A businessperson has the right to choose how to run their business but they also have a responsibility to the public. They can’t just have wet floors, they can’t have staff that don’t follow proper hygiene practices – there are already regulations of businesses so the autonomy of business argument does not work because they already don’t have autonomy because they are regulated for OHS requirements.

    And your worry about other bans brings forward another point. Just because you have a right to do something, why should you do it if it infringes upon a persons right to a safe environment. They have already banned peanuts at schools where I live. They aren’t banning peanuts forever. They are just banning them from school – not served in the canteens and cafeterias and ensuring kids don’t bring them for lunch. Sure, you have a right to eat peanuts but what about those kids that have terrible reactions to exposure to peanuts. Why does your right to peanuts trump that persons right to a safe environment?

74. OK, Knifeghost. Turn it around. What do you do in your house that isn’t illegal, but that I might find objectionable?

    I’m going to say, burning incense. No idea if you’re an incense burner, but let’s say that you are for the sake of argument.

    Well, incense smells bad to me. I don’t like that it gets in my close. It’s particulate matter and smoke, so – whatever the science may say – I feel it’s bad for me.

    By a fortuitous rhetorical circumstance, 51% of the electorate in your home town feels the same way as I do. So we are getting together to pass an incense-burning ban. Oh, you can still do it – outside, 26 feet from anyone’s house.

    We are now telling you what you can and can’t do on your own property.

    Is this a huge curtailment of your personal freedom?

75. zuzu: “It’s all a matter of choosing your poison. I choose to drink, but not smoke. A smoker near me is making the decision for me.”

    Wrong. People can choose to go into smoking establishments and thereby have the decision whether or not to subject themselves to secondhand smoke. On the other hand, no one ever chooses to be hit by a drunk driver, or harrassed or attacked by a drunken fool.

    Anyways, complaining that a smoker near you is making the decision to smoke for you when you voluntarily enter a smoking establishment, is like a member of the Christian Coalition entering an R-rated movie and the movie producer is making the decision for them about what material they should view.

76. If they’re not going to bars, we’re not seeing them, are we?

    No, zuzu, I think you miss the point. The point was, if there were a lot of people pre-ban who didn’t go to bars just because they hated the smoke, then post-ban we would see a big uptick in bar attendance as these formerly home-bound anti-smokers returned to bars. Since this generally doesn’t seem to happen, it’s fair to say that there probably isn’t a large group of people staying away from bars only because they can’t deal with the smoke.

    This point has been raised already, but I think it’s worth raising again: far more people sustain injury as a result of other people’s decisions to drink alcohol in bars than sustain injury as a result of other people’s decisions to smoke cigarettes in bars. And yet no one proposes that we ban alcohol consumption, or at least no one has since Prohibition. And just as a tangential point related to Prohibition, isn’t it amazing to think that there once was a time in our history when Americans thought that the government wasn’t sufficiently empowered to regulate something absent a constitutional amendment?

77. This debate can be split into two significantly different venues.

    The first is a question of health. Is second-hand smoke harmful? There is no hard evidence that anything but concentrated, prolonged exposure causes health problems. “Typical” exposure is neither concentrated nor prolonged. The other facet of the health concern is “public costs” for smokers’ health problems, but that’s a road we shouldn’t go down, as it will (and has begun to) lead to regulating and/or banning everything that CW deems unhealthy.

    The other side of the argument is a question of preference. There are numerous people who can’t stand the smell of cigarette smoke, don’t want it in their clothes, and don’t want to go where smoke is. I think part of the effects of the media blitz against cigarette smoke has been that more people find the smell intolerable (perhaps even to the point of suffering psycho-somatic effects), but the question then boils down to the government banning “offensive” things in public. How long before farting in public constitutes grounds for a fine?

    There have always been, and always will be, inconsiderate smokers. Most, however, are more than willing to ask whether their companions are bothered by smoke before they light up. What irritates me is being looked at and treated like a transient when I step away from the militant anti-smokers to light up. Of course, the worst reactions come from ex-smokers (probably because they aren’t allowed to enjoy a smoke themselves).

    What we don’t need, in any event, is a government that’s more in control of our private lives, wouldn’t you agree?

78. My own home, and in a business open to the public are two different things. NOBODY’s proposing a smoking ban in peoples’ houses.

    I _do_ think it’s reasonable to ban burning incense in restaurants and bars (even though there’s in no way any need for it), and if I recreationally burned incense for the sake of burning incense (IE: not for the sake of filling my house with a pleasant smoky smell), then I would go outside to do it rather than doing it in a bar.

