I've just learned that Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks has ruled today against the Recreational Gaming Association's challenge to the wording of Initiative 901, which if approved by voters would ban indoor smoking in Washington state in all public places, and places of employment. I have a call in to the RGA about their next steps to fight I-901.
If no successful appeal to today's ruling is mounted and if Healthy Indoor Air For All Washington by June 30 gathers somewhere between 224,000 and 300,000 signatures (there are currently conflicting reports on just how many are needed), voters Nov. 8 will ponder this:
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. Should this measure be enacted into law?
Today's Superior Court ruling in Thurston County follows a State Supreme Court ruling yesterday invalidating Pierce County's indoor smoking ban because it barred what is currently permitted by state law, the creation of smoking and non-smoking sections by some businesses and lessees. Democrats controlling the state legislature are also backing away from indoor smoking ban bills that had been drafted this session, saying they'll let the initiative process unfold on this issue. One particularly interesting part of today's Seattle Times story on yesterday's Supreme Court ruling is this comment from an executive with the parent company of a popular Tacoma restaurant and brewery.
Through the back-and-forth, some businesses, such as the Ram Restaurant and Brewery in Tacoma, decided to maintain a no-smoking policy. "We saw positive results. More people came in, and we certainly had a lot of positive guest comments," said Jeff Iverson, of parent company Ram International. "If it was financially bad, we would not have stuck with it."
Imagine that. Could it be that more customers - even at bars and restaurants - would rather not be anywhere remotely near indoor smoke, than want to smoke?
We've already had a vigorous discussion here at Sound Politics about Initiative 901, which I support. The long comment string to my recent post contains more than a few observations backing up Mr. Iverson's remarks, from people who saw the California indoor ban play out. And despite a number of comments along the lines of "I thought this was a conservative site," others who identified themselves as conservative or libertarian said they would vote for Initiative 901.
All of which tells me that if there are no further legal obstacles to a public vote, and enough signatures are gathered, this thing just might pass. The expected scorched-earth scare campaign of economic ruin and erosion of "liberty" would surely boost chances for passage.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 11, 2005 12:20 PM | Email ThisThe smoking ban isn't for the benefit of the smokers, they can still smoke elsewhere. It's for the benefit of us non-smokers. Your eating habits analogy would only hold true if by some mechanism your saturated fat consumption somehow adversely affected my cholesterol levels. Since that isn't the case, your analogy is not valid.
I lived in Europe for 5 year in the mid to late 90's. I was really surprised that on the Hungarian airlines, Malev, you can still smoke on the plane. Talk about feeling trapped. And in every public place, there was always a cloud at about shoulder level from all the smokers. It really was nasty because it hurt my eyes, and left my clothes smelling terrible. After returning from Europe, I moved to San Jose, California for about 5 years. The first few times I went into a restaurant or any other public place, I remember having this strange sense that something wasn't right. I could see across the room, and my eyes weren't watering. Soon after I heard that California had passed a state wide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. Let me tell you how nice that was, and how disappointed my wife and I were when we moved to Washington last year and went into a restaurant only to see that old familiar cloud.
I absolutely welcome this ban, because while I think you are absolutely entitled to smoke, you aren't entitled to cloud my air with your habit.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 12:50 PMI think you are correct in that this is one of those issues that crosses party and ideological lines... like gambling, but for different reasons. It is a simple public health issue... the majority of nonsmokers simply do not want to be exposed to the dangers of secondhand smoke, and are tired of being forced out of public spaces.
Experience has also shown that the economic arguments against such bans are unsupported.
And FYI, there is no appeal on ballot titles beyond the Thurston County Superior Court. If that's the title Judge Hicks ordered, then that's the title.
Posted by: David Goldstein on February 11, 2005 01:00 PMWhen I say "My air" I'm talking about the air I'm breathing, which means the air available to me in my personal space. If an employer can either provide me with a smoke free space, or provide the smokers with an insulated space to smoke, then I wouldn't have any issue with smoking at work. However that would be prohibitively expense for most employers, not to mention that most employers would gladly enact a policy that is likely to reduce the number of sick days their employees take. And by that I'm not talking so much about the smokers, but the non-smokers who become ill from constant exposure to other's second-hand smoke.
There are some bad decisions that we as a society have decided should not be available to business owners to make. For example, it would be a bad decision for a restaurant owner not to have restrooms available to his patrons, just as it would be a bad decision for any business owner to not have fire alarms and fire extinguishers in the place of business. We don't let business owners make those bad decisions, cost effective as they may be, because of public health and safety issues. I see the ban on smoking as being no different.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 01:09 PMI believe you are wrong. The more junk food is advertised and eaten the more it becomes mainstream. The more we are inundated with the opportunities to partake, the more likely we are to partake and no one will change my mind on that. Therefore, my consumption and everyone elses consumption and adding to the advertising dollars of the makers of the food, are contributing to the likelihood that it becomes okay to eat more junk food. The students at our school demand the junk food be offered and we have to try to not allow it to be offered, it's the same way in real life.
My point was tongue in cheek but valid. The tax that the majority has been able to place on the minority (the smokers) is disgustingly wrong to this American. The only reason the 1% of the tax payers have to pay 80% of the taxes is because 1% doesn't amount to a lot of votes on election day. The other 99% has enough votes and power in this country to cause the richest 1% to pay so much of the tax burden, because somebody long ago decided taxation without equal representation was fine and dandy.
It's the same way with those folks in Puget Sound, they have the population and votes so they keep trying to take away my right to farm my land because I can't do anything about it. If only 25% of the population smokes, let's tax them through the roof. The reason they tax, so they say, is to recover the health costs. Let them tax excess saturated fats and cholesterol, that costs the country more... oh wait we can't do that because that would affect far more than 25% of the population.
If you don't like to smell smoke at the gaming establishment go to the non-smoking room. If you don't like to smell smoke at the bar, go to a non-smoking bar, restaurant, bowling alley, etc. Yes, if you are in an office or work environment that normally should have smoking in it (this excludes bars, etc.) then smoking maybe shouldn't be allowed. Or at least only allowed if there is proper ventilation that will prevent others from smelling it. But get off the dang high horse that says if you don't like something no one should be allowed to do that anywhere around you, no matter where you go.
I personally don't like my kids to hear certain curse words at their age, I think it damages their moral character. Yet, the television and the public has now made it okay to say some of those, should I have the right to make it unlawful for anyone to be able to say 'ass' or 'crap' or similar words, where children are present? No, I have to be reasonable.
As I commented to Matt's previous post, many know me as an anti-smoker. Smoke does not respect boundaries. Smoke is the exception. Smoke crosses the invisible line of freedom and personal space between the smoker and non-smoker.
It's not that I want to see bar and restaurant owners go out of business (they won't) or that we anti-smokers are jihadists, or extremists, it's that there is a common sense level of respect that is simply disregarded whether intentional or not by those who smoke in the presence of non-smokers, or continue to smoke when a non-smoker arrives in their presence.
I also heard the arguments on Carlson yesterday. I agree that for the most part, market dynamics should be allowed to settle this question. Governmental power is absolute and dangerous. However, even Carlson acknowledged that maybe the best way to settle this is to agree on some sort of comrpomise to ban smoking from restaurants and only allow it in bars. If it came down to that, I would be fine with that as long as small bars were the only places that allowed smoking. As soon as you allow smoking at larger clubs, dance venues, music halls, pools halls, etc. you severely limit activities that both smokers and non-smokers might enjoy to the smoking only crowd.
I-901 is going to put this to a vote. It may be tyranny of the majority in the eyes of the smoker. But your smoke is in our eyes, so call it even.
There will be plenty of exceptions for smokers such as Indian Gambling establishments, and another excellent idea is what CA has done which is to allow smoking in small bars that are owner operated and that have no more than one employee, who smokes. For bowling alleys, larger clubs, restaurants, etc. sorry folks, but you lose because non-smokers frequent these places as well, and the smokers are not polite enough to refrain from smoking. Believe me, I've asked, they get pretty defensive.
Lastly, I love Skor's solution. Skor, where can I get ammonium sulfide?
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2005 01:29 PMWe've seen large shifts in public attitudes over smoking for decades. It shouldn't suprise anyone that smokers are an ever decreasing percentage of the population and their ability to influence public policy is waning.
I'm not sure where the tax arugments came from, as far as I know, that's not part of this discussion.
As for marketing, I still believe your analogy is incorrect. You can eat hamburgers all day long right next to me and it won't affect my body any way. If you have proof to the contray, I'd love to see it. However it has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt that if you smoke and I am standing near you, I will be adversly affected by the smoke that I inhale. That isn't something I simply "dislike", it's something that is having a negative affect on my health. I'm not on a high horse about behavior I dislike, I'm standing up for my right to be free from an assault on my general state of health simply because others insist on participating in behavior that they do "like" to do. Is the difference really that hard to see?
Why is it that to be smoke free, it's up to me to find smoke free establishments? Why isn't that burden placed on the smokers to find smoke friendly establishments? Aren't they the ones who are choosing to engage in behavior that adversely affects others? Shouldn't they bear the burden of finding an acceptible place to do that?
