November 06, 2005
Endorsements From Our Contributors

The tables below give you the endorsements by our contributors.  These are all I have so far, but if more come in before tomorrow I will add them to the tables.

Statewide Measures

measureSharkanskyGoddardMillerRosenberg
I-330yesyesyes--
I-336nonono--
I-900yesyesyesyes
I-901noyesnoyes
I-912yesyesyesno
SJR 8207--yesno--

King County Measure

measureSharkanskyMiller
Proposition 1nono

King County Offices

officeSharkanskyMiller
ExecutiveIronsIrons
Dist. 1PyeattPyeatt
Dist. 2----
Dist. 3LambertLambert
Dist. 4PottharstPottharst
Dist. 5WellsWells
Dist. 6HagueHague
Dist. 7von Reichbauervon Reichbauer
Dist. 8----
Dist. 9DunnDunn
SheriffRahrRahr

Port of Seattle

officeSharkanskyMillerRosenberg
Pos. 1CreightonCreightonCreighton
Pos. 3HaraHaraHara
Pos. 4JolleyJolleyJolley

Seattle Measures

measureSharkanskyRosenberg
Monorail 1nono
Monorail 2yesyes
Health Care Advisoryno--

Seattle Offices

officeSharkanskyRosenberg
MayorRunte--
Council Pos. 2Conlin--
Council Pos. 4CorrCorr
Council Pos. 8McIver--
Monorail Board 8GoldbergGoldberg
Monorail Board 9NoblesNobles
School Board 5FellnerFellner

You can find Timothy Goddard's endorsements for Snohomish County here and his discussions of I-901 and I-912 here and here.  By tomorrow noon, at the latest, I will have a post up discussing the reasons for some of my choices above.  And, if I have enough time, I may even do a post with endorsements for the Kirkland elections.

More:  As you can probably tell, I have updated the tables, and more than once.   Those interested in understanding Timothy Goddard's thinking on I-912 should look here and here.  Those interested in understanding Matt Rosenberg's thinking on the same initiative should look here and here. (And that promised post of my own is coming real soon now; I spent all morning working on a long post on the causes of the riots in France.)

Posted by Jim Miller at November 06, 2005 05:00 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Have to disagree with you on a couple of issues, Jim and Shark. County Prop. 1 seems misleading at first, just another big government handout, but after talking with the props sponsor, David Irons, I've got to vote yes and that one.
Also, you endorsed Conlin over Paige Miller? Not really much of a choice there so understandable but I've found Miller to be a bit more business friendly than Conlin (even if he is against the monorail, pretty much his only redeaming quality).
Finally, why no endorsement for position 6 on city council? Have you had chance to look into Paul Bascomb? I don't know too much about him but he is definitely a fiscal conservative (and rumored to be a Republican!)
Otherwise, great job on the endorsements. Thanks for providing the service.

Posted by: Mark on November 6, 2005 05:42 PM
2. Jim and Stefan:

I couldn't help but notice that in King County
Council district 2 you failed endorse Rep
Brian Thomas who I know is a conservative.
Now I know he rubbed some people the wrong way.
I'm also aware that the King County Gop has
turned there back on him.


Its unfortunate that it had to be this way.
Brian should have gotten the party support
as well as yours.He recieved 100% of the vote
at his district caucus that should have been enough.
Its to bad some people have to act 3 year olds.
We all should be grown up enough to the right
thing.

Posted by: phil spackman on November 6, 2005 06:29 PM
3. Phil,

Brian Thomas is an unstable whack job, and those who are aware of his actions/comments/philosophy completely understand why he gets no support from the KC Reps. You have to wonder why an entity that exists to elect R's won't give him the time of day... it's because no self respecting person (especially Republican) would associate themselves with him.

Posted by: Hard R on November 6, 2005 07:06 PM
4. Posting your endorsement is a great idea! It's so refreshing to see endorsements that AREN'T bought and paid for by the liberal left! (As unfortunately appears to be the case with the Seattle Times, PI, and yes...sigh...even the King County Journal..)

Thanks!

Posted by: Deborah on November 6, 2005 07:58 PM
5. How'd you decide on the contributor list? What about Matt Rosenberg's "No" on I-912?

Posted by: Daniel K on November 6, 2005 08:28 PM
6. You missed one. Matt Rosenberg supports I-901 as well and has posted several times on it.

Timothy Goddard supports I-901 as well. See his blog for comments.

As far as I-901, the Washington State Republicans have taken no stance on I-901 and are split on the issue. They have taken positions on the remainder of the initiatives.

Numerous groups support I-901 and the Washington Restaurant Association has now taken a neutral position on the issue.

Currently 64 percent of people in a 11/1/2004 Survey USA support I-901

Posted by: Erik on November 6, 2005 08:52 PM
7. Is the Brian Thomas in question the same one that used to represent the 5th District in the House of Representatives in Oly?

Posted by: Misty on November 6, 2005 10:33 PM
8. BIG NEWS...maybe
Over on HA - I just saw a post from "Rufus" that claimed that the latest poll showed Irons 53%, Sims 42% and others 5%. Does anyone know what poll this is- if it is valid/certified, the number of voters sampled and when it was released ?

Posted by: KS on November 6, 2005 10:57 PM
9. Woodinville City Council Recommendations:

Council Pos. 1 - Chuck Price

Council Pos. 3 - Hank Stecker

Council Pos. 5 - Mike Roskind

Council Pos. 7 - Peter Tountas (write-in)

Water District Pos. 1 - Ron Braun


Posted by: Elvis is the King County on November 7, 2005 12:50 AM
10. Hey, I wish you all would have posted your endorsements a littler earlier. Some of us actually do fill out our ONE absentee ballot a few days early. ;-D

How about posting by the Friday before an election?

