The Tacoma News Tribune reported yesterday that Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds of Bellingham expects to get an initiative on the ballot for a statewide indoor public smoking ban in Washington.
I-901, Healthy Indoor Air For All Washington, needs 225,014 signatures by July 8 to qualify for a fall public vote, according to The TNT, and Covert-Bowlds indicates that thanks to funding from the Amercan Cancer Association and the American Lung Association, the measure is likely to make the ballot this time around.
Here's the wording at present, from the Secretary of State:
Initiative Measure No. 901 concerns amending the Clean Indoor Air Act by expanding smoking prohibitions. This measure would prohibit smoking in buildings and vehicles open to the public and places of employment, including areas within 25 feet of doorways and ventilation openings unless a lesser distance is approved....Current laws allowing designation of certain smoking areas would be repealed, including current provisions allowing designation of an entire restaurant, bar, tavern, bowling alley, skating rink, or tobacco shop as a smoking area.....
One issue: Do workers in such professions forfeit their right to protection against second-hand smoke because they "know what they're getting into?" Or should they have the same sort of protections against cigarette smoke in the workplace that are accorded by law to flight attendants?
This article (last graf) reports there are statewide indoor smoking bans in California, Connecticuit, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. Florida too, except there, smoking is allowed in bars that serve no food at all.
Restaurant, bar and casino operators will be out in force against the Washington measure, claiming economic ruin based on dire predictions customers will migrate en masse to tribal casinos, bars and buffets, where the measure cannot be enforced due to tribal sovereignty.
Excuse me while I pull out the world's smallest violin. The alternative is more citywide indoor public smoking bans, which will produce an even more unbalanced playing field than a statwide ban.
A statewide indoor public smoking ban will get my vote, if it gets on the ballot.
You want a coffin nail; do it at home, or take a walk.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 31, 2005 02:33 PM | Email ThisI'm surprised such an opinion is found here on Sound Politics. What ever happened to this being a free country?
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 02:45 PMEditorial
Dolts are back!
Yes, those folks don’t have enough to do with their lives are back with
I-901, which would ban public smoking everywhere. They have started with
A large warchest of $83,000.00. Will they make the ballot this time?
Anyone’s guess. Don’t smoke? Don’t like it? Don’t care?
Well, here is a little ECON 101 for you. We’ve been looking at newspaper stories from all around the country where smoking bans have taken place. Here’s what you can expect over the first two years:
Large “chain” restaurants that never allowed smoking will see little or no
Change.
Restaurants with lounges that allowed smoking will see some drop in their food business and a permament 30-45% drop in their bar business. Some will make it as is, some will sell/go out of business. A number of staff will be layed off. Some changes you will see right away, others take time.
Stand-Alone Bars/Non-Tribal Gaming
This is were the worst of a smoking ban will be felt. At first, these
Establishments will see a 70% drop in business…if they are anywhere close to a tribal gaming. Those who can survive that hit will see a permanent loss of 30-45% loss in business. Small family-owed taverns and bars usually
can’t survive long and are the first to go. “Mini-Gaming Venues” will lay off dealers, bartenders and wait staff. Since 80% of their customers smoke..these customers will flee to where their business is wanted. The tribal venues! Many local bars/gaming establishements have not recovered the business they lost in Pierce County from the ban in early 2004.
Just because you see a lot of people dancing, doesn’t mean the club is making money.
Free Entertainment-A thing of the past
Not too long into a ban, business owners who had the income to pay for dance bands and other entertainment will have to charge a cover charge to make up for the loss. Others will raise the prices and others will just quit having bands, etc. These are “promotional” items, not where they make money.
Private Clubs like the Elks, Eagles, VFW, American Legion and the like can take a terrible hit. Tacoma Elks is unique for being non-smoking. All
Of these organizations have had chapters close for lack of business due to smoking bans all over the country.
Tribal Venues
The tribes don’t have to report income, but it is pretty safe to say
They will profit and do very, very well. Just try to get a parking place or a table at a tribal venue after a ban.
Taxes
About a year or so into a ban, politicians will scratch their heads and wonder where the tax revenue went and why the local unemployment rate went up.
They still need the same amount of money as before so will go looking for it where they can. Hang on to your wallets!
Groups that get a smoking ban in place will tell you that all the local
Businesses are doing great or they will say the businesses owners just don’t know how to run one or it’s a downturn in the economy. They will tell you it won’t effect anyone at all and that non-smokers will flock to the places they
couldn’t go before. In all the cities and states that have enacted bans that has never happened. Some will say “But in California…” The California Law allows smoking at outdoor venues. Most of California has weather that will allow “patio” dinning/dancing. Not true in most of the country.
Interesting to note that those who champion small businesses are
The first to want a smoking ban! What does that tell you?
“Who’s to say the way a man should spend his day?”-Paper in Fire
John Cougar Mellencamp
We’re interested in your comments. Send to: southentertainment@hotmail.com
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 02:47 PMIt is difficult to make a good analogy for the smoking ban. I believe that people should be able to drink and eat, and yes, smoke to their detriment. Everyone's got to die of something I guess.
I think drunk driving isn't too far off as a comparison. Both excessive drinking and smoking are harmful actities yet legal. The only problem arises when when they effect other people.
Someone should be allowed to down a fifth of booze if they want, but not allowed to get into a car and drive.
An interesting health angle I have heard goes something like this : If someone wants to hold a rock concert and have all of the exit doors locked and chained, should they be able to or be forced to abide by the fire codes requiring open exits?
If someone wants to attend a concert that isn't a death trap, they can make that choice and go somewhere else? Right? The state says no, it is simply too dangerous to allow and license.