Lets try to make an analogy, and see if your statement holds up. You said:
"But get off the dang high horse that says if you don't like something no one should be allowed to do that anywhere around you, no matter where you go."
Lets say that juggeling knives was suddenly popular. So popular that people were doing it on the streets, on public buses, at work, and in bars and restaurants. Naturally an occasional knife will fall or go where it wasn't intended. No one is killed of course, as these are small knives, but people do get knicked from time to time.
Would you still say that just because non-knife jugglers don't want to get knicked that they have no right to ask that knife juggling is banned in public places? Most non-jugglers could care less what the knife jugglers do elsewhere, they just don't want to get knicked by a falling knife when all they wanted to do was go out to dinner in a restaurant.
The point I'm trying to make with the analogy is that the purpose for the ban isn't simply about behavior that some people like vs. what other people don't like. Its about behavior that some people participate in that can have a direct impact the health of those around them. On this topic I take a fairly Libertarian point of view. Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact other people. No one is saying that smoking should be outlawed, just that you shouldn't be able to do it where the general public would be negatively impacted by it.
As for you last comment about foul language, there actually are some places where it is illegal to say such things in front of children. Perhaps you remember the Michigan man who was convicted of utter profanities while in the presense of children after he fell out of his canoe:
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20020329_C225747(55)_85O.225747.OPN.COA.PDF
Which means that if you and your neighbors feel strongly enough about something, to include foul language, or exposure to second-hand smoke, you can fight to have a law written to ban it.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 01:39 PMBUT!!
And here is one of the riding issues.
It is ONLY fair if it includes ALL establishments. Even those on Indian Reservations. And includes chewing.
Smoking is a awful habit and other should not be subjected to the smoke.
The unfortunate thing is that the libs/progs will never endorse a bill that includes Indian gambling establishments or nightclubs.
Posted by: Frank on February 11, 2005 01:46 PMThat's all fine and good, you should be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. However if a business is open to the public, the protections of private space (for the public areas) cease to exist and it becomes a public place. So if your place of business is a restaurant, the dining area would be considered public and should have the ban enforced. However assuming that the manager has an office, with ventilation and a door, he should be able to smoke in there, as it isn't affecting anyone else.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 02:01 PM'Why don't the smokers find an establishment that caters to smokers?'
We'd love to, but you are intent on banning smoking in all businesses. How is that giving US a choice?
As I have suggested before, ban all smoking in true 'public' places, i.e., places we all HAVE to go to, such as government buildings, public transportation, shopping malls, etc. But leave the businesses alone to choose which clientele they wish to cater to. I think you would get wide support from the SMOKERS on that idea.
Posted by: Rick on February 11, 2005 02:14 PMMy only issue in regards to smoking in public places is in regards to the second-hand smoke and how that affects me. If as you mention, a smoke free eating/drinking establishment could be built using various filtering and air moving technologies such that none of the smoke affected anyone beyond the proximity of the smokers themselves then I'd have no objection to continued smoking in those places.
It's the affect their actions have on me that I'm against, not their actions in general.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 02:19 PMMy vote (if there is one) will be private, and maybe I can stuff the ballot box with extra votes this time (just kidding, sort of), as such practices seem to be accomplished with impunity in Washington State.
Posted by: JG on February 11, 2005 02:22 PMRick, actually, that might be a good compromise solution. But I'd approach it as, a ban everywhere, and if you want an exception, you have to ask for one. The only requirement for granting one is that your establishment must be for adults only, no one under 18 allowed, and signage must be posted indicating that.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 02:25 PMProperty rights are the basis of individual freedom and if property owners wish to allow smoking on their property then so be it.
You don't want to eat in a smoke filled room? Fine, find your quiche somewhere else. Same with bars and pools halls. If an employee wishes to allow somking then perhaps he pays higher wages to attract the staff.
I wager that there is a perfect substitute (in the economic and literal sense) for any smoke filled public venue with a non-smoke filled venue.
I mean, Christ! Where is this nanny state crap going to end? I wear a seatbelt, I dont' smoke, I barely drink; all through choice not government mandate!
Please, I moved out of my dad's house at 17, I've travelled the world and been living quite well for some time now. I don't need, nor want, you or any government holding my hand.
Protect the borders, provide for national defense and let me say mostly what I want in public. That's really all I want from a government.
Posted by: Graham G. Storey on February 11, 2005 02:35 PMThe functions of Government that you describe:
"Protect the borders, provide for national defense and let me say mostly what I want in public"
These are all roles of the Federal Government, which isn't involved in this issue at all. We are talking about State level regulations.
I don't want to live in a nanny state either, but the whole reason for a Government is to determine and enforce a society’s laws. We as the society get to decide what we want enforced as law through the inititive process. If the majority of the society doesn't want to be enshrouded in other's second-hand smoke while out at dinner, they should have the right to enact that as law. That isn't a nanny state, that's the people deciding how they want their communities regulated.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 02:52 PMI am not smart enough to choose to not smoke or to not go to smoke free establishments.
I am not smart enough to manage my money that you forcibly take from me (social security).
I am not smart enough to determine a parenting plan should my wife and I get a divorce. You must extract up to 50% of my income for the good of the child.
I am not smart enough to be a single parent if I am a father and therefore you must ensure I never receive custody of my child.
On and on and on.
Unless the choice is abortion, our government doesn't believe us capable of making the right one.
Posted by: Andy on February 11, 2005 03:04 PMPete,That's all fine and good, you should be able to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. However if a business is open to the public, the protections of private space (for the public areas) cease to exist and it becomes a public place. So if your place of business is a restaurant, the dining area would be considered public and should have the ban enforced. However assuming that the manager has an office, with ventilation and a door, he should be able to smoke in there, as it isn't affecting anyone else.
Posted by Jason at February 11, 2005 02:01 PM
Wrong -- private property is just that --private which is why there are signs saying that 'we reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone' -- here it is pal: WE don't want YOU in our place of business -- and since we OWN the property, it's OUR call not yours
--Mike
Posted by: NW Mike on February 11, 2005 03:08 PM"However if a business is open to the public, the protections of private space (for the public areas) cease to exist and it becomes a public place. So if your place of business is a restaurant, the dining area would be considered public and should have the ban enforced."
Should businesses be considered public spaces? Is the public taking on the financial responsibility for making that business successful? I agree that there should be some public protections, like making sure that business is being run honestly and not ripping off customers, etc. But why should an entity who shares none of the risk (but takes some of the reward, in the form of taxes) have any say in the day to day operations of that business?
Posted by: Ken on February 11, 2005 03:09 PMThe reason your arguments about private property don't hold water is because businesses that are open to the public are already required to meet certain requirments and conform to certain regulations that don't apply to purely private property, such as someone's home. For example, as a home owner, I'm not required by any law to maintain a clean kitchen. Yet if I were running a restaurant, I would not only be bound by such a law, I'd be subject to periodic inspection and subsequent fines or loss of my business license if I failed to comply.
There absolutely are different rules for businesses that are open to the public vs. purely private property. Yes, a business has the right to refuse service to someone, but that doesn't make their space any less public while it's open for business.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 03:19 PMLook Matt, the Founders chose REPUBLICAN government over pure democracy precisely to avoid the kind of situation you're now promoting, where 51% of the people get to dictate to everyone else. Why can't you see your stance here is no different in principle than a liberals position in advocating bans on cutting timber, or any other issue? It sounds good, a lot of people are in favor of it, let's do it. Nevermind how many individuals invested who knows how much money in the past all in the reasonable expectation their property rights under the rule of law would not be taken from them without compensation the moment some politically-correct fad comes along.
Next time you catch yourself wailing about some dimwitted liberal out to take away your rights because he thinks he knows better than you, just remember, you were in favor of the same thing when it felt good to you. I marvel that you cannot see that.
What is it about property rights that is so hard for you to understand?
And Shark, why the dialog over trolls when this Matt guy gets to post as he does? From what I've seen, in his ignorantly reasonable way he's far more insidious than the trolls.
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 11, 2005 03:27 PMI'll tell you what -- you stroll into my house (or place of business) and try to tell me that your point of view somehow supercedes mine and see how fast I bounce your butt out of here. My point stands, the minute you cross my threshold, your rights cease. JeffB raised this issue in Matt's 1/31 thread on the subject when he correctly states that my rights cease where his begins. The border to my property, when you are an invited guest whether in the guise of my home or business are exactly where my rights supercede yours. If you cannot or will not accept that, please stay the hell out.
--Mike
Posted by: NW Mike on February 11, 2005 03:34 PMHelp me understand, why is it ok for 51% of the electorate to decide who gets to be President, or Governor, or memebers of Congress, but it's not Ok for 51% to decide whether or not they want to be affected by other's second hand smoke in public places? What percentage would you be happy with?
And how is a ban on smoking in restaurants any more of an infringement on the private property rights of business owners than the requirements for clean kitchens and hanicapped parking places? These aren't requirements for all private property, they are requirements of businesses. It's part of the price of doing business, execpt that in this case, businesses will actually save money rather than being required to spend more. No more ashtrays to clean, no more cigarette burns on the furniture and carpet, fewer sick days for employees.
