Seattle Smoking Ban

[FNG]

You insist that smokers become non-smokers in your presence because smokers insist (via 2nd hand smoke) that you become a smoker in theirs.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Why should you have to hold your breath for 5 seconds when walking past a person smoking on the street when you could have it made illegal for them to be there in the first place? Spending 2 seconds walking through a cloud of smoke is not a health hazard. It's an inconvenience. The same kind of inconvenience not being able to smoke in certain places is.

You want smokers to make all the concessions, yet you refuse to make any yourself. You don't hear smokers calling for the abolition of non-smoking sections to free up more seating for other smokers.

This is an issue that can clearly have two winners. Leave it to the establishment owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their bars. Clearly there's enough demand out there for smoking and non-smoking bars alike that plenty of both kinds of establishments will be open for both segments of the public.

Oh and yeti,
ingredients in cigarettes: tobacco, nicotine, tar, arsenic...etc.
ingredients in campfires: wood.
I haven't been camping in a while, but I don't remember ever seeing a carcinogen warning from the surgeon general on the side of my fire pit.

[cj001f]

Because it's unhealthy. To return to the coal mine analogy, we could say, well, if mine owners don't want to put in safety measures, why the fuck can't they?

What part of they and their employees didn't you understand? If they are both willing that's fine by me - for any business, even ones currently illegal like prostitution. Now, ensuring both are well and truly willing is difficult and perhaps impossible, but at and abstract level it's a fine policy.

[Steven S. Dallas]

What part of they and their employees didn't you understand?

I understand it fine, but as I said earlier, people don't always have real options as to where they work. Say you're uneducated and have no marketable skills; being a waiter or a bartender is a pretty good job! Probably make more doing that then greeting at Wal-Mart or something. I don't think you should have to trade your health for the best job you can get if you don't have to as a necessary evil. Or say you're some hick in a mining town in Appalachia, and it's either work in the mine and get paid or farm dirt and be poor as fuck. What choice is that?

If they are both willing that's fine by me... at and abstract level it's a fine policy.

Well, it's not fine by me. And we're not on an abstract level.

[Dexter Rutecki]

You insist that public urinators become non-public urinators in your presence because urinators insist (via 2nd hand urine) that you become a urinal in theirs.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Again, the same wrongheaded argument can be made in favor of loud music, spitting, and any number of other activities. No one's saying you can't smoke, just that you don't have the right to force others (whether they be patrons, with some choice, or employees, with far less choice) to be exposed to the smoke.
No one's saying they can't smoke, they just can't do it where people are eating or drinking. What's wrong with that?
You used to be able to smoke everywhere--is it wrong for me to go to the movies and not have to breathe smoke for two hours? Are those against this ban really in favor of smoke-filled theaters, airports, airplanes, busses, etc? C'mon.

[cj001f]

But what is the positive effect from smoking that allows us to rationally say that jeopardizing the health of restaurant or bar workers is worth it?

People found one for 500 years - enough so to found a colony (Virginia) and pay excise taxes to fund a majority of a young governments (US) operations for over a century with excise taxes on that product. Smoking is pleasurable!

Every year our society declares that some activity that was once allowable on the basis of individual liberty (bike helmets, motorcycle helmets, skiing outside ski area boundaries) is no longer worth the societal cost and we should outlaw it. I'm not completely opposed to it; I do question the basis on which we perform a cost benefit.

[cj001f]

Well, it's not fine by me.

It shouldn't be up to individual resorts to open their boundaries then?

[Buster Highmen]

I can agree with this…which is why I suggested designated smoking shops/bars.

Then you disagree with the ban as well.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Opening boundaries doesn't endanger others nor force others to endure hazards you create. If it does, it shouldn't be done (skiing on a cornice above others, for example, or in avalanche terrain over open runs/roads, etc.).

Honestly, when NYC first introduced the ban I was a bit unsure--I'd grown so used to smoke filled bars that I didn't really think about them unless I encountered the smell (on others when I hadn't been out, or on my own clothing afterwards). And at first I wondered about the economic impact, but then I really thought about how many people would not go somewhere just because they couldn't smoke, and I couldn't believe it would be more than the number who would now go (or go more readily) because it wouldn't be smokey. Seriously, you've gotta be a little too addicted if you decide not to eat somewhere just because you can't smoke at the same time.

[Nate Dogg]

...has not adversely affected statewide meals and alcoholic beverage excise tax collection. In addition, the law has not affected keno sales...

Fair enough Dexter. I suppose the only logical conclusion, then, is that smokers have left some bars and started frequenting other establishments. Alternatively, any decrease in revenue due to a loss of smoking clientele in some bars has been negated by an overall increase in revenue from non-smokers statewide. Although the ban may have been detrimental to the business of a few bar owners, I will agree that the health benefits to the general public certainly outweigh them, especially in light of the information you provided.

[Buster Highmen]

Ps. NEWS FLASH to Yeti and Buster.

You are NOT the only ones that live on this planet. I know it would be great if we could all do whatever we want whenever we want regardless of how it affects other people but that just aint the way shit should work. Ever heard of Respect Thy Neighbor? I know it’s a mature concept…maybe it will come to you guys in time.