Another question is should restauants be able to serve raw hamburger to patrons even at the risk of them getting E coli. However, rightly or wrongly, the local and state health department will not allow one to do this. Too much of a public health hazard.
I think the smoking ban will pass with bi-partison support across the state especially with all of the economic studies showing that there is a neutral or beneficial impact on business.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 02:51 PMMoreover, as soon as you stick your head through the door of some joint, you do know if it's smoky or not, and you can decide based on that whether to go in. Many people work that way right now.
In contrast, it would be a lot more work for each interested patron to check if the exits are properly accessible and open.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:00 PMI'm a former smoker as well. The reality of it is that this is not a clear cut case either way. It would appear that second hand smoke does in fact cause harm. so there is a case to ban these things that even libertarians can support. Besides which, people are still quite able to stink up their own homes if they'd like, or to go for a walk outside.
the sex analogy was my favorite so far. Has anyone been to California? do you know how nice it is to go out in the evening and catch a great band at LA's Spaceland and to come home smoke free? I think they did have a special room there that was on seperate ventilation. You could smoke in there, that doesn't seem like an unreasonable compromise.
Many other states and cities have enacted bans as well with no negative economic effect:
Smoking Ban Economic Studies
http://www.smokefreeohio.org/EconomicImpact.pdf
Thus, the only business that will suffer is perhaps tobacco sales.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 03:08 PMHa. Funny. In other words : calling all trolls?
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 03:13 PMTimothy - "My libertarian impulses are conflicting with my lungs." ...... You should exercise both. The libertarian wing of the Republican Party is dying. It needs to be revitalized, or it will move to a third party. Mix that with a dose of Democrats who are tired of the totalitarian tendencies of their own party, and there might actually be a viable third party.
Boston (and a few others) - "It's never a good thing when government reduces people's options, whatever the motive."
.... Exactly. Market forces do already take care of this "problem." If legislators and everyone else worked up into a frenzy about a smoking ban (the usual hysteria) were thinking LOGICALLY, they would simply pass a law that requires establishments to place an easily visible SIGN that informs people of whether it is a smoking establishment or not. That way, the orfactory challenged folks wouldn't get stuck in a smoking place without knowing it. The rest wouldn't even have to get out of their cars.
But, unfortunately, the impulse in both parties is to CONTROL. When they can't spend time finding new ways of spending our money (which is hard to do with a budget deficit), they start making laws like this one.
You'd better come up with an analogy that works & repose your question.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:27 PMWow. Ok. You got us. That's very very libertarian and I think you grabbed on to Skor's anology with both hands.
However, I think a great majority of the people do want some minimal government regulation against
"sex on tables" in a restaurant unless they have closed it to shoot a porno.
I also believe that it is discriminatory and wrong to limit people from frequenting an establishment such as a "smoking allowed" bowling alley because they don't want to breathe smoke. I can go to a bar and not drink, so why should I have to smoke just because I want to be somewhere, smokers have no right to establish public, smoking allowed establishments. Either an establishment is public, or it is private. If public, then anyone should be alowed to enter the establishment and for the above reason, not be subjected to smoke.
Smokers, hear this loud and clear. SMOKE DOES NOT STAY WITHIN DEFINED BOUNDARIES. That is all you need to know to understand why the only place you have a right to smoke is when you are all by yourself, or with another smoker or smokers in a private residence or private establishment where everyone present has consented to the self destructive act of smoking.
Until you can figure out a way to contain smoke within your personal boundaries, you have NO RIGHT TO SMOKE near anyone else who does not want to smoke.
Figure it out, it's not that hard.
If yes (like Iguana), then fine.
Posted by: Skor Grimm on January 31, 2005 03:37 PMIn the first place, the bans on smoking that have been enacted in places like California (I was in the room when they passed their ban) and New York are based on junk science. There is no substantial evidence that exposure to "second hand smoke" has serious health consequences of the cancer and emphysema variety. It will make your clothes smell, and it may make your eyes water, but it won't kill you. And besides, there is such a thing as a fan that can direct most of it outside.
Second, whether to allow or not to allow smoking is a choice that business owners should be allowed to make in a free society. If we're ready to ban tobacco, fine and dandy, but as long as it's legal to smoke at all, people should be able to decide whether to allow smoking in the spaces they control.
Junk science is a bad foundation on which to erect public policy; that's true with respect to smoking and it's true with respect to the desire on the part of some people to teach scientifically-disguised creationism to school children.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 03:38 PMI do not have a problem with laws against public sex. These laws are an age-old tradition based on an instinctual need for privacy. Sex is a private activity in the mainstream of every culture on the planet.
There is simply no analogy between one activity that we conduct privately by instinct and another activity for which instinct provides no guidance.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:43 PMHowever, I think a great majority of the people do want some minimal government regulation against
"sex on tables" "
Erik - as long as there is a prominent sign that says "Beware - Sex allowed on tables" .... what's the problem? Are you going to walk in anyway?
should a members only club staffed entirely by volunteers be allowed to have smoking?
Posted by: err head on January 31, 2005 03:46 PMIf we are going to be banning thngs, I say start with small whiny children on airliners, requiring them to be put into kennels and checked as luggage.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on January 31, 2005 03:47 PMSkor - you won't find me in that category, except on things like murder. But, having said that, once rules are defined, they should be followed until they are changed. Hence, my anger at GreGore's illegitimate "victory."
If bars/restaurants want to be smoke filled that's ok with me. I won't go there. Children shouldn't be allowed in there either.
The non-smoking section of any bar/restaurant is like a non-chlorinated section in a public swimming pool--it doesn't exist.
The biggest problem I have is going INTO public buildings like WorkSource, the library, the County Courthouse, Safeway, Burlington Coat Factory, Wal-Mart, etc. Some employees block the front entrances of buildings and you have to walk through a cloud of smoke in order to go inside.