Businesses accept that there are rules and regulations to follow for the privledge of running a business. This isn't a private property issue, it's a public health issue.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 03:43 PMThere are more women in the U.S. than men. Would it be legal if the women of the U.S. got together and banned being male?
Posted by: Rich on February 11, 2005 03:49 PMI agree. Businesses affected will do what they did in Kalifornia where that anti-smoking proposition passed by a wide margin. I seem to remember one of the dumb things the business consortium did was put a middle-aged waitress in an anti-proposition ad. She certainly sounded like she worked half her life in a smoking environment…not that I am a marketing guru or anything, but that was LOL funny and ultimately led to a wider victory for it…
I’m wagering the business campaign will backfire in a similarly stunning fashion in WA. Oh, that reminds me, I have to go to the Reservation and place my wager...where I can still shamelessly smoke. It is dreadfully addictive...
That kind of confrontational attitude is pretty clear indication to me that you are NOT a business owner. I've tried repeatedly to explain that this has nothing to do with what you do in the privacy of your own home, or in your car, or out in an open field. We are talking about businesses that are open to the public.
If you own a business, my rights to not stop at the door, about that you are absolutely wrong. For example, try putting up a sign on your place of business that says "No (insert ethnic group here) allowed" and watch how fast the state shuts you down for violating others rights.
As a business owner, it is your privledge to serve the public, you have no right to own or operate a business. For that privledge, you are required to conform to all appicable state laws and regulations.
We don't allow bars to server alcohol to minors, is that a property rights issue? We require that restaruants maintain clean kitchens, is that a propery rights issue? We require that business owners provide enough parking spaces for their customers, in effect tell them how they must use a portion of their property, is that a property rights issue? No, all of these are the costs of doing business that a business owner must bear for the privledge of doing business.
Just as building a house within city limits requires that you connect it to the public sewer system, rather than using your own septic tank. That's not a property rights issue, it's a public health issue. That's what this smoking ban is, a public health issue. And it's far less intrusive in regards to property rights than nearly any other business regulation.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 03:56 PMIf nonsensical arguments such as "banning being male" are all you can bring to the table, I'd suggest you don't even bother. It only makes my position look more reasonable.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 04:00 PMWell, I would suggest that a restaurant or bar could put up a big sign that says “SMOKING PERMITTED” on the premises. As an anti-smoke-bot, you will then make the decision to either go elsewhere or not...I know, too simplistic and naïve…you know better than us wascally smokers...
I still like you original post on the matter.
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.
Funny.
Smoking bans nearly always pass by around 60 to 70 percent of the vote. I expect Washington's I-901 to pass at that rate as well:
Millions of Americans live in states and cities where smoking is banned in restaurants, bars and other public places where employees and customers benefit from clean air.
The following states are now have completely smoke free workplaces:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
States, which are considering going smoke free in 2005, are: Minnesota, Maryland, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Vermont, and possibly Pennsylvania.
Economic Studies : Smoking bans are good for business
Independent economic studies have shown that smoking bans are either beneficial to business or have a neutral effect. Economic studies have been conducted in New York State, California, Oregon (Corvallis), North Carolina (Chapel Hill), Arizona (Flag Staff), Colorado. Texas (West Lakes Hills) and many other places.
For those who want to support the initiative, they can request a petition from the intitiative web site:
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 04:33 PMI would suggest the real question is, if its as dangerous as you anti-smoking types claim, why aren't you just going for a complete ban on the product? Every arguement for the ban has the same merit for imposing the ban on most private properties.
Posted by: Dave on February 11, 2005 04:40 PMI see that as being very similar to the way we handle liquor licenses. Not all businesses sell liqour, and if they do, they have to request special permission to do so, and then must live within an additional set of regulations.
I can guarantee that if I were walking down the street looking for a restaurant to have dinner with my wife and son, and we saw two places that were otherwise equal, but one had a "Smoking Permitted" sign out front, we'd have an easy choice to make.
My goal is to limit my exposure to second-hand smoke, not to limit anyone else's exposure to first-hand smoke. If you want to smoke, fine, just don't include unwilling participants in your personal choice.
This really comes down to one group of people engaged in a personal behavior that directly affects those around them. No to be crude, but I could see even smokers getting upset if I were standing right next to you in a bar and passing gas every minute or so. Just as even smokers would be upset if I pinched off one nostrel and did a "farmer's blow" projecting my nasal mucus onto their table at a restaurant. "Sorry" I'd say, "It's a habit". As rediculous as that sounds, it's pretty much what smokers are doing to non-smokers in restaurants now. And no, I'm not suggesting we need to regulate those activities, unless they someday grow to the same level of common occurance as smoking is now.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 04:45 PMSmoking cigarettes is NOT against the law. Until such time as the government bans this substance then the choice of allowing property owners to allow smoking or not should be the choice of the property owner.
Discrimination against ethnic groups is well established to be prohibited by law, therefore those who engage in such practices are rightly punished.
But to repeat, tobacco is still a leagal, albeit disgusting, product. Therefore, and to repeat again, the property owner should decide whether to allow its use or not.
Posted by: Graham on February 11, 2005 04:45 PM
If the ban is so good for business, why aren't market forces bringing about a ban on its own, why does the ban need to be forced?
One should have the right to drink a fifth of alcohol if they wish, smoke and eat bad.
That's the difference. No one should have the right to force the substances down another's throat.
Placing carcinagenic producing devices indoors in a place of public accomodation is a bad idea.
I suppose one could argue that an owner should be able to spray asbestos around the room and then serve cheeseburgers and serve e coli burgers at will. Is it reasonable for the health board to shut these activities down?
However, there are basic safety requirements to run a restaurant such as, yes, keeping the mayonnaise in the fridge and proper wiring so that place does not burn down. Is that too much to ask? No you can't serve dog meat either.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 04:47 PMBecause the damage from second hand smoke isn't often apparent for 20 years. It makes it difficult for minors and 19 to 23 year olds to properly weigh the risks and benefits of working there.
Also, being many business owners will support the overall ban as they don't want to be the only ones with one. This happened in New York. Once NYC went smokefree, the state restaurant association supported and passed a statewide ban.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 04:54 PMYes, smoking is legal, but so is drinking alcohol, and both are currently regulated. Persons under the age of 18 cannot legally purchase cigarettes, so why is it ok for them to inhale all that second-hand smoke while having dinner with their parents at a restaurant?
No one is talking about making smoking illegal, just regulating where it can be done in regards to public places, much the same as alcohol consumption is currently regulated in public places.
Erik, glad to see that we've found common ground on an issue :-)
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 04:56 PMSo you are saying that being a non smoking business is a disadvantage as long as the smokers have a choice to go somewhere.
Posted by: Dave on February 11, 2005 05:05 PMYou should be talking about banning smoking since its so bad. If the parents can't take the kids into a restaurant that allows smoking, they shouldn't be allowed to keep them in a home environment that allows smoking.
Posted by: Dave on February 11, 2005 05:15 PMYeah, its nice to be on the majority side of a posted issue once in a while. I think that makes a total of 4 out of a couple of dozen.
Hope it doesn't wear off on me. :)
The smoking issue is interesting as the smoking ban has its supporters pretty well split in both the republican and democratic party. Party affiliation is not a predictor of voting on smoking bans.
This may come across as a bit selfish and self-centered, but the reason I'm not talking about a total ban on smoking is because I'm more concerned about my kids than smoker's kids. I don't want my kids exposed to some smoker's second smoke when we are in a restaurant. If a smoker chooses to expose their own kids to second-hand smoke, that's a risk they choose to expose their kids to, just like speeding with your kids in the back of the car.
My own father is a smoker, and while I don't remember what he did when I was very young, I do remember that when my sister was born, he made a point of going outside to smoke, so as not to expose her to the smoke.
Like I've said, I'm not trying to limit anyone's exposure to first-hand smoke, I'm just trying to limit my exposure to second-hand smoke. If ever a "smokeless" cigarette was developed, that allowed a smoker to enjoy their habit without expelling any smoke beyond their own body, I'd be more than happy to sit next to them in a restaurant.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 05:36 PMI don't see it as a flaw that a parent is more concerned about their own kids than someone elses. The hole in your arguement is that pushing for this ban is an admission that parents aren't capable of exercising proper judgement to not bring their kids into a smoke-filled restaraunt. So why the assumption that they would use better judgement elsewhere?
Posted by: Dave on February 11, 2005 05:56 PMI'm not for government encroachment on the whole. But there are numerous places where as knowledge and technology have changed over the years, we have had to reasonably add new laws to cover those areas. There were no traffic laws in the late 1700s, but as we've become a modern society with cars, we've had to make rules to allow for the safe coexistence of a large number of vehicles on our network of roads.
Smoking is something that we now know is not really a healthy behavior. It's unclear whether or not secondhand smoke is absolutely dangerous, but I sure wouldn't take up a job as a waiter in a very smokey bar. Why subject myself to the risks of what is not too far from directly engaging in a behavior that may be a danger to my health. Smokers force this risk on to anyone near them, and it is a real risk, especially in repetitive situations such as smokers and non-smokers together in a bowling league.