    I tihnk you’re missing an essential distinction between priate property and a priately owned space open to the public. And there _is_ a difference.

79. And just as a tangential point related to Prohibition, isn’t it amazing to think that there once was a time in our history when Americans thought that the government wasn’t sufficiently empowered to regulate something absent a constitutional amendment?

    Whether this is true depends on what you mean by “the government.” Lots of localities outlawed alcohol before Prohibition, as did entire states. Statewide prohibition didn’t work very well, and that’s what led people to agitate for a Federal Constitutional amendment.

    I don’t think that alcohol is a particularly good analogy. It’s not dangerous merely to be in the vicinity of someone who’s very drunk. We do, in fact, regulate the behavior of drunk people that is dangerous. They’re not allowed to drive cars or operate heavy machinery. If you beat someone up while you’re drunk, you will be prosecuted. We don’t just say “ho, hum, alcohol does harm, so if you don’t want to die in a big fiery car wreck, stay home. Getting beaten up by big drunk guys is the price you pay for hanging out in places were alcohol is consumed.” The problem is that merely being near someone who is smoking is dangerous, so similar regulation won’t work.

    Someone actually interviewed a bunch of bar owners around here, and a surprising number of them support the smoking ban. They say they’d like to ban smoking in their bars, and they don’t think a total smoking ban would hurt business, but they do think they’ll lose customers if they do it unilaterally. A lot of the opposition to the ban is coming, not from local bar owners, but from the tourism industry.

    I tihnk you’re missing an essential distinction between priate property and a priately owned space open to the public. And there _is_ a difference.

    Yup. Friends who are legal historians assure me that in the U.S., the laws governing public accomodation have never been the same as the laws governing private residences. There have always been restrictions on how people can run establishments that are open to the public.

80. Wrong. People can choose to go into smoking establishments and thereby have the decision whether or not to subject themselves to secondhand smoke. On the other hand, no one ever chooses to be hit by a drunk driver, or harrassed or attacked by a drunken fool.

    What part of “A Bar Is Not In Business To Provide Smokers A Place To Smoke” don’t you understand?

    Should I walk into a cigar lounge and bitch about the smoke, I’d expect to be run off the property, because the fucking purpose of a cigar lounge is to provide a place to smoke, not to mention to sell cigars.

    But a bar’s purpose is to sell alcohol and to provide a place to consume it. If I’m in there buying alcohol, and a nondrinker is smoking in there, who do you think is providing more income for the business?

    No, zuzu, I think you miss the point. The point was, if there were a lot of people pre-ban who didn’t go to bars just because they hated the smoke, then post-ban we would see a big uptick in bar attendance as these formerly home-bound anti-smokers returned to bars. Since this generally doesn’t seem to happen, it’s fair to say that there probably isn’t a large group of people staying away from bars only because they can’t deal with the smoke.

    Actually, Jon, all we really know is that total bar patronage has not changed appreciably pre-ban and post-ban in the rather large number of cities who’ve enacted bans. What we don’t necessarily know is whether the people going to bars post-ban are the same ones who went to bars pre-ban.

81. Bars do sell cigarettes.

82. Yup. Friends who are legal historians assure me that in the U.S., the laws governing public accomodation have never been the same as the laws governing private residences. There have always been restrictions on how people can run establishments that are open to the public.

    Yes. This is how the 14th Amendment got applied to places like lunch counters and hotels. It’s also likely the justification that, say, my co-op has for banning smoking in the hallways, while it’s perfectly fine to smoke in your own apartment.

83. Bars do sell cigarettes

    Not everywhere, they don’t. And the sale of cigarettes isn’t their PRIMARY REASON FOR BEING IN BUSINESS.

    Go poll your local bar to find out how much profit they get from cigarette sales versus alcohol sales if you don’t believe me.

84. I’m tired of playing devil’s advocate. I’m just a pissed off smoker.

85. And you don’t think non-smokers are pissed off at having to breathe smoke?

    I’m sorry it’s making you tired, but I’m simply making economic, business-based arguments. If you can’t come up with counter-arguments, perhaps the pro-smoking position isn’t that strong.

86. . It bans smoking within 25 feet of any door, window or vent, so smokers can’t simply step outside the bar to have a cigarette

    Pardon me if this has already been said, but nobody cares about the one guy smoking. The ban is because smokers clot up in little carcinogenic knots, so that of instead of the smoke dispersing into the air harmlessly, you get a giant cloud.