This looks and smells so unprofessional that unless I HAVE to go into that building I refuse to walk the smoke gauntlet. It only takes a few seconds to get that smoke all over your clothes, and an allergic reaction can then occur.
Posted by: JG on January 31, 2005 03:50 PMCan we ban traffic jams too? I totally hate those.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 03:51 PMJeff - Well, with that logic, you should prepare to loose your right to own and carry a gun, except perhaps in certain government defined locations.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 03:51 PMSkor - (I'll answer this one too) Because I care about YOUR freedom. If I don't care about your freedom than I can't protect my own.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 03:53 PMRaoul - that is a damned good idea.
I'm willing to compromise folks. If we can implement the ban on toddlers on flights, I'll vote for the ban on smoking in public places.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 03:56 PMJG - Can you see? Can you read a sign?
I have no earthly idea what you are talking about Skor.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 04:05 PMI'm rather ambivalent about it myself. On the one hand, I can't stand smoking establishments (although I do on occasion frequent them), but on the other hand I do wonder what is wrong about a bar owner deciding to allow smoking in his place.
I think we're all agreed that there are some behaviors the government should regulate and others that it shouldn't. The question is, what makes smoking a "sex on the table" issue and not something else.
The answer is obviously the health impact. Smoking is not just bad for you, it harms those around you too. It is in the public interest to regulate smoking in areas considered public.
Now if I were a bar owner, and I-901 passed, I think I'd quietly convert my place into a private club which anyone could join for life for a purely nominal fee.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on January 31, 2005 04:09 PMConservatives who live in Blue States had best be very, very careful about supporting arbitary intrusions of the state into personal affairs; in the long run, who do you think it going to suffer the most if this kind of stuff gets more prevalent than it already is? Hint: it won't be the majority.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 04:09 PM"Sorry libertarians, but I might have to vote for this, too. I am a former cigarette smoker with asthma and a child with asthma. "
"JG - Can you see? Can you read a sign?"
Is it in Nepalese?
Posted by: smegma on January 31, 2005 04:17 PMI knew it. Someone was going to now argue first or secondhand smoke isn't a health hazard and doesn't cause cancer.
The negative health effects of smoking (directly or secondhand) are well documented and are non-partison.
Below is the EPA information on second hand smoke
Negative heatlh effects of secondhand smoke
Libertarians have some good ideas. But they also want to legalize drugs and gay marriage. Not everyone agrees with them.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 04:24 PMOther than the fits and starts of the initial months, just about NO ONE here, except avid smokers, would want to go back. And while my days of going to bars is pretty much over, I do not miss for a second the clear air of the many restaurants I continue to patron. I have seen NO impact in patronage, by the way. Every restaurant and every bar is just as jam-packed as ever.
I don't smoke, and as a quasi-libertarian would not normally want a ban, but now that it is in place I hope smoking is banned EVERYWHERE but in the confines of personal homes.
My two cents...
Posted by: JZ Smith on January 31, 2005 04:26 PMThe argument that cigarrette smoke invades other people's personal space doesn't pan out either. Don't bring your personal space into a smoking establishment. Use your right to choose and go elswhere. No one is forcing you to frequent the establishment that allows smoking. You do not have to be there.
People that want to restrict the freedoms of others are scary.
Posted by: BenJCarter on January 31, 2005 04:33 PMCritics of the EPA report argue that by normal statistical standards, none of the 11 U.S. studies included in the EPA report showed a statistically significant increase in the simple overall risk measure, and that EPA should therefore have been unable to conclude that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers. These critics are misrepresenting a small part of the total evidence on secondhand smoke and lung cancer.
The consistency of study results in the highest exposure category and exposure-response trends discussed above also apply to the U.S. studies. For example, seven of the 11 U.S. studies had fewer than 45 cases, making statistical comparisons difficult. Nonetheless, eight of the 11 had increased overall risks, and for the seven studies which reported on risks by amount of exposure, the highest exposure groups in all seven had increased risks. While the 11 U.S. studies are not, by themselves, conclusive, they do support the conclusion that secondhand smoke is causally associated with lung cancer.
Second-hand smoking is not the same as first-hand smoking, and the studies that have been done with the goal of showing health risks in SHS took significant liberties with this distinction, actually exposing their rats to higher levels of smoke that a first-hand smoker gets. This is junk science and even the EPA more or less admitted it.
But the thrill of bossing other people around, especially the less-virtuous, is greater than our respect for science and liberty, sadly.
JZ Smith, California's smloking ban was not the result of an initiative, it was an act of the legislature, and like I said previously, I was there when it passed (the Senate Judiciary Committee). The arguments in favor came from the labor unions, who claimed smoke was a health risk to workers, and the arguments in opposition came from little bar owners. To satisy the opposition, an exception was crafted for bars in which all the employees were members of the owner's family, and that's still the law today.
Before any government ban on any behavior is enacted, we should ask "what threat or crisis is there to justify this loss of freedom?", and if we don't we're asking for trouble.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 04:49 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 04:50 PMNah. Smoke and drink all you want. Smoke 3 packs a day. You are entitled. Down a fifth of good whiskey.
Eat bad food with trans-fat. Most of us do. I might tonight. :)
Just don't detrimentally effect the rest of us by drinking while driving or filling public places with cancer causing smoke.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 04:59 PMHaving disclosed my financial interest in widespread smoking, I have to say I support an indoor smoking ban in public places. This is one of those tough issues that (small-l) libertarians have to grapple with. I'm generally unopposed to flagrant personal liberties. But the problem with public smoking is that it invades the airspace of the non-smoker. I'm not sure whether or not there is a real health hazard from infrequent casual second hand smoke (not talking about ongoing prolonged exposure). But many people, myself included, find that cigarette smoke makes them feel ill.