I said it in a previous comment to Matt's earlier post. Would any smoker feel comfortable with me bringing an open gas can in to a room with them and simply leaving it there for them to breath in the fumes? (Hypothetical ignoring the obvious danger of their lit cigarette igniting the fumes.) We know that Gasoline fumes can cause cancer if inhaled often enough. The occasional whiff while filling up the car has never killed anyone, but no one would disagree that prolonged and repeated exposure to gasoline fumes is not healthy.
Smokers are just going to have to get use to the fact that knowledge of the risks associated with smoking and the general cultural acceptance of this practice in indoor public places has for the most part passed them by.
If I were a smoker, and I liked to frequent bars and restaturants, I'd start figuring out how to quit, because even if one does not agree with the encorachment of government involved in I-901, there are just a majority of people who don't smoke who are going to vote for their own convenience.
It's really too late to argue now that I-901 is an initiative. It's going to make the november ballot and it's going to become law.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2005 06:02 PMI think the following analogy shows Jason's point.
Its one thing to have the right to spank your own children.
It is quite another to believe you have the right to spank someone else's child.
There is quite a distinction between what one may choose to do to your own lungs and what you impose on another's lungs.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 06:02 PMThe aspect of exposing children to second hand smoke is just one piece of this argument, not the substantive basis for it. With no ban in place, very few (actually I can't think of any) establishments are smoke free. So it's not so much about parental judgement as simply not having any other option when you are away from home and need to eat.
The reason we need a ban, even though most restaurants would likely voluntarily support it, is because no business wants to stick it's neck out and be the only place turning away customers if they choose to smoke. A state-wide ban levels the playing field in terms of competition. Without that, businesses are unlikely to do it on their own.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 06:04 PMDid you know that the Pierce County Health department employees are not allowed to smoke? Not just at work, but anywhere.
The City of Tacoma is considering doing the same thing. Where do you draw the line?
Posted by: Vince Callaway on February 11, 2005 06:15 PMI think that's a good open ended question which every city, state and country asks itself.
I think people should be normally left to their own devices and improve or destroy themselves at will.
However, there has never been a right to interfere with another. One should have a right to breathe clean air. I think this trumps the alleged right to blow around toxic carcinogenic laden smoke at others.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 06:29 PMWith no ban in place, very few (actually I can't think of any) establishments are smoke free.
I think you need to get out more often.
I think you're right :-) With a 5 month old, we've been spending quite a bit of time at home lately.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 07:03 PM51% (or even just one vote) is sufficient to elect a REPRESENTATIVE such as a legislator, senator, governor or president. In the republican form of government chosen by the Founders these representatives, in their various chambers, would pass laws, subject to checks and balances from each branch of government. They chose this cumbersome process quite deliberately and largely out of concern over precisely the same kinds of "tyranny of the majority" problems we're seeing today with these infernal initiatives. They recognized full well that pure democracy can be every bit as tyrannical as a dictatorship. That so many otherwise well-intentioned folk are now seriously discussing micro-managing peoples lives to the point of controlling minor habits like smoking only shows how far-sighted the Founders were.
Now it's important to realize how and why we have these infernal initiatives in the first place. It's because, thanks to a multitude of factors like MSM control of info, jerrymandering, and voter apathy politicians had become too unaccountable to
their constituents. Initiatives are a backlash, not a considered response.
As for all the rest, there is ZERO peer-reviewed scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is a health threat. If it were then yes we should look at regulating it from a health point of view. If there were such evidence then proponents would cite it, for sure. But there's not, which is why all we get is oooh those stinky smokers.
Just for the record, I hate cigarette smoke. Hate coming home after a night out and having a sore throat, headache and congestion, and not even being able to hang my clothes in the closet before having them dry cleaned, lest they reek out all my other clothes. Absolutely hate it.
Still, I have to say it's not all that bad compared to what some people are willing to do to try and ban it.
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 11, 2005 07:47 PMTim
Posted by: TimMan on February 11, 2005 07:57 PM"having a sore throat, headache and congestion, and not even being able to hang my clothes in the closet before having them dry cleaned, lest they reek out all my other clothes. Absolutely hate it"
Please demote yourself and re-read all documentation on the subject and review your feelings before reposting. :-)
Smoking in public is the equivalent of having Typhoid and literally being a 'Typhoid Mary'! Second-hand smoke is just as dangeous as first hand smoke. Why is smoking banned on airlines!
Some people believe that the government should not be involved - a libertarian point of view. But I beg to different with those folks as the affects of smoking and second hand smoke should not be suffered by anyone.
It is interesting to note from the comments in the thread above that businesses actually do better when banning smoking. I like to bowl but the alleys I have visited are not smoke-free so I don't bowl.
Personnaly, I can't run a mile with my lungs but I can walk 3.9 miles in an hour. So exercise does help but even that won't restore lung functionality lost from first or second smoke.
Tim
Posted by: Timman on February 11, 2005 08:12 PMCome on now. You sound like a reasonable, educated man. How can you possibly say that there is "ZERO peer-reviewed scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is a health threat"?
A simple Google search turned up a plethora of evidence from multiple peer-reviewed studies:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html
Not to mention the pure common sense that if we know that first-hand smoke is dangerous, what could possibly make second-hand smoke any safer?
In regards to your statement:
"Initiatives are a backlash, not a considered response"
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it is just an opinion. My opinion is that Initiatives are a way for those of us who are not apathetic to enact laws that we want to see but which our legislators are either too lazy or afraid to enact themselves. This is Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Nothing about that says that laws can only come down from on-high, they can also bubble up when the electorate feels it is necessary.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 08:17 PMHere are some references about references about second hand smoke:
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/blueribbon/secondHand.html
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/etsfact3.htm
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
Tim
Posted by: timman on February 11, 2005 08:23 PMWe are losing the language. These are not public places. The law banning smoking in private work places should be thrown out too as should most workplace safety laws. Let the market rule. It works just fine. More than 80% of Pierce County bars and restuarants are now smoke free, and gee what do you no -- no government needed.
Posted by: Jericho on February 11, 2005 08:45 PMthat being said, I hate the fact that private business owners can't determine what kind of place they want to run...why is its govt. business to tell Joe Schmoe that his customers can't smoke at Joe's place?
I see that this would not impinge at all on the worse smoking areas in the state...the Indian gaming palaces....I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Indian gambling establishments... were behind this ridiculous ban....it makes their bingo and their blackjack tables and their restaurants and bars all the more desireable to the customers...
anything to make the Indians richer and happier, and to keep slipping the Democrats the big money...
someday, we are going to have to face the ugly monster created by Locke that is the Indian gambling element,.....
Posted by: lee on February 11, 2005 08:47 PMPlease provide valid references to support your opinions. Anti-smoking is not a relgion but is fully supported by facts. Bad atmoshere whether it be from smog, first hand smoke or second hand smoke does 'kill'. Society as a whole should not support that in any form or fashion. A smoker should be free to support his/her habit in their the public habitat. Public smoking is a proven public health menace.
Per your comment - "common sense" and the facts shows that smoking and consequently 'secon-hand' smoke are bad for your health. If you you want to smoke - do it in private.
Tim
Posted by: TimMan on February 11, 2005 08:49 PMLiz
Posted by: pinballlizard on February 11, 2005 08:52 PMAnd no I don't smoke.
All you fat sounders your choice to eat like a pig does spill over and affect my life. I have to work harder to feed your face, subsidize your health care, subsidize your food (via federal ag subsidies). This extra work is shortening my life as untold studies have shown that lives are shortened by second hand fat cells. Hence an initiative is being filled...
Anybody else remember when we had a government that allowed people to become adults on their own giving up things like smoking, gluttony, etc. without being forced by no-good "do-gooders" and their ignorant, television watching, uneducated-masses?
Posted by: Jericho on February 11, 2005 08:55 PMLet it go....
Until smoking tobacco becomes an illegal activity - severely restricting the citizens use of it is nothing more than the oppression of civil rights. (You know...like the CAO?)
This entire debate was born in the United Nations - NOT in the medical community! It is the UN who launched the anti-tobacco effort internationally - NOT some newly discovered (junk) science spotlighting the risks of second hand smoke....
This is about controlling the rights of the citizens of the United State of America. This control is the ultimate goal of those international tyrants who are seated under that baby blue flag. It was also the UN who launched the obesity scare - causing doctors to refuse to treat patients who don't adhere to a strict prescribed diet. It's about control....under the guise of health concern....
Before you jump on board with those who take great pleasure watching these controversial restrictions tear our country apart....... remember - what their true agenda is....
I don't think you are a control freak.....
Now some would say that Americans individually should be allowed to grow up on their own (via God, church, family, etc.) and end their television viewing or hugely curtail it, but not me. Not when your television viewing affects my life. It drives down my property values because your marriage falls apart as you sit and watch American Idiot (Idol) and you and your wife neglect your property. Further as a result you don't raise your kids, they become a burden on society as they too are raised by the smaller idiot box you bought them.
So please sign my new initiative banning television in the home - it's for the children after all. Television viewing will still be permitted in sports bars ... smoke free of course.
Posted by: Jericho on February 11, 2005 09:04 PMThe lawyers run Seattle. Tacoma is a mob-town.