    Personally, I am in favor of smoking kiosks, so that smokers can get in out of the rain without spewing on everyone else, and the butts can be disposed of properly.

    then post-ban we would see a big uptick in bar attendance as these formerly home-bound anti-smokers returned to bars. Since this generally doesn’t seem to happen

    Funny, I thought the smokers were complaining that bars would disappear because they’d all take their ciggies and go home. This doesn’t seem to be the case. I couldn’t find anything reliable on the effects of the California ban, but even rabid pro-smoking sites weren’t able to show much.

87. I’m just a pissed off smoker.

    Aren’t they hard to light that way?

88. zuzu: “And the sale of cigarettes isn’t their PRIMARY REASON FOR BEING IN BUSINESS.”

    How is that even relevant?

    zuzu: “What part of “A Bar Is Not In Business To Provide Smokers A Place To Smoke” don’t you understand?”

    I don’t understand the part where this entails giving the government the right to infringe on people’s freedom to run their businesses as they want.

    zuzu: “And you don’t think non-smokers are pissed off at having to breathe smoke?

    They don’t have to breathe smoke. Stay away from smoking establishments. It’s called freedom. I don’t go smoky bars and I’d advise you to do the same, if you indeed feel strongly enough about it. You can’t enter a porno theater and complain about all the nudity.

89. Pingback: sarah irene

90. They don’t have to breathe smoke. Stay away from smoking establishments.

    I’m a smoker but I don’t buy this argument. If it held water, you would have seen more bars and restaurants ban smoking and others advertising that smokers were welcome. We would have smoking and non-smoking restaurants/bars. Instead in almost all cases, especially with bars, they all allowed smoking.

    Instead of outright bans, I think a better approach would have been to encourage via insentives some bars and restaurants to become smoke-free. If those that switched met with success, more would have followed. Customers could then have decided instead of the government.

91. Go poll your local bar to find out how much profit they get from cigarette sales versus alcohol sales if you don’t believe me.

    If you have ever smoked then you know that once you have a drink in one hand, you want a cigarette in the other. Making people go outside for a smoke, in colder/wetter climates makes the whole thing less fun and will probably result in people staying home.

    Every ban is different but I know in Ontario, they put in a ban for bars and restaurants but private clubs were allowed to permit smoking. Now some bars have become private clubs. The fee to join is $5 per visit and the first drink is free. They are skirting the law in a pretty obvious way but the number of bars is small. They’ve ended up in the situation I mentioned in my previous post. Some bars allow smoking and publicise it, most don’t. The customers know what they are getting ahead of time and can make their own choices.

92. Every ban is different but I know in Ontario, they put in a ban for bars and restaurants but private clubs were allowed to permit smoking. Now some bars have become private clubs. The fee to join is $5 per visit and the first drink is free. They are skirting the law in a pretty obvious way but the number of bars is small. They’ve ended up in the situation I mentioned in my previous post. Some bars allow smoking and publicise it, most don’t. The customers know what they are getting ahead of time and can make their own choices.

    That seems to be the most sensible compromise to me. As a nonsmoker, I’ve never felt that a cigarette was an essential part of the bar/music experience. I’m not anal about smokers, but like mythago said, the issue isn’t one smoker (or even a handful of smokers), it’s a critical mass of smoke that turns people—even some smokers—off. (Nod to BoDiddly; if a bar held 200 people, and 100 of them were merrily ripping off raunchy chili farts, yeah….I’d leave. Don’t know that we need a law about it, though).

    I still say if there were more nonsmoking options for drinking and music, there would never be an uproar to begin with—we’d all have a place to go. The nonsmokers are up in arms because we’ve been told all our lives to stay home or suck up smoke, and we’re angry about the lack of alternatives. Just because I don’t smoke, doesn’t mean I want to limit my entertainment options to the G-rated.

93. The nonsmokers are up in arms because we’ve been told all our lives to stay home or suck up smoke, and we’re angry about the lack of alternatives.

    Open a bar.

94. It goes beyond mere “I want to go to this bar” and into a health and safety issue. You’re only there for a few hours; the employees work there.

    Making people go outside for a smoke, in colder/wetter climates makes the whole thing less fun and will probably result in people staying home.

    As has been pointed out repeatedly above, t’aint so.

    I don’t understand the part where this entails giving the government the right to infringe on people’s freedom to run their businesses as they want.

    Yes, it’s OK for the government to require liquor licenses, building codes, taxes, nondiscrimination in hiring, fire codes–but by God, you start messing with people’s smoking and you might as well be Big Brother!