The concept of personal liberty doesn't give a person the right to pee on somebody else's shoes at a restaurant. Nor does it give the right to blow obnoxious fumes into other people's noses.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 31, 2005 05:11 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 05:13 PMInteresting to note that all of you want Dino as gov! (I do too) His position is that business should decide this issue!
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 05:16 PMI know there are answers to things we don't like besides, "There ought to be a law..." I wish it was the last resort, rather than the first.
Posted by: South County on January 31, 2005 05:19 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 05:24 PMOk Stefan. That was a good analogy and rivals Skors' analogy of "sex on the table" and smoking.
I had thought mine of a locked exit rock concert hall would catch on but it didn't.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 05:24 PMYes. Yes. Your point is?
As I said "If bars/restaurants want to be smoke filled that's ok with me. I won't go there."
I find that some smokers think smoking is a RIGHT, but it is a privilege. A privilege that must be tempered with respect of others. If no respect is given, then laws must be passed. I can not play music as loud as I want in public even though I may think it is my RIGHT to do so, others be damned.
By way of analogy, some people in my rural county still think it is their RIGHT to burn trash, including plastic materials, in burn barrels. This is not legal anywhere in Washington, but people still do it because they do not care about people's right to breathe, they only care about their right (they think) to burn toxic materials.
Nathan - sorry, but I and others do not agree with this statement. As far as I am concerned, you can go to a bar that has a sign that says, "Sex allowed on table," and after the deed is done, you can have a smoke, as long as there also is a sign that says, "Smoking allowed."
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:28 PMSorry, had to get my Dachshund out of the ashtray again...
Lost my train of thought...
Posted by: smegma on January 31, 2005 05:31 PMThere are two ways for you to solve your problem: a) take on enough personal responsibility to stay out of smoking establishments, or b) impose your tastes on everybody else in the whole world, even at the expense of liberty, principle, and all that nasty stuff.
So why is b) preferable to a) in your view of life, the universe, and everything?
I could make the same argument on another topic, to wit: Biblical creationists annoy me, and I don't want their nonsensical, smelly rhetoric passing through my ears. So should I deal with this taste of mine by: a) avoiding them, or b) banning the expression of their ideas in the public square? And I can certainly argue that bad ideas have worse consequences than bad personal habits.
So what's it going to be?
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 05:33 PMNow I know what to do to really improve public health.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 05:39 PMYou are exactly right, Richard. The totalitarians like to get laws passed that "everyone can agree on," but then use the precedent to pass another law that ONLY THEY AGREE ON.
So, when you take away a bar owners right to have smoking if he damn well pleases, it's not too many steps before we are taking away your right to own a gun if you damn well please.
Slippery slopes should always be avoided. They are real.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:39 PMI wonder when someone with no interest in guns, is going to demand to be able to enter a gun shop or gun range without fear of being shot.
Posted by: Dave on January 31, 2005 05:45 PMErik - I am guilty as charged on the first count. The so-called War on Drugs is a joke.
On the second charge, no, I am not for gay marriage that is sanctioned by the state. Actually, I am not for ANY marriage that is sanctioned by the state.
I believe the state should get it's dirty paws out of marriage entirely. Marriage is a contract, and if it is sanctioned and licensed by the state, the state decides what the contract is. I think private individuals are prefectly capable of defining their own marriage contracts. And, if you are religious, you can use the marriage contract your church defines for you.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:46 PMAs much as you try to justify it by saying that secondhand smoke doesn't do enough harm to warrant smoking, you are still damaging the health of those around you, forcing them to go out of there way to protect their health. It is selfish to claim a territory to smoke and force the public community to abide by your plume of smoke
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 05:49 PMNah. I like it. It is only banned if it is a concentration of .01 percent in one's bloodstream while driving.
Thought I would fine REAL Republicans here, not half-baked Demos...
Actually some of the strongest supporters of the smoking ban in Washington State and other states are republicans.
For starters Mayor Bloomber (R) in NY. Church groups are also going to be playing a big part in passing I-901 as they supported the earlier one. The largest sponser of the earlier ban in Pierce County is a republican. A numbr of republican legislators have also been pushing for a ban on the state level.
On the other hand, some of the opponents of the ban will be democrats who smoke.
In fact, there is a very high correlation to the support of the ban and whether one is a smoker or not rather than political affiliation.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 05:49 PMLiz - the evidence about second hand smoke is on the shelf right next to the study proving global warming. Check the Hysteria Section if you can't find the right shelf.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:49 PMDave - that's the next step. That's part of the motivation here for the environmental Nazis.
I hope nobody here believes that the Seattle Silly Council isn't above banning auto emissions in Seattle.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:53 PMIn California, the smoking ban was very much a party line issue, as it came down to the pro-union people on one side and the pro-liberty people on the other; a classic labor vs. business showdown. So let's don't be too cute about it - it's not a question of whether you smoke or not, it's a question of whether you're qualified to boss me around or not.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 05:55 PMDang, you're so right Mr. Bennett!
Fat bastards also just take up too much space generally, and the conflict with Seattle's dense development objectives, so I think we should ban the fat bastards. And, I'm serious.
Let's give them cigarrettes - I hear it curbs the appetite. Plus, since they can't smoke in public places, it might help keep their fat arses out of Dairy Queen.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 05:59 PMAll the arguments for smoking fail simple logical tests because smoking is unique in that it fills the air around the smoker and causes others nearby to inhale that smoke against their choice.
A smoker's rights end where a non smoker's rights begin, and in any place, even the open air outdoors where a non-smoker is present, there can thus be no smoking that is not invading the non-smoker's right.