Posted by: Jericho on February 11, 2005 09:10 PMAccording to the centers for disease control and prevention, annual deaths due to obesity number about 325,000, if the population was 325,000,000 or thereabouts you would see that obesity is 3 times the threat as second hand smoke, and just as preventable if not more so. Yet we don't put warning labels on junk food or fast food and we don't apply a sin tax and we make it so very accessible for minors and adult.
The smoking ban comes down to just one thing, Your rights are more important than someone elses. It's a disgusting habit so let's stop it. I have the right to go to a bowling alley and stuff myself full of a large double cheeseburger without having to smell disgusting smoke. I should be allowed to go gamble my health insurance money away without smelling second hand smoke. And if the non-smoking section doesn't have my favorite slot machine then they should take away all the rights of everyone else because I should have the right to play my favorite machine. And it is their rights to smoke that are trampling on my rights, not the other way around.
When I go to a tavern to drink my booze I should be able to without smokers in there. If that means the owner of the tavern or restaurant loses money, so what, they should make another law requiring them to stay open anyhow.
And by the way I think people with nose rings have disgusting habits as well, so not only should we ban them but because the rest of us are in the majority we should put a 200% tax on all nose rings. And what about those teenage drivers, have you seen the statistics? We non smokers who stay away from bars and the like have a far greater chance of dying while driving on the same roads as they do than ever dying because others choose to smoke. Maybe we should tax them to the hilt, and outlaw them, makes more sense. It would save more lives, just like regulating saturated fats and cholesterol, much more sense.
Thanks for the post Tim. That takes the convesration from a theoretical one to a real life example.
Public smoking is a proven public health menace.
Yes. It should be treated just like any other health hazard in the workplace. If carcinogenic smoke would have come from any other source it would have been banned long ago.
Posted by: Erik on February 11, 2005 09:46 PMAn area where the government is needed is in say lemon laws because the public layman is not suited to undertake the time to be fully educated on the intricasies of an individual automobile before he purchases it. The market drives the automaker to make good cars, but without lemon laws the purchaser of the very rare bad car in such a large market would be at the mercy of the automaker.
A similar case can be made for health laws in regard to food. Jack in the Box certainly suffered in aggregate market share after the e-coli deaths and illnesses in the early 90's. But the health inspection process by the government keeps a sword poised over the food provider while allowing the market to function - the dinner can eat without inspecting the kitchen himself assured that the threat of the government sword that accompanies the health inspector provides him strong assurance that the meal prepared beyond his site is well-prepared.
You might say that the individual cannot see fire suppression equipment and fire safety routines of a restaurant and thus the need for government. A fire while certainly serious and capable of taking a patron's life is not as likely as ill-prepared food to take the patron unaware. The food appears non-threatening (just as the lemon car so appears to one's wallet on first drive - a man's wallet is of course an extension of the employment of the man's life energy and thus analagous to the man's life - life, liberty, property ((pursuit of happiness)) are indeed very closely linked.). The fire when first detected is an immediate apparent threat to which the individual patron responds. The individual is responsible and capable of preparing for fire even when in someone else's establishment, easily done by observing crowd size, exits, etc. I for one always check fire safety (exits etc.) when I enter an establishment (hotel, restaurant, etc) in which I will get 'comfortable' I realize not everybody does this, but they should. The fact that there are lazy fascist laws to 'protect' the public from 'public site' fires does not prevent them or deaths from them, as witness -- the nightclub fire in Tacoma several years ago. It is the responsibility of the individual and fire safety should be much more market driven - by insurance companies, owners, patrons, etc, which will lower costs because the government will not be involved, and thus not 'providing' its ineffeciencies and carelessness. Without lemon laws or health laws though the market would be inhibited which thereby dictates their neccesity.
Citiznes of localities, (basically cities) because of the spillover effect of a fire at one establishment upon another or upon a whole block will and should secure themselves regulations for their protection. But the state and even counties often should not be involved. No reason for the state to regulate fire safety in rural Garfield County or even Garfield County to do it if people understand the roll of government. The citizens of thickly settled King County, of course if well reasoned would provide security for themselves as needed in regard to fire - but alas America is headed for and seems to now love centralized government - having decided to no longer give any thought to the role of government or self-government (that whole growing up thing again), but instead prefering to be taken care of.
A strong case for fire prevention laws in regard to skyscrapers of which use inspection by the individual would inhibit the market can of course also be made. But again something muncipalites should handle -- not States.
Thank you Shark and the other owners and Sound Politics readers for indulging this lenghty post. :-)!
Posted by: Jericho on February 11, 2005 09:56 PMI don't get it, the Insurance companies can be trusted to drive safety standards, even though they employ fascist tactics by getting the Government to do their dirty work? You and I have had offline dicussions and I thought I knew where you were coming from, but that doesn't even make sense.
The reason the State should enforce fire safety is for uniformity. You can't leave something like that up to market forces. At one time, everything was left to market forces to resolve, yet the reason we have so many regulations today (and the reason you even have designated and labeled fire exits today) is because market forces alone weren't doing the job, it took Government regulation to make it really effective.
Think about it, if fire safety were up to market forces, how many different types of fire exit signs do you think would exist? Do you think you'd instantly recognize them all as you can now? Do you think every business would feel the need to even post them? Not likely. Standardization is a perfectly valid reason for Government regulation. It amazes me that you fail to see that contradiction in your own statement. "I for one always check fire safety (exits etc.) when I enter an establishment..." Seriously, think about that. Would those exits be marked or even recognizable if it weren't for Government regulation? Is standardizing Exit signs really Fascism?
Look back in history when paper money was first printed in this country, every town, and sometimes different banks within the same town had different courrencies. They were hard to work with, and very confusing to use until the Government regulated it. Same with the first railroads. Different manufacturers were making different gauge rails and setting them at different widths, so rail lines were not interoperable. Government regulation solved that issue.
Just because something is regulated by the Government doesn't mean that it's fascism, or an attempt to take control of your life and hand it to the UN. That's just crazy talk, and I'm no fan of the UN either.
I like market driver theories as they generally weed out bad things like poor restaurants. If the service is bad, the place will likely go out of busines.
The only problems is that you often can get injured or die before the "market" reacts and a chinese restaurant serves you a meal with e coli.
No, I don't want to see people sacrificed while a start up restaurant tries to figure out how to handle meat and other food products.
I am quite willing for the health department to make them keep compliant with basic health and sanitation codes. (Gee, maybe you shouldn't keep leftover meat from the buffet over the weekend. Yeah, maybe you should be required to have place where employees wash their hands.)
There were also individual businesses and corporations that discriminated. The government has forced them to stop. That should not be. Individuals and corporations should be allowed to be stupid. Again let the market drive out the racists out of business or suffer from poor business alla the South during the whole Jim Crow ere.
Posted by: Jericho on February 11, 2005 10:32 PMBut Doug didn't say that - when some dude has a coronary and requires triple bypass and can't pay for it so it goes on the government's dime, it does affect you because it affects public coffers which come from ... YOU.
Posted by: Aaron on February 11, 2005 10:53 PMErik gets it.
Aaron, that would be a valid point if we were talking about outlawing smoking. We aren't. You eating a Hamburger while sitting in my lap (pretty picture huh?) doesn't affect me in the least, except for maybe my leg failing asleep.
You smoking a cigarette while sitting in my lap DOES affect me, because my proximity to you means that I will most definitely inhale some of your smoke, smoke that is laced with cancer causing agents. True, a single sitting won't kill me. But over a period of years my exposure ends up being pretty close to yours, and I'm not even smoking!
For the moment, forget about junk food, forget about Indian gaming cas-i-nos (odd spelling required by spam filter), forget about property rights, this doesn't concern any of those. Even though they all have their own issues that should be addressed in their own ways, this issue isn't about any of those. They are distractions from this issue. This issue is about whether one group of people gets to adversely affect the health of other people by engaging in a personal choice behavior while in public.
People keep saying that "you don't have to go to those places where people smoke" yet no one says the even more obvious "you don't have to smoke" either. I've been accused here of claiming that my own rights are more important than the rights of others. Isn't that what smokers are doing when they light up in a crowded room? Aren't they imposing the negative aspects of their personal choice on unwilling participants around them?
As I've said before, if there were a smoke free cigarette, or if a restaurant could be built with air moving and filtering technology that prevented smoke from traveling beyond the immediate personal area of the smoker, I'd have no problem with smoking in restaurants. But until smokers can keep their habit out of my lungs, I'm going to ask that they engage in that activity elsewhere.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 11:14 PMSmoking bans and in some cases fire safety laws do not, but instead often ad ineffecicies - my densely populated area and sky scraper examples aside.
In general to Sounders: Yes, business has gone up in CA after the statewide ban. This just points out that the smoke free restaurants were lazy about promoting themselves and some smoking restaurants owners were unwise in regard to their potential clientele (Pierce County esatblishments anyone?). How has the person who enjoys a smoke after a meal responded to a command economy in this regard in CA? Very likely he eats out less, prepares his own food more often which he can then follow with his cigarette. Although CA may have benefited from more attention to the market by business owners the CA ban has now created ineffeciencies and greater control of the market through centralization. If the market had ruled in CA restaurants smoking establishments would likely have continued to decrease as they have for years without command control. But now with more control government will seek more control still - the points on employee smoking rules
in Pierce County Health Dept a perfect example (Hat tip: Callaway).