95. You’re only there for a few hours; the employees work there.

    My heart bleeds.

    This isn’t about health, and it certainly isn’t about the massive concern for the well-being of the poor oppressed barmaids and busboys of the world. If anti-smokers gave a shit about the health of the workers, then they’d have been pushing for mandating improved ventilation in bars back when the political demographics weren’t there for a smoking ban.

    This is about spoiled whining neo-Puritans demanding that the entire world adjust to their template. I’ve had about enough of it. This is not a planet designed for snivelers. If you can’t handle a little smoke, then either die, stay home, or open your own god damn bar.

96. We have a smoking ban in restaurants where I live.

    Before the measure came up on the ballot, I went to the Post Office and these two women were outside trying to pass out literature and convince people to vote for the ban, including me. Our conversation went sumptin’ like this:

    Woman: “Sir, are you aware residents will be deciding on a local smoking ban soon? Are you registered to vote?”

    Me: “Our course, but why a smoking ban?

    Woman: “So we can have clean air in our restaurants.”

    Me: “Our restaurants? I don’t own any eateries. Those places are owned by hard-working, independent-minded people who pay taxes, pay for a business license, and put a lot of time and effort into operating their establishment. I can’t tell them what to do. It’s not my place.”

    Woman: [Silent, but looking stupid and stunned.]

    Me: It’s just like any other place you might visit and decide you don’t like the atmosphere. If you walk into a smoke-filled restaurant and don’t like it, just leave. Then go to an establishment that won’t allow smoking. There are plenty of those already.

    Woman: [Clueless, of course.]

    Me [walking away, shaking my head]: This isn’t organic chemistry, m’am. It’s simple. It’s called freedom of choice.

    The smoking ban did pass on Election Day. As a result, several restaurants either went out of business or moved to neighboring cities where they could allow their patrons to smoke. The city gave up a significant amount of revenue from lost taxes. City leaders are baffled and are trying to come up with a way to make up for the lost money.

97. This is about spoiled whining entitled smokers demanding that the entire world adjust to their template. I’ve had about enough of it. This is not a planet designed for snivelers. If you can’t handle a short walk to the door, then either die, stay home, or open your own god damn bar.

98. If you can’t handle a short walk to the door, then either die, stay home, or open your own god damn bar.

    We’re not allowed.

99. Open a bar.

    Robert, this is exactly the same argument I run into when I mention that there is discrimination in the electrical industry–that I have experienced discrimination, that certain contractors I worked for were very, very angry that they had to hire me because I was female (yes, I won them over by the quality of my work, but if there weren’t antidiscrimination laws to get me in the door in the first place, I wouldn’t have been able to). The stock response is, “open your own business”. I do not want to open my own business, I want to work an eight-hour day, thankyavery much (not to mention there’s no way in hell I would ever have the funding to open a contracting business unless I won the lottery). Thing is, once you are operating a public business, you have to cater to the public. And if the public votes for nonsmoking businesses, I don’t see where it’s any different than the public supporting meat inspection, health code inspection, or building code inspection. Private bar owners don’t have the right to sell tainted food or drinks, pack more customers in than is allowed by the fire code, use highly flammable building materials (remember the Great White incident? building code violation!), etc. Will occasional secondhand smoke from one or two people kill you? Probably not. Will occasional roomfuls of secondhand smoke from large groups of people kill you? Hey, I don’t know. But I do know that if the conditions that exist in a typical smoke-filled bar existed on my jobsite, everyone would be issued respirators. Yeah, it is a safety hazard—mostly to the people who work there. “Don’t choose to work there” is not an option given on the jobsite when there are safety hazards; you wear your protective equipment or you get fired. Perhaps bar and restaurant owners should be issuing nonsmoking employees respirators!

100. The TV ads for the Seattle smoking ban were particuarly offensive, by the way. In them, a lumpish family gnaws loudly at their lunch (how about a ban on audible chewing?), while a blonde Stepford mom looks on with a simpering smile. Suddenly…a pair of scowling, evil-looking types light up and start polluting this family’s precious air! The mother looks appalled, then turns on a huge fan that blows everything in the restaurant out the door. The last shot is of the little family walking away, with mom bringing up the rear, dragging that enormous fan. Yikes.

101. Marksman2000, if this is not rude curiosity, which city are you talking about?

     I do wish there was more of an appetite for compromise on both sides of the argument. Telling non-smokers to stay home or suck up smoke just seems rude to me – as does flipping the situation the other way.

Comments are currently closed.