Smoking is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
You might try to make the same argument with loud music, and you would be correct if that music was loud enough to cause harm. We have noise laws, so why can't we have smoke laws?
Folks there are no rational arguments for smoking. It does not matter if you are a liberal, conservative or libertarian this is simply an issue of the physics of smoke and there can be no respect for rights with something that does not resepct boundaries.
It's an open and shut case. Oh, and by the way, smokers and smokers advocates, you are outnumbered, so when these laws come up to the vote, you can complain all you want about the tyranny of the majority, but there will be a clear majority that recognizes the simple facts of of the physics and dangers of smoke. Your're gonna lose, so get used to it.
Nathan - it's all connected. If you can take away a business owner's right to allow smoking if he wants (which has no constitutional basis) under the rubric of "public health," then you can take away my right to own a gun using the same precendent.
But, any way, I'll trade away those rights if we can get rid of the fat bastards and the crying kids on flights.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:11 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 06:15 PMThat's exactly right, Mr. Bennett, and it IS scary.
As I always say: When the far right and the far left get together on something, the rest of us get screwed!
Really what is being called far left and far right these days aren't really far apart. They are only separated by 2 issues: abortion and gays.
I think this might lead to a third party eventually for people that care about the things our founders cared about.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:17 PMPractically, this is pretty hard and possibly costly to implement. It's much easier to simply ban smoking from public places. As much as I am not for banning any personal freedom, this one has to go.
To any smoker that this inconveniences to the point that you quit, you can thank all of us who voted to save your life later. And if you don't care for living and you want to die, please choose a means of suicide that is less annoying and costly to those around you.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 31, 2005 06:22 PMFar from it. That attitude is exactly what I fight against. I don't want you to define for me and Mr. Bennett what is open and what is shut.
By the way, didn't you know that trigger pulling can be the result of all sorts of things that have nothing to do with will? Really, the trigger puller is a victim too.
(Just to clear up - I don't smoke and I hate to be around smoke. It's the freedom I care about.)
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:22 PMNope - it's much easier for you to simply keep your pristine lungs out of a smoking establishment.
Next, Jeff is going to be arguing for banning the sale or rubbers in the corner drug store.
(hey, why is ph..armacy considered questionable content?)
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:27 PMHow many things give off smoke? We have smoky factories, especially power plants, smoky barbecues, fireplaces, wood stoves, campfires, cars, SUVs, snowmobiles, power boats, the list is practially endless because smoke is a byproduct of the oxidation of hydrocarbons which is as close to a universal phenomenon as you're likely to find; even perfume is a form of smoke.
Eash of these forms of smoke is regulated, but none of them is banned outright. In each case, public policy strives to strike a balance of the liberties and other interests, it doesn't just lash out at a minority "because it can".
We're not talking about laws of physics, we're talking about laws of Washingtonians.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 06:29 PMI feel a little bit sorry that these people may lose their jobs, but there are ways to handle this. I use to live in CA, and the way they handled it there was to allow to allow owner and single employee bars to exist as smoking bars. These became the bars where smokers hang out. Since they were one employee, and one owner, they were small and about the only thing one could do there was drink or smoke, so there was no reason for anyone else to go there and this was a pretty good solution.
As for all the other bars that are larger, sports bars, pool halls, etc. they were as packed as ever with the 35 Million people that live in CA when I left.
And why I generally don't feel sorry at all for these people is all the times I've had to go into a bar and breath smoke when I did not want to for the sake of some people who wanted to smoke. They never gave a rip about me, so why should I give a rip about them?
Finally, when autos came in to existence, a lot of wagon manfacturers went out of business. Too damn bad, technology changes with time, we learn with time. The only gaurantees should be that we are not harmed by our neighbor. There is nothing that says that things there might be something that puts someone out of business. Too bad. Happen all the time.
What we've learned over time is that smoking is really stupid behavior for those who want to live. Smart people just don't do it anymore.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 31, 2005 06:33 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 06:40 PMBut, anyway, I'm also tired of sitting in nice restaurants next to people with flatulance. Ever had that happen? Sitting there with a nice looking woman, and then the fat bastard next to you let's one rip? Foul smell, ruins everything ... can we do something about that while we are banning smoking? At least "No Flatulance Establishment" signs, and "Flatulance Allowed"?
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 06:49 PMIguana -- I would agree with this logic if your gun was going off shooting random people. The thing is, your gun isn't hurting anybody, but the smoking is. Should the person next to you be protected from you shooting them? Yes. Should they be protected from you shoving harmful toxins down their throat. Yes.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 06:54 PMMr. Bennett, I believe you are grossly misinformed about the differences between smoke from a cigarette and smoke from a fireplace. We are talking about extremely harmful toxins that cause cancer, not bonfire smoke. They may look the same when they waft through the air, but they certainly are very different.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 06:59 PMRight after we ban farting.
Posted by: Richard Bennett on January 31, 2005 07:00 PMLet's try some other ones!
Generating electricity from a coal plant is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Proselytizing is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Protesting a vote is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Faring is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Excersizing the first amendment right of freedom of assembly is simply an activity that cannot be confined to one person occupying the same open space, and since it is harmful, it must therefore be disallowed.
Posted by: Aaron on January 31, 2005 07:43 PMMatt should not be so quick to embrace another Nanny law - devised to control freedoms....
No one would even think about smokers if there hadn't been such a rabid anti-tobacco campaign launched by the United Nations several years ago!
This campaign was the International anti-tobacco treaty. (the Democrats loved this and have been pressuring the Bush administration to sign it for years!)
Much of the health studies and science used in the smoking health risk reports are tainted and flawed. This has been proven....look it up. Especially the reports of disasterous health effects of second hand smoke. They're just not accurate.