Eventually such a continued growth in government will accelerate as those who have (or rather used to have) power will rally their ignorant duped allies among the massess and they will jointly rail and rage with the power hungry masters against any effort to downsize government (or even slow its rate of growth -- sound familar to current screechings out of D.C.????).
Germany in World War One and again in World War Two is a case in point. The English economic liberalism (19th century definition) was a threat to Germany which had a command economy hangover from Holy Roman Empire days boosted by Bismark's ideology and practices of control. The German response to English capitalistic economic success???? Well, more centralization of course!!! This is what led to the wars -- the conflict being between the ideology of free market and command economies. World War Two, had the culmination of German tweaked Darwinian-Spencerian survival-of -the fitest racism, thrown in to boot.
You see a similar problem now in America - leftist power hungry pols and (buruea)c-rats do not want to give up that power now that America is turning Red. Because so many are now 'taken care of' by the government both by the power it gives them or the crumbs it throws them the weight of those desiring command control is heavy as opposed to the weight of those desiring freedom. America is at its most dangerous time in its history right now, even more dangerous than the War Between The States. Then, those in opposite camps were more geographically separated providing for a 'cleaner' conflict when war came. Today freedom lovers and command lovers are very integrated geographically (central Democratic dominated cities and rural Red state America aside). Much more integrated economically, societally, marritally, and of course geographically than we were in the days leading up to the 'Civil' War (misnamed as the South was fighting for independence not for control of the north) Hence if Civil War broke out again between freedom lovers and command lovers (General Ward Churchill anyone?) it would likely be much bloodier as it would truely be a civil war with people fighting for the same territory not just independence or the suppression of same.
A catalyst, like a N. Korea or Islamist nuclear attack might start the conflict. That was the strategy with September 11th and remains the enemy strategy - get America into a civil war. It is the only way they can win.
And on that note: Prayer anyone????
ps. Chritians: We need to look to back to our colonial roots - the British -- for wisdom. The British while liberty lovers drew (and draw) greater strength from their love of virtue. American Christians will need that legacy from our British philosophical and spiritual forefathers if this nation is to survive this current war and remain a shining city on a hill.
Time to pray for America and your own spiritual fruit wouldn't you say?
Isn't this what "Free Enterprise" is about? If a business wishes to be non-smoking, that is the owners business. If a business owner wishes to allow smoking, then it's his business. Mixed sections within the same building won't do, but allowing the business to be either way they choose should be allowed and clearly marked.
The anti-smoking campaigns of the past 40 years are unprecedented in our history and still, the very government attacking them rakes in billions of dollars from them and smokers. Campaigns against others have already started, even if subtly, even more subtle than the fight against tobacco started long ago.
The cry of "it's for the public good" sounds good, but isn't that what the Bolsheveiks were crying in the early 20th Century as well? Is it for the public good that many of these same people also advocate legalizing marijuana and euthanasia?
As long as focus is kept on this single act, the public strongly supports it, but very few look beyond this single act to the ever enlargening ripple effects of granting government this power over us.
Could some "scientist" one day report that fumes of deep fat frying is detrimental to the health of those who walk by? Could that lead to a ban or heavy taxation on french fries? Sound far fetched? Bet many who smoked thought so 50 years ago as well.
As far as I'm concerned, businesses should be free to be either smoking or non-smoking and clearly marked. If a smoker wishes to enter a non-smoking establishment, then he just puts his habit on hold until he's ready to leave. If a non-smoker wishes to enter a smoking establishment, then he holds his breath. Let people make their own choices, not the government dictating what everyone does.
Posted by: DakotaRed on February 11, 2005 11:34 PMI'll even fight to make sure that no one starts whining about how the Big Mac eaters and Rock Climbers are raising health care costs, who says health care should be free, you get what you pay for.
This argument is not about government encroachment or socialized health care, it's simply about unconfined behaviors. Smoking is not a right. The right that you get is to be left alone by your government and your fellow citizens. Smoking tramples others' rights to be left alone. You can't smoke next to me because I don't want to breath that smoke.
We might have come up with some great exceptions to this rule that would allow for the existence of smoking bars, and those bar owners would love it because they would get lots of business from the smokers. But smokers are so adamant about their absolute right to smoke and turning that right into a government-run-amok scare that they've ended up shooting themselves in the feet. Now the I-901 train is coming and smokers are going to lose.
I've got no sympathy because I've watched thousands of smokers throw lit cigarretes out of car windows, or on the ground all the while wafting their smoke into others faces. Smokers on the whole are simply rude. They've brought this upon themselves.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2005 11:45 PMI understand your statement. But I have a different view.
I think fire safety laws are pretty essential and a acceptable catagory to have local government oversight. Big fires don't come around very often. However, when they do, one needs to have proper construction and adherence to safety codes or an entire city can burn down.
The "market" will not be able to react fast enough to differentiate those buildings with fire safety codes followed and those who do not. In fact, without oversight, there will be a perverse financial incentive not to have the building follow safety codes to save money and compete better.
"My question still stands: if I go smoke in a bar, and 3 out of 4 bars are smoke-free, will I have violated the rights of people who don't want to be exposed to a smoke-filled environment?"
That scenario implies that you are in the 1 out of 4 bars that allows smoking. Unless there was some other significant difference between the bars (location, accessiblity, etc.) I'd have to say no, because I'm making the assumption that if only 1 of 4 bars allows smoking, chances are pretty good that only smokers will go there. Of course, that does leave open the issue of the people who work there. So, I'm not sure. This is a tough issue. I don't claim to to have the perfect solution, but the status quo absolutely needs to change.
The main reason I'm inclined to answer your question with a "no" is because in the situation you setup, there is a very clear choice for non-smokers. And it fits very nicely into the exemption compromise that I brought up earlier. That even with a ban, establishments could file for exemptions, as long as they posted some sort of "Smoking Allowed" sign, and restricted entrance to those 18 and older.
Posted by: Jason on February 11, 2005 11:51 PMWell. What if 1 out of 4 restaurants want to operate without proper care for meat products and people get e coli there once a month? Should they be able to continue to operate?
Would it be ok if they posted on their door "we don't handle meat well." Should the health department permit them to continue to operate in this manner?
What it 1 out of 4 roofing companies decided not to supply harnesses to their workers?
Should they be allowed to do so if they choose even if this is one of the largest sources of fatalities in the construction industry? The workers can go somewhere else to work right? The employer has total control over what, if any, safety devices to give to the worker?
You've watched THOUSANDS of smokers throw lit cigarretes out of car windows?
Smokers on the WHOLE are simply rude?
My Goodness!
I hope no one passes a law based on YOUR testimony....
The non-smoking effort is developing much like all of the other hot-button issues the liberals throw at us. (remember the "I voted for Kerry beause I hate Bush" mantra?). It becomes a cult mentality. The anti-tobacco movement does not want you to check facts, consider civil rights, compromise,...They want you to foam at the mouth and display complete irrational and emotional behavior against smokers. This is what the socialists, communists and our dear liberals do. They LOVE victims!! Loud irrational victims! It's what get's their oppressive laws passed.
Once you understand this, you may feel a little silly - being manipulated and used....Maybe a little scared of what's next on the oppression agenda......?
Yep That's the difference. County Health Boards don't allow restaurants to have a laissez faire food handling policy. Not for the last 75 years anyway.
Even if the poor meat handling policies are known to all of the customers, the health department will shut the business down. Yes, in every state in the country.
Should restaurants have a right to risk the health of willing customers by playing "e coli Russian roulett(e)." I guess one could argue the issue in the abstract. But in reality, the answer is no.
Too dangerous. There's simply no business "right" to serve improperly aprepared and potentially dangerous food even if the customer could go somewhere else.
Posted by: Erik on February 12, 2005 01:14 AMRegards,
anstranger
I'm all for it (although it seems reasonable to exempt stand-alone taverns; but oh well). Where do I sign?
Posted by: Michele S on February 12, 2005 01:41 AMThanks for the input. The interesting thing is that there are 4 cities now in Texas that are smoke free and Montana is on the brink of going smoke free.
Here's what I found on the Oklahoma state web site:
Secondhand smoke is a known cause of cancer in humans and also causes heart disease and stroke. Passive smoking is estimated to cause more than 700 deaths in Oklahoma among nonsmokers each year. It also causes irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. Secondhand smoke-induced irritation of the lungs leads to excess phlegm, coughing, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function.
Its the reason this state will remain blue, too many repubs/conservatives willing to throw away principles simply because it doesn't bother them.
Posted by: dave on February 12, 2005 03:31 AMI laughed my butt off for several minutes after reading that :-)
You are absolutely correct. When we finally turn red, we'll have a blue spine. Principles, common sense, strict interpretation of the constitution, these things are what Republicans are supposed to stand for, but after being assimilated into this state's blue culture, we all forget what is right and start to compromise. We rationalize away all that and become blind to our mistakes. This smoking ban is just another step, making some of our blood just a bit bluer.