That was a fairly weak ad hominem attack. All I'm advocating is a person's choice. That's part of the respect as well. I don't smoke cigs. But I think that wach party needs their space.

Anyway, this is going to be another st00pid personal attack thread for which I don't have time.

[Steven S. Dallas]

It shouldn't be up to individual resorts to open their boundaries then?

What does that have to do with worker safety? I'm not saying people shouldn't smoke; even if I did, that's not what we're talking about here.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Fair enough Dexter. I suppose the only logical conclusion, then, is that smokers have left some bars and started frequenting other establishments. Alternatively, any decrease in revenue due to a loss of smoking clientele in some bars has been negated by an overall increase in revenue from non-smokers statewide. Although the ban may have been detrimental to the business of a few bar owners, I will agree that the health benefits to the general public certainly outweigh them, especially in light of the information you provided.

Heh, well I think if you could actually do a real cost/benefit analysis, even with a modest decline in bar/restaurant sales, it might still be an economic plus based on lost labor/health costs.

There was an interesting NYT piece a few months back about how many places quietly allow smoking after one or two in the morning, as long as people don't do it too obviously. I don't think it mentioned anything about places being fined, although I believe it has happened.

[Nate Dogg]

There was an interesting NYT piece a few months back about how many places quietly allow smoking after one or two in the morning, as long as people don't do it too obviously. I don't think it mentioned anything about places being fined, although I believe it has happened.

It happens in more places than people realize. The bar I worked at here in Athens definitely allowed it, but the majority of it definitely occurs during the later hours. I know I had to clean up a fair number of cigarettes all over the floors, and I'm pretty sure people didn't smoke them outside then bring them in to put them on the floor. The best part is people who don't want to go outside (due to weather, laziness, whatever) and go to the bathroom to try to sneak a smoke like high school kids.

[FNG]

Again, the same wrongheaded argument can be made in favor of loud music, spitting, and any number of other activities. No one's saying you can't smoke, just that you don't have the right to force others (whether they be patrons, with some choice, or employees, with far less choice) to be exposed to the smoke.

But it's not being used for other activities. It's being used for this specific one. One can't insist that smoking be banned in public places simply because it's disgusting to that person. Following that logic assumes that non-smokers have more authority over the "public space" than do smokers.

No one's saying they can't smoke, they just can't do it where people are eating or drinking. What's wrong with that?
You used to be able to smoke everywhere--is it wrong for me to go to the movies and not have to breathe smoke for two hours? Are those against this ban really in favor of smoke-filled theaters, airports, airplanes, busses, etc? C'mon.

This is an issue that can clearly have two winners. Leave it to the establishment owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their bars. Clearly there's enough demand out there for smoking and non-smoking bars alike that plenty of both kinds of establishments will be open for both segments of the public.

Does it really sound like that's something I'm in favor of?

[FNG]

They're [the ones in this thread] saying that they can't smoke where people are breathing, not eating and drinking.

[Dexter Rutecki]

But it's not being used for other activities. It's being used for this specific one. One can't insist that smoking be banned in public places simply because it's disgusting to that person. Following that logic assumes that non-smokers have more authority over the "public space" than do smokers.

One can insist it be banned because it is harmful or particularly onerous to others, as many other banned activities are. With the apparent health effects, this one should be more easily legislated.

Does it really sound like that's something I'm in favor of?

Well that's what I was asking, as the logic against such bans is exactly the same.

[FNG]

If I feel drinking is onerous because of drunken idiots and harmfull because of drunk driving and fights in and outside of the bar, would it be right to legislate that all bars only serve O'doules?

I'm in favor of true smoking and non-smoking sections. Make a patio with an awning (spelling?) over the bar and not allow smoking under the awning if the bartender doesn't want to be exposed to it. I don't think smoking needs to be banned outright when perfectly reasonable solutions exist to make both sides satisfied.

(I'm glad you joined in Dex. )

[iceman]

Look, I had to leave and I didn't finish my thought in my last post , I should have waited but I hit "submit" instead.

First, I'm not really a defender of smoking per se. I wish I never started, I have never smoked in the house, I don't expose my children to it, etc., etc. On the other hand, I do smoke and I enjoy it. As is my my wont.

Second, the "25 Foot" law is obviously arbitrary and capricious and will not withstand a court challenge.

Third, and most important by far, the State and its authority to control the private lives of its Citizens is the issue here. It's really the only issue if you ignore the question of why people are so prone to bandwagon-jumping and mass hysteria in general, which is interesting, I grant you.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am a full-blown Massachusetts liberal (with Libertarian tendencies). And as a proud Liberal I say, let the people do what they want. (This used to be seen as a Conservative position, but once they let the Fundamentalists under the tent it was Katie Bar The Door, comme on dit.)

In my opinion, the State should have no role in whether a person can smoke in a bar or not. It's a Private Establishment and should be treated as such. If emissions from the Private Establishment are controlled (and SmokeEaters are amazing, they work perfectly when set up right), then there is no public health issue. A much better case can be made against smoking outside, actually.