That being said, ....smoking can be unhealthy. Especially if you have (pre-existing) chronic lung conditions, asthma, illness, etc... Is it worse than car exhaust or greasy food on the stove? Probably not - but smoke from a cigarrette is more constant....so it can be more of a pollutant.
This anti-smoking campaign was born in the UN - and embraced by liberal Democrats! For that reason alone - I am skeptical and would live just fine around smokers - knowing that they have the freedoms our unique country allows - and I have the freedom to avoid the smoke if I wish.
It's really time to stop reacting to the hot-button issues the Liberals throw at us! Each time we lose a freedom...we lose what makes us American.
But the thrill of bossing other people around, especially the less-virtuous, is greater than our respect for science and liberty, sadly. -- Richard BennettGreat idea, Matt. The initiative apparently won't affect tribal establishments, but that should be of little concern. You mentioned that people can still smoke outdoors. As I understand it, though, that "right" is being challenged in several places. So after you get this taken care of, maybe you can devote some attention to the horribly unhealthy food people are still allowed to eat in fast-food (and other) places. After that, what? Hmmm. Alcohol really does cause a lot of misery. Perhaps you could go for a ban on it. I know it's been shown to have health benefits in small amounts. Maybe you could have the government dispense small, therapeutic doses of it in conjunction with a ban. /sarcasm Posted by: Boonie on January 31, 2005 07:52 PM
But we both grew up in houses with parents that did and we DESPISE it.
That being said, I say NO BAN.
I think if a public establishment wants to be a smoking establisment let the market do its work. There will be customers that shun it and those that flock to it. It is NO BUSINESS of the government how an owner runs his business as LONG as he is running it within the confines of the law. To the best of my knowledege, cigarettes and cigars are still very much legal and a HUGE source of tax revenue.
I too own stock in one of those 'dreaded, horrible purveyors of filth', a tobacco company and will continue to enjoy my profits as long as they are presenting for sale to those who CHOOSE to buy it, a legal product.
Posted by: Cheryl on January 31, 2005 07:53 PMBruce
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on January 31, 2005 08:02 PMAlso, you are trying to ignore what is actually in cigarettes: Among other things: arsenic (rat poison), ammmonia, carbon monoxide, lead, butane...
dave,
Nobody is forcing me into a bar, but everytime I walk down the street I am constantly walking through clouds of smoke. I can't go to some restaurants, I clearly can't go to any bars, and there are numerous public centers I can't go without inhaling smoke.
Simple question for all who support free smoking: how can an conscious act that kills tens of thousands second-hand inhalers every year and is known to cause cancer, respiratory infections, asthma and heart disease in people who are adversely affected by public smoking, be legal?
Should I be able to shoot bullets randomly into the sky all day long even though they come down and kill people sometimes?
Thats not going to happen. Washington is way behind the curve on smoking bans.
The following states already have smoking bans:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
None of these states had any adverse economic effect.
States which are considering going smokefree in 2005 are :Minnesota, Maryland, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Vermont, and possibly Pennsylvania.
Ireland, Scotland have bans and Australia and England are implementing bans as well. Smoking is already banned in Vancouver an much of Canada.
.. maybe you can devote some attention to the horribly unhealthy food people are still allowed to eat in fast-food . . .places. Alcohol really does cause a lot of misery. Perhaps you could go for a ban on it.
These are perfect analogies...that is if the inititive would outlaw smoking in any manner as prohibition did alcohol. But it doesn't.
Eating fast food and drinking booze can be bad for you, but the damage is limited to the person consuming the product. Thus, under the libertarian standpoint, one would be at worst exercising their liberty to eat (badly) and drink.
The smoking initiative, however, only bans one from releasing toxic smoke indoor public areas where others have to breathe it. Smoking will still be legal.
Therefore, there is a big difference between outlawing an activity and forcing it upon others.
People have no liberty interest in forcefeeding others Big Macs or Tofu for that matter.
Asserting that one should have a right to force another to drink bourbon is nonesense as well.
Those opposed to the indoor public smoking ban are essentially saying not only they have a right to smoke but that they have a right to make others inhale the cancer causing toxic smoke they they are exhaling. That's not freedom, its tyranny.
As far as business owners, the studies in every state with a ban have shown that there is no adverse economic effect.
Other than that, it is reasonable that businesses have some basic regulations for employee and patrons health such as not leaving mayonaise out for a week poisening them, not serving E Coli burgers killing them, not wiring your business with extension cords and frying them, and not spraying the tables with DDT to clean them.
What? Businesses should have the right to endanger the public this way if they want? Comon.
The "market" works well for consumer preference decisions, not for hazardous and life threatening conditions.
Posted by: Erik on January 31, 2005 09:18 PMI don't go into smoking restaurants, it's that simple. However, I DO have to walk PAST/THROUGH bunches of smokers huddling out on the streets ON PUBLIC, TAXPAYER PAID FOR THOROUGHFARES, SIDEWALKS AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS which is equally disgusting.
Better they be in a building whose owners welcome them and approve of them.
This initiative is one of the most egregious examples of "nanny-state-ism" in existence. Nobody in these commentsd has responded to the fundamental question of the debate: If smoking bothers you so much, why don't you go somewhere else? Nobody forces you to be around smokers or frequent smoking businesses.
I happen to have a sensitivity to strong aerosol-based odors. I get strong headaches whenever exposed to something as simple as hairspray or perfume. Why isn't anybody suggesting a prohibition on strong perfume? Using your arguments, it "invades my personal airspace" (in my mind, you sacrifice your "personal airspace" when you enter the public domain), it could "cause health problems."