Posted by: Doug on February 12, 2005 08:59 AMOf course this won't be popular but here is my 2 cents.
I live in a real small community. We have 1 store, 1 resturant, 1 bar...(oh yes, but we have a bank LOL).
If this ban was become real, the resturant and bar(it is one business) would suffer, if not go out of business.
This is "real" for small communities. It isnt about "choices" of going to another establishment (without driving 35 miles), we dont have choices. The people in these small towns accept this when they go to dine or drink. They UNDERSTAND that is ALL they HAVE, so they make the best of it, and TOLERATE it.
It's called give and take. It is a small price to pay for living (by big city rules) in a rural setting, but we shouldnt have Big City DICTATE our "choices".
One more Point to an above post: If you have seen THOUSANDS of smokers throw there cigs out of windows, you should have turned them in for littering (they have a 1-800 #). Dont B*tch about it, do something about it, it is illegal to litter
If smoking is a legal activity, then the atampts to ban it in private businesses opens up a lot of cans of worms. If it is illegal, then you get what you're after in a much cleaner manner.
Posted by: krm on February 12, 2005 09:24 AMThat might be the case if the reason for the ban was to protect smokers from themselves. But that isn't the issue, it's to protect non-smokers from the residue left behind by smokers.
Drinking Alcohol is a legal activity, but you are banned from doing it inside a moving vehicle, and there are lots of other restrictions about where and when you can drink as well. Something doesn't need to be outlawed to be regulated. In fact, regulation is often the far better alternative. Would you rather see smoking made illegal, or simply limited by location?
I don't smoke, but I have no desire to outlaw smoking. Its a personal choice, self-destructive as I may think it is, it's still your body, your choice.
Where I draw the line is when your choice affects my body.
Posted by: Jason on February 12, 2005 09:47 AMHaving said that, be careful, voters. You really don't want too many people quitting. Cut into tax revenues that you will have to replace at some point. Your elected officials are addicted to tobacco tax revenues. So, for as much as they talk smack about people quitting, they seek to impose higher taxes, knowing that with increases of smoking, they win! Yippee!!!
My only request is that you apply the same levels and concepts to alcohol. Across the board. I want to see the taxes, bans, and public service announcements. Want to see bars forced to give up serving alcohol so that I can go in and enjoy their establishment as a non-drinker. And, the same logic applies, if not infinitely bolstered.
Public safety? Elminate all indoor drinking public/private to cut down on rapes, assaults, drunk driving, premature deaths, financial problems, domestic violence, intemperate behavior, and battery. Workplace safety? Same logic applies, but includes sexual harassment, hate crimes, simple battery.
Health? Diabetes impact, liver disease, STD reduction, reduced health costs, abortion reduction, drunk driving victim reduction, lowered public safety costs/higher availability.
So, hey. I can go outside. Not a problem. Now, if you are REALLY concerned about health, workplace safety, costs, and such, I'd expect you to support applying the same measures to alcohol. It would be a much higher revenue base for tax purposes, better 'bang for the buck' on costs, and have a significantly higher impact on society to the positive.
Funny thing is, most people shy away from this fairness plan, for after all, we really are talking about attacking OTHER people's vices, not ours. (The logic be damned, I want MY vice intact , cheap, and available.)
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on February 12, 2005 09:52 AMI would suggest that you don't socialize, work, or be around those person's whose "choices" affect your body.
Your choice to support 901 is taking far more away than just choices of others. Your support will destroy family business in small communities.
Let the business decide whom it wants to do business with.
You say that you shouldn't be subjected to 2nd hand smoke, and I say I shouldn't be told that I can't smoke in my car. If you dont want to sit in my car with me, dont. I wont smoke in the cubicle next to you either, as that would violate law.
Remember, the Jungle of the Big City will always RULE, because of populace, but those that don't live there, should have a say in HOW THEY LIVE, WHERE they live. Whether it's smoking or the GMA it is all revelant to GOVERMENT RUNNING OUR LIVES.
Don't forget us lil people who dont have a voice when it comes to BIG issues. Think about how it affects EVERYBODY, not just the Populated areas.
Posted by: Chris on February 12, 2005 10:04 AMNo more waking up to a hubby with bad breath!
No more worrying about the "other" driver after 9 pm on the highway.
Go to a Mariner game and DRINK POP!
Just think, the economy in the rural areas would skyrocket with the Homemade still's emerging everywhere.
College kids would actually have more brain cells to learn with.
The list is endless....I don't drink, and frankly have lost a parent to it, so I suppose I could say that sitting next to someone who is drinking is Emotionally Hurting me, from the memories. I guess I could go to another establishment, but hey, I WANT TO SIT HERE, to hell with the drinker's right. I WANT MINE.
Same thing with the smoking ban. Think out of the BOX, and remember you are making decisions based on EVERYONE'S life when voting, dont be selfish, and don't let the Goverment take anymore RIGHTS, even if it is the right of another, it is Still a RIGHT.
Posted by: Chris on February 12, 2005 10:18 AMSmoking bans have either a postive or neutral effect.
See my initial post. None of the doom and gloom predictions have come true where the peer reviewed economic studies have been conducted in
New York State, California, Oregon (Corvallis), North Carolina (Chapel Hill), Arizona (Flag Staff), Colorado. Texas (West Lakes Hills) and many other places.
Approximately 30 percent of the US is already smoke free with no adverse economic effect.
Many of these areas have substantial Indian land with gaming establishments
Posted by: Erik on February 12, 2005 11:11 AMI guess it is OK for small communities to lose valuable businesses, that would be as you put it "negative" affect. Doom and Gloom as you put it, would happen in these small communities. I live in washington, not any of the other (cities) you cited in your post.
It's ok Erik, I hope you dont need a hamburger or want to stop by one of the "hole in a wall" establishments on your way to the coast, for a Drink, there wont be any left. Better pack a large Ice Chest full of food and drink on your next trip out of the Big City, it will be your last Chance.
I am glad (and NOT surprised) that Cal's non-smoking rule has not hurt restaurants in general and the CJ employee indicated that they would like to do it here, but it's easier when everyone has to do it.
Sorry that offends you, but blowing smoke in the presence of others who dislike it and/or are allergic to it (there are many out there that are--be glad you are not one of them) at others is SO last century.
Posted by: Michele S on February 12, 2005 12:32 PMTook a while and well worth the time. This was all related to my comment there are zero (okay, actually said ZERO) peer-reviewed papers showing harmful health effects of second-hand smoke. Checking these sites I'm not seeing anything to change my mind on that. The first is EPA, which all the others then refer back to. And the EPA is a compilation of 30 studies, which maybe someone with all day to download pdf's will be willing to wade through.
Or maybe just a little common sense will do? Several of TimMans reference sites claim second-hand smoke contains TWICE the nicotine and tar. One (from Canada) claims second-hand smoke has FIVE TIMES as much carbon monoxide. Is it just me, or does anybody else wonder how a smoker can exhale MORE nicotine and tar than he inhaled? Exactly how does that happen??? And carbon-monoxide- you know people exhale carbon dioxide not carbon monoxide. Again, any increase in CO would have to come from the person. Just how is that supposed to happen???
The "science" here is weak, to say the least. Not that that should particularly matter. We're free to enact all the unscientific laws we like. It's just that as a conservative I happen to think we should be extremely reluctant to enact any laws that encroach on individual property rights. We should do so only when confronted by very strong, compelling evidence of a broadly based public goal. And maybe not even then.
Why not even then? Because as in this situation, people can argue the costs and benefits every which way forever. But the one thing we know for certain we are doing is taking away some individuals rights. And I can sure understand why some people will be all right with that. We even have a term for such people. We call them liberals.
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 12, 2005 04:19 PMTake the time to read them.
The above studies cited are peer reviewed scientific studies which are accepted by very state in the nation and the federal government as well as very republican and democratic surgeon general.
Second hand smoke contains a great number of known cancer causing carcinogens including arsenic and beneze.
For starters, you may want to research these chemicals and the studies that establish their connection to cancer and other ill effects.
Posted by: Erik on February 12, 2005 05:14 PMIF YOU DON'T LIKE THE SMOKE, DON'T PATRONIZE THE BUSINESS! (yes, I am yelling)
We do not need to live in a nanny state! There are plenty of non-smoking establishements already and if you vote with your wallet and your feet, there will be many more (especially if you tell businesses you don't do business with them due to their smoking policy).
Private business should keep the right to determine whether or not they will allow a LEGAL activity to occur on their property.
Posted by: Eric on February 12, 2005 05:44 PMThe arguement that studdies show no adverse impact from bans doesn't hold water with me. The point is not an economic one for me, but simply a matter of an individual business being able to decide whether or not to allow smoking.
As for the suggestions of a sealed room for smokers, I say it is from the front of my bar to the back - and form one side to the next. How's that for sealed. Don't like it? Don't do business with me!
Posted by: Eric on February 12, 2005 05:55 PMNo doubt there are carcinogens in second-hand smoke. That seems obvious enough. No need to be tendentious about it. What's far from obvious though is if there's enough to pose a health risk in people who may only be exposed briefly and on occasion to very dilute levels. Lots of things that are toxic at one level are harmless at lower levels.