The OSHA argument has been advanced by Mr. Dallas and despite my bleeding-heart nature I reject it as unscientific and rooted in the Nanny State, a concept I abhor.

As to bar and restaurant revenues (people cite this all the time): Revenues appear about level overall after smoking bans. My take on this is that people who couldn't handle the smoke came back and people who couldn't live without it left. It's a wash. But if we as a Free and Democratic society allowed Private Establishments to enforce their own rules, overall revenues would most likely rise sharply, because people could make up their own damn minds and do what they want to do without some moron looking over their shoulders.

In Short: Government Telling You What To Do=Bad unless you're hurting somebody else.

[Snow Dog]

ingredients in cigarettes: tobacco, nicotine, tar, arsenic...etc.
ingredients in campfires: wood.
I haven't been camping in a while, but I don't remember ever seeing a carcinogen warning from the surgeon general on the side of my fire pit.

Funny you should bring that up: www.burningissues.org
and their
Chemicals Found in Both Wood Smoke and Tobacco Smoke

Open fires are generally banned too. That fire 800 yards away is affecting the quality of my air.

[LAN]

Anyway, this is going to be another st00pid personal attack thread for which I don't have time.

That's right, you only have time to attack other people.

[eldereldo]

how the hell is this enforceable? i can already foresee my drunken argument with seattle's finest at 2 a.m:

cop: "i am citing you for a smoking infraction."
me: "what?"
cop: "you are smoking within 25 feet of that window."
me: "nope. i am 26 feet away from the window."
cop: "don't get wise with me."
me: "where is my tape measure?"

look out for the class action.

I can see a solution for you















Stop smoking

[Core Shot]

In the interest of full disclosure: I am a full-blown Massachusetts liberal (with Libertarian tendencies). And as a proud Liberal I say, let the people do what they want. (This used to be seen as a Conservative position, but once they let the Fundamentalists under the tent it was Katie Bar The Door, comme on dit.)

Actually, that's the Libertarian in you talking.
Perhaps even the Libertine.
But not the Liberal (in todays meaning).
You are thinking old 1960s and 1970s "hippy" freedom Liberal, which is a small minority of the modern liberal power structure.

The modern left liberal Massachusetts philosophy is a very paternalistic one of protecting you from yourself or others, no matter how small the injustice.
Wherever there is a (percieved) wrong, the legislature will attempt to fix it with a new law.
Granted, the right wing moral conservatives play the same paternalistic game, but their motivation is more "God doesn't want you to . . ."

[Dexter Rutecki]

[QUOTE=FNG]If I feel drinking is onerous because of drunken idiots and harmfull because of drunk driving and fights in and outside of the bar, would it be right to legislate that all bars only serve O'doules?[/FNG]

But that's quite different, as it's perfectly possible to drink and not create a hazard, and those who do create such hazards are already covered under different laws, regardless of whether or not it was drinking that caused the hazard.

I'm in favor of true smoking and non-smoking sections. Make a patio with an awning (spelling?) over the bar and not allow smoking under the awning if the bartender doesn't want to be exposed to it. I don't think smoking needs to be banned outright when perfectly reasonable solutions exist to make both sides satisfied.

(I'm glad you joined in Dex. )

Well, glad to be here. When it hit four pages I figured I'd take a look. Your last point is interesting, and I actually can't remember what the NYC code says about this--I believe smoking is allowed at places that have a ventilated, outdoor area. And I know there are some smoking rooms (like for cigars) at some places (strip clubs come to mind). But most places can't just create space for something like that (space is pretty limited here), so whatever ban exists amounts to a full ban for most small places.
While I find smoking generally unpleasant and don't understand it, I'm not against it in itself--hell, I'm for full legalization of all drugs, I just don't think people should become unwilling consumers.
To make this slightly SR, when people want to smoke on the chairlift with me, as long as they're downwind from me I really don't care. Gondolas, as you may remember, are a different story. I've got nothing against being safe, either.

[Nate Dogg]

If emissions from the Private Establishment are controlled (and SmokeEaters are amazing, they work perfectly when set up right), then there is no public health issue. A much better case can be made against smoking outside, actually.

I have to call BS on this one...SmokeEaters are only capable of removing the smoke once it reaches them at the ceiling. The person sitting next to you is still forced to suck down your smoke before it gets to the ceiling, SmokeEaters just removed the smoke from the air after the fact and eliminate the haze. The only way I can see them being truly effective is if I have one over my mouth. It isn't as if the smoke is just miraculously gone as soon as you blow it out. If you've ever noticed anything that has ever spent any time in a bar (e.g. tables, stools, carpet, various equipment, etc.) will reek like smoke for eternity....I may be wrong, but I just don't see SmokeEaters as completely removing the public health issue as you suggested...they certainly may help, but not 100%

[Odin]

Why not just let the bar owners and patrons decide what kind of bar they want, instead of legislating something regarding it.

If the patrons want to split with a non smoking/smoking section or a bar for smokers, or a bar for non smokers then let them establish it instead of the governement. This way the market responds to demand instead of arbitrary laws based on what people think is "right"