Aside from the obvious economic impact on small businesses, this simply boils down to liberty. A person's opinion on this is a perfect test of one's dedication to liberty. Most of the time, liberty and self-interest are easily reconcilable but in this case, it is not so simple. Non-smokers must clearly weigh their dedication to liberty, since in this case liberty is at odds with personal self-interest. Sadly, I think the majority of people in this state will gladly sacrifice the liberty of someone else for their own selfish comfort. I am disappointed in you all.
And for the record, I am a non-smoker.
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 09:47 PMAnd when it hits the ballot it will pass by a mile. Just wait. Hurray!!! I hate cigarette smoke and so do a WHOLE lot of other people!~
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 09:51 PMWalking by someone on the street who is smoking is about as much risk to your health as anything I've mentioned here. The only healh risk of second-hand smoke is from prolonged and heavy exposure. Just as someone who is allergic to food avoids whatever they're allergic to, and just as I avoid prolonged exposure to aerosols, people can easily avoid prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke.
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 09:56 PMWhy? Because it always wafts over at me and it irritates my throat. Bleh! Get over it and put your stinky smokes out, people. I'm tired of going to local parks for fireworks and not being able to get away from everyone's cig smoke flying everywhere. Just because you smoke outside doesn't mean others aren't affected! Really!
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 09:59 PMI suggest that those who dont care about your freedom of goverment, MOVE TO CALIFORNIA. I smoke, but I dont smoke where non smokers are. I respect other's "SPACE".
And I Dont support this ban, not because I smoke, but because It Takes away my Freedom. It allows goverment to CONTROL another aspect of our lives.
Jeff & Nathan....I hope you don't have any habits that could in the FUTURE become ILLEGAL because of Goverment Meddling.
Posted by: chris on January 31, 2005 10:01 PMLiberty when it is brainless and destructive to a community isn't liberty to the people. Just remember, every time you crack a smoke in front of someone, you are injuring them -- probably against their will.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:05 PMAnyone who argues second-hand smoke is not toxic is not being honest. However, we are exposed to many harmful substances on a daily basis with little long-term effects. Smoking is simply a convenient and popular target, which is why we're having this debate in the first place, rather than, say, banning vehicle exhaust.
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 10:08 PMYah, I'm REALLY radical on this. Go ahead and heap scorn on me. It's alright. You're not changing my mind. :-) Cig smoking is SO last century.
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 10:12 PMBrainless and Destructive??? For Pete's Sake...People have been smoking for centuries, and you (non-smokers) aren't dead yet....
You have a choice, and perhaps more choices than the Smoker, so who's rights are being limited?
This is America, and I for one want to keep my freedoms.
I don't have any habits that are constantly doing significant damage to those around me.
Greg- Prolonged and heavy exposure aren't the only causes of illness and disease from smoking. I think you would be surprised how easily casual secondhand smoke can injure the human body.
You guys are so caught up in what you think it means to be Republican, that you fail to recognize reality.
Did you all vote for Will Baker, too?
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:14 PMI may be a conservative girl, but even I have my limits.
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 10:18 PMIn legislating these types of public health laws, we must disregard those who are unnaturally sensitive to such smoke. We don't ban perfume for my case, we don't ban nuts for those with allergies, and we don't ban fireworks because of people with sensitive hearing. Those with specific health problems associated with cigarette smoke should regulate their own behavior as anybody else with a sensitivity does.
Also, while you're digging up a study which supports your claims, please respond to my comment about automobile exhaust. If you believe serious and/or acute health problems can result from casual exposure to cigarette smoke, certainly you concede the same for automobile exhaust. Therefore, do you believe we should ban the internal combustion engine?
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 10:19 PMWow!
"People have been smoking for centuries, and you (non-smokers) aren't dead yet...."
Actually, I think there hundreds of thousands of people who would disagree with you from their graves.
I think we want to protect the rights of the majority. So, when you light up at a 4th of july celebration (Michele's example), you limit the rights of the 50 people around you just so you can snatch a few drags. Would it be OK if I sprayed some acid into the air and had it land on everyone, iritating their skin? Would it be OK if I had overly-blaring speakers that actually injured everyone's ears around me? (I'm kind of fishing for alternative examples here...)
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:20 PMAs far as it being a public health problem, I believe one of the greatest failings of government is its apparent inabilty to tell people they're stupid. IK'm a smoker, and I know I am an idiot for doing it. Pass a law allowing insurance companies to reject claims for ailments caused by smoking, and have Medicaid and Medicare do the same. Forcing people to pay out of pocket for lung cancer treatment will have a much greater influence on smoking rates than hiking cigarette taxes. I would much rather have the government say "You're an idiot for smoking, so you're on your own" rather than have them curtail our freedom. Not to mention the fact that heart disease has now moved ahead of cancer as far as death rates are concerned. How long do you think it will be before the government decides that McDonalds is bad for you and bans it. Or maybe the government will agree with Dr. Atkins that carbs are the cause of obesity and outlaws sugar. It seems to me that heart disease is more dangerous than cancer, so I don't see how the government, when banning smoking, isn't moving closer to banning all things that are "bad" for us.
The problem has become the "safety net" that is in place. People are much less likely to do stupid things like smoking if they know that no one is there to catch them. Is it cruel? Maybe. But I would rather have the government give me the freedom to provide for myself as I see fit rather than control certain facets of my life with the promise of a safety net.
Posted by: Jeff on January 31, 2005 10:20 PMMichele: The air would be evem cleaner if along with the cigs we banned those fireworks.
Posted by: Dave on January 31, 2005 10:20 PMI did not know the word "Libertarian" was pseudonymous with an "arrogant self-righteous zealot." That is how you all sound.