Maybe you feel such low levels are still hazardous to your health. Maybe also your threshold of when it's justifiable for people to take away others property rights is vanishingly low?
Posted by: Chuck Miller on February 12, 2005 06:16 PM"The "science" here is weak, to say the least. "
Agreed...but Erik says…
"Take the time to read them. The above studies cited are peer reviewed scientific studies which are accepted by very state in the nation and the federal government as well as very republican and democratic surgeon general."
Not sure I understand the "very" term misuse, but...I have yet to read any evidence of bona fide peer review in any of that nonsense posted. Instead, I saw a bunch of political hackery...
Better to claim that each of these "peer reviews" is exactly what they are... Pot & Kettle science…
“The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism.”
Dr. Michael Crichton, 2004, “State of Fear” p571…
I vote with my wallet and my feet. I am a smoker and I eat at restaurants that have smoking sections! I love IHOP. The IHOP in Lacey is non-smoking. So, when I want breakfast, it's Denny's and their smoking section! When they are all banned, oh well, I'm a good cook! I have also returned to shopping on Fort Lewis. I retired several years ago and had been shopping on the local economy in Lacey. I am withholding my 1500.00 dollars in taxes on cigarettes and gasoline from Washington State! If Fort Lewis closes, I'll go to Oregon where they don't have sales tax.
Can you imagine if all smokers in Washington went on strike? I think it's 18.50 per carton..... it's got to be many millions in taxes every year, just from smokers.
Posted by: sgmmac on February 12, 2005 08:11 PMA cigar club, that allows only people that have acknowledged and accepted the risks, would STILL count as a 'public place'.
I like the comment about painting the flag on them which would make the entire exercise free speech. Just make it an upside-down UN flag. (It'd be closer to speech than flinging poo anyway.)
Posted by: Al on February 12, 2005 08:56 PMmmmmmm. Yum. Me too. I always liked the multiple kinds of syrup they have there.
Can you imagine if all smokers in Washington went on strike? I think it's 18.50 per carton..... it's got to be many millions in taxes every year, just from smokers.
Good. Starve the goverment and help your health. That's win win.
Dr. Michael Crichton, 2004, “State of Fear” p571…
Good fiction. Here's mine:
You're not drunk if you
can lie on the floor without hanging on - Dean Martin.
(breathing carcinogenic smoke is bad)
Posted by: Erik on February 12, 2005 09:20 PMPromiscuous sex also has negative health consequences.
Yet, if you try to discourage people from fooling around, (much less outlaw it), you're made out to be some kind of Puritan fanatic.
Posted by: Matt J. Kurlander on February 12, 2005 09:27 PMYes.
Posted by: Erik on February 12, 2005 09:29 PM"Promiscuous sex also has negative health consequences."
I know, that's why I gave it up when I gave up on my X-husband back in 94!
I don't drink either!
I live on coffee and cigarettes. Soon they will have the tax police on the border though. The Washington State Revenue guys are suing online cigarette distributors to get names so they can tax them! With the death taxes gone, they'll probably double their efforts since they have been extorting the lost revenue from the Indian tribes.........
Great Night to you!
Good Night.....
And if you poll a lot of people at restaurants where smoking is allowed somewhere in it (what a joke, it drifts everywhere like the peeing and non-peeing section of the pool), I guarantee you they'll say "I come here even though there is smoking because I like the food, but I'd prefer there be NO smoke in the restaurant." I'm tired of everything that wants to please the 25% who want to light up while annoying the other 75%. I 'm just so DONE with that.
And don't say 'just go somewhere else. In my case, there's only one restaurant that I consider worth going to for the food in my community, so why should I get it ruined by rude stinky people and be forced to not spend my money there and not enjoy the place, too? In this case, the restaurant is losing out while I'm also losing out. People go to restaurants specifically to eat. Not to smoke. Some just happen to smoke while they're there. They can always smoke at home. Why aren't THEY asked to stay home instead of me?
Yep, I'm a radical on this.
Posted by: Michele S on February 13, 2005 12:15 AMIf you dont consider the Studies, and only use Personal feelings to decide your vote on 901 that is too bad. Your vote shouldn't be based on "feelings", it should be based on what rights are being protected, or taken.
"I get it ruined by rude stinky people and be forced to not spend my money there and not enjoy the place, too?"
It is exactly the attitude above that get's smokers riled up. Using your analogy, we could apply it to people who have "unruly" children. Try sitting next to a 2 yearold who's parents are ignoring the tantrum, and enjoy your meal, you see, those parents have rights to dine there, even with a child.
"rude stinky people" are PEOPLE too, and not all of them smoke, some just feel they are better than the other, because they DON'T..
Posted by: Chris on February 13, 2005 06:42 AMThe last link is a good one,
"The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."
It helps illustrate a very good point: Studies funded by a group which already has a postulated view are considered suspect...
I would say that Government studies are no different, and perhaps worse because whomever gets the grant money will want more, coming back to Congress year after year for our tax dollars...
For the record, again, I suspect that this initiative passes purely on the 75/25 split on non smokers versus smokers. And, I don't really care whether I have to go outside or not. (I do resist outdoor smoking bans though, including parks, public facilities, vehicles, and such. And, knowing the penchant for 'momentum,' I know that the people who drive this will go there next)
On the other hand, though, I see a lot of stress and contention here. Quite a few of the smokers seem offended at more restrictions, and seem like they take a large measure to have their vice NOT affect others, yet are lumped in. And, normal, freedom loving folks seem quite enthused about imposing their morals and decisions onto others. It's a heartfelt topic, and there's no clear right or wrong here.
Again, I wish that the time, penalties, efforts, and effects would be placed on alcohol.
When was the last time you heard about
-special emphasis patrols on the highways during holidays to look for drivers under the influence of nictotine?
-Having to seal off a concert crowd coming out in a nictotine induced riot?
-reports from Harborview of the surge of nicotine infused domestic violence victime?
-tragic deaths when nictotine related street racing reduced inhibitions and judgements for a driver that lost control and killed innocent bystanders
-Nicotine induced driveby shootings?
-Your friend, full of tears, concerned about being pregnant after hitting a bar and someone putting a 'Mickey' in their cigarette and having his way with her?
-Special emphasis patrols around the end of the school year, watching for kids going into their party places for a 'carton?'
An argument can be made that this is a diversion from the topic; a strawman. And there's a good case for that argument.
However, on the basis of immediate, long term, high cost, high impact on society, you can see my blurbs as being silly as I do. The stories above are all alcohol, not nicotine, and we know it. And, if we think about it, we can rationalize attacking smokers on the basis of numbers. (The liberals have taught you well. Have an agenda, target the weakest part of your opponent, overwhelm with sheer numbers on emotion, promise to limit the impact to the immediate plan, then find a new target in the same group and go after that. And, if you can get money out of it, TAX it.)
Folks, again, I expect this to happen. It saddens me that normal people who respect others buy into the liberal method, but hey, no one's perfect, and 'groupthink' comes along even among the most honorable.
I just think it would be so much more sad for people to create a smoke free world, only to have their last moments looking out the car window in horror as a drunk driver was inches away from plowing into the car and killing the person with the pink lungs.
Want to go after vice? Go after the big ones, or ALL of them. Including yours.
Steve
First, WHY is an initiative needed in the first place? If the split is 75/25, the elected types know that they won't burn bridges with voters. With a D/D/D split between the executive and legislative branches, a simple majority, based on party lines is all that's needed to accomplish fiat.
But they won't. Why? To abdicate in a fashion that keeps them in the good graces of the tobacco money? That they can say, 'hey, it was the voters, not us?" To maintain leverage on the ability to control dollars going to the opposition because they are addicted to tobacco money?
For those free thinkers out there, I encourage some thought on this. Something smells. I know where Gregoire is on it. She took the settlement and funded a bunch of groups that supported her for Governor. No tobacco settlement, we'd be talking about Governor Sims?
Additionally, there's something to be said for language that would mandate clean smoking areas inside 'sterile' security zones, such as the airport. How many people could we get out of those security lines, if only we would provide them with an area inside the zone where they could smoke without causing secondhand smoke concerns? Mind you, a number of airports already have areas with great ventilation, clean surroundings, and maintain a reduction in pass through security through that means, and it works.
Seems like some measure would sweeten the pot for the voters. Might even lead to some win/wins, if you engaged the opposition for a mutual, collaborative effort that benefitted all.
Steve
Posted by: patches Pal on February 13, 2005 11:34 AMEveryone says how good for business a ban is...has anyone spoken to owners/managers in Pierce County?...many will tell you that they almost lost their business. It all went to the Emerald Queen...and that is where it will go again.
The attempt was made to dissuade them, for they knew not where they were going...
The cliff is close...
Posted by: marks on February 13, 2005 07:13 PMPlease stay tuned and for those who are interested, I would appreciate seeing that too!
Posted by: Len on February 15, 2005 12:57 PMSorry--but just be glad you don't have asthma or allergies. A lot of people have it bad and don't need the hassle of someone else's cancer stick making their lives miserable
Posted by: Michele S on February 16, 2005 12:18 AMIsn't that worth a try?
Posted by: Len on February 16, 2005 08:38 AM