Governments regulate many public activities, not just smoking. You all are just too smug in your desire to let everyone do anything in public they want. That's how the U.S. became the mess it is.
I am sure you would allow 18 year old high school students to smoke at school. Why not? It is their right. Just because it might influence younger students to smoke is no reason to deprive them of their "right" to smoke in public.
Conservative Republicans are NOT, and never have been libertarians.
If you even had the courtesy to ask if I mind if you smoke, I will say "No, not if you don't mind me throwing up on you."
Posted by: Cool Bob on January 31, 2005 10:22 PMIt is exactly people like you who feed the Goverment Ideas that are so BLACK & WHITE, there is no gray.
The gray with this issue is personal freedom.
If you allow goverment to control one thing, it rears it greedy head for more, and more and more.
BTW, who said I was republican??? Does my Post's read like one?
Posted by: Chris on January 31, 2005 10:24 PMAgain, it's very nice when YOU are not the one with the problem and easy to say 'too bad' , but it's a pretty big deal when you aren't so fortunate to be that healthy.
Posted by: Michele S on January 31, 2005 10:27 PM
--------
Despite the decline in mortality from coronary heart disease during recent decades, it is still the leading cause of death in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. In 1996 an estimated 476 124 residents of the United States died of coronary heart disease, representing more than one in every five persons who died in that yearl1l. In many economically developing countries, mortality from coronary heart disease has increased rapidly and has become the leading cause of death 121 . Exposure to passive smoking is very common in the general population, especially in young and middle-aged men and women. For example, 43% of children aged 2 months to I I years and 37% of adult non-tobacco users are exposed to passive smoking in the United States l31 . As such, identification of the increased risk of coronary heart disease associated with passive smoking has important public health implications.
...
Many children are exposed to passive smoking on a regular basis at home or in other environments, such as child-care facilities and schools. The health consequences of exposure to passive smoking among children, including the increased risk of cardiovascular disease, should be addressed in future studies. The only safe way to protect non-smokers from exposure to passive smoke is to eliminate this health hazard from public areas, the work place and the home environment.
AND
----
The National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program's 9th issue of the Report on Carcinogens listed ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) as a "known" human carcinogen, which indicates that there is a cause and effect relationship between exposure and human cancer incidence.
Cotinine is a major metabolite of nicotine. Exposure to nicotine can be measured by analyzing the cotinine levels in the blood, saliva, or urine. Since nicotine is highly specific for tobacco smoke, serum cotinine levels track exposure to tobacco smoke and its toxic constituents.
Involuntary exposure to ETS remains a common, serious public health hazard that is entirely preventable by adopting and enforcing appropriate regulatory policies. Smokefree environments are the most effective method for reducing ETS exposure. Healthy People 2010 objectives address this issue and seek optimal protection of nonsmokers through policies, regulations, and laws requiring smoke-free environments in all schools, work sites, and public places.
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 10:33 PMAlso, each of those studies "increases risk of" whatever disease we're talking about. I wonder what other factors cause this risk. Maybe banning the automobile will help?
Posted by: Greg on January 31, 2005 10:39 PMI haven't read the comments but am sure the libertarian view is well represented.
It's bad for businesses that allow smoking. If patrons don't like the indoor smoke, fine, go somewhere else, there's plenty to choose from. And nobody is forcing people to work in smoking allowed establishments.
Jeez, next thing will be banning McDonalds and Burger King.
Posted by: max on January 31, 2005 10:52 PMAmerica and Central Planning do not mix.
When Pierce County illegally and unlawfully banned smoking in private bars and restaurants the county eateries were already 78% smoke free. The is the same non-smoker percentage as the general public. What do you know the market works.
Stay in Seattle Matt - the busybody city, but keep your tyranny there. Us freedom lovers can handle our own virtue, we don't need it imposed on us.
Posted by: Jericho on January 31, 2005 10:54 PMWhat about the smoking Nazis? The ones that are complete bullies, that demand the right to endanger the health of people around them?
You are trying to push your opinion on people, and because they don't agree with you, you revert to name calling. So much for what you really think of liberty.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the car exhaust. I would really like to see the US phase out dependence on oil and bring in fuel cells.
I don't think car exhaust is doing specific targeted harm to people on a daily basis as much as smoke is. Although, I would hope we wouldn't have it forever.
Smoking is an easier targer, true. It is also a big target to hit and an important want to knock down.
Anyways... I'm signing off for the night...
Posted by: nathan on January 31, 2005 11:04 PMCheap shot on my moving from California, I am from the PNW. I moved to CA for a while, and came back. I suppose you consider all Californians bad, etc., which is just ignorant racism. Having recently moved here I can say this. I thought CA was pretty bad, but in many ways, it's far ahead of WA.
And one important way is they get what you and Richard Bennet and DeadManVoting and many of you others don't get, which is that it's trite to talk about protecting your sacred freedom without recongnizing the fact that I've got just as much freedom to want to be left alone from breathing smoke as a smoker has freedom to smoke, except that a smoker has the additional constraint of the fact that his smoke that wafts into my face has just limited my freedom to breathe. Why is this so hard to understand?
In a contest freedoms, smoking loses. That's why smoking bans in public are an acceptable limitation that we must have.
Now to address Richard and DeadMan's ridiculous analogies. Condoms are confined to personal space and what they contain is not something that is going to silently waft its way all around like smoke, so I don't see where you are going here. I have no problem with condoms.
And don't laugh to hard about all of the smoke producing sources Richard. The joke's on you. Factories, cars, etc. do indeed produce smoke, but they do not produce smoke in a contained way that smoking indoors in public places does, do you operate your car in your garage with the door down? Furthermore, as you indicate, we've done a lot as a society to control our smoke producing sources so that they have limited harmful pollution, etc. We specifically