Posted by: Mary on November 7, 2005 08:05 AM
11. Hey, I wish you all would have posted your endorsements a littler earlier. Some of us actually do fill out our ONE absentee ballot a few days early. ;-D

How about posting by the Friday before an election?

Posted by: Mary on November 7, 2005 08:05 AM
12. Hey, I wish you all would have posted your endorsements a littler earlier. Some of us actually do fill out our ONE absentee ballot a few days early. ;-D

How about posting by the Friday before an election?

Posted by: Mary on November 7, 2005 08:05 AM
13. What are you basing the endorsement for Rahr on?

She's a big cog in the Sims machine. There's a reason I wrote checks to Schmidt from 60 miles south of KC.

Posted by: Andy on November 7, 2005 08:23 AM
14. As long as we aren't forced to go absentee, I very much appreciate people waiting until the end to post endorsements. It allows everything to be considered. and encourages poll voting. You made the choice to vote absentee Mary, which is also the choice to make your final decision before all information is known, sometimes.

Unfortunately, the way the law is going, instead of this being a choice it is one day going to be required :(

Posted by: Sarah of WA on November 7, 2005 08:48 AM
15. I am actually inclined to vote YES on King County Proposition 1. It passed the King County Council by a 12 to 1 vote. David Irons voted in favor of it, as did four of the other five GOP members.

Kathy Lambert was the only NO vote on the King County Council. I have to respect Kathy's stand for principles, but all the other GOP members -- including conservative stalwarts like Steve Hammond -- supported the measure.

At some point, we actually have to vote to INCREASE our property taxes. This is because state law only allows the total dollar amount collected by a given government to be increased by 1% per year without a public vote, even if inflation is a lot higher than 1%.

Regardless of who wins the county executive race, King County will likely have other property tax increase votes, since a 1% increase won't be enough to support general government functions. Just like many other cities and counties who have been putting off tax increase votes will be forced to put these issues on the ballot.

Posted by: Richard Pope on November 7, 2005 09:07 AM
16. Shark, Shark, Shark,

If you want to oppose I-336, fine. But I can't believe that you'd choose emotion over logic on I-330.

I-330 is NOT about damage award caps or attorney fee limits. It is EXACTLY the kind of thing that Dem legislators try to sneak through. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The real core of the initiative is that insurance companies want to exert even more control over your healthcare choices and doctors want to find yet another way to hide the (admittedly small) portion of their ranks that really screws up.

If they want to write a CLEAN initiative for attorney fee caps, I'll be the first to sign. Damage award caps? Depends on the numbers and the details. Signing away my right to hold a doctor and/or hospital responsible if them maim me? NEVER!

Don't be a sucker, Shark. This initiative is one straight out of the Lefty playbook.

Posted by: Mark on November 7, 2005 09:12 AM
17. Misty,

It is not Brian Thomas from the House of Reps. That Brian was a hell of a guy, the Brian running for King County Council is a horrible angry person.

Posted by: Hard R on November 7, 2005 09:29 AM
18. I understand why the Republican party is split on I-901. I have a hard time reconciling my own positions on it. The free market capitalist side of me says that private businesses should be able to decide what is best for them, and there should not be an unfair advantage given to tribal concerns. The personal interest side says there's alot of places I would like to go and enjoy but currently do not because of cigarette smoke. The 25 feet in front of entrances is bothersome to me as well...let people smoke outside if they want. Without that provision, I would probably lean to a yes vote. Also, there should be an exception for places designated as "cigar rooms" or smoke shops. I'm guessing this will pass despite my no vote.

I also think I-330 is flawed, but it is a start. What I would have liked to see is not only a cap on punitive damages, but also a cap on the insurance rates. That is the only way the desired effect will occur. Without the insurance cap, there is no incentive for the insurance companies to alter their rates at all. My guess is that an initiative which addressed both issues would have failed the one subject rule and we would be back to square one. If I-330 passes and is followed by an insurance cap, I will support it.

Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 10:03 AM
19. This non-smoker is decidedly against I-901. It accomplishes nothing but criminalizing behavior that is otherwise legal. Largely unenforceable, it promises to be a law that will be administered haphazardly and vindictively.

It unfairly favors the indians, who will be exempt, and punishes private business.

It is based on junk "science" and emotion. I recognize that it will probably will pass, because Washington has turned into a nanny state, but I can't let that stop me from at least trying to save our personal freedoms.

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 7, 2005 10:42 AM
20. Yes on I-330?

This inititive will do nothing to lower med-mal rates.
However, it will allow health providers to force you to sign away your right to jury trial before recieving care.


I can't believe conservatives line up behind this initiative. It strips power from individuals and strengthens insurance companies.

Posted by: EastHill on November 7, 2005 11:27 AM
21. east? What power do we have now?

And isn't that the idea? Get more insurance companies to come back in the state and rates would go down?

Posted by: swatter on November 7, 2005 11:33 AM
22. Tim Goddard is an idiot. If he took 5 minutes to learn anything about I-901 he would learn the connections between it and taxes.
Smokers right now pay almost $400 million a year in taxes solely on the sale of cigarettes. If smokers buy there cigarettes at the only places it will be legal to smoke in this state (tribal businesses) then they keep this tax money. So instead of the state getting about $20 a carton in taxes it will get around $5 to $7. A whopping 65% decrease in revenue collected.
Multiply this out by say 20%( we'll assume only 20% of smokers buy at tax exempt tribal facilities) and you come up with at least 40 million just in lost cigarette taxes a year to the state.This doesn't count lost B&O taxes, unemployment costs, or sales tax lost to the state because of smokers going to the only businesses that can accommodate them.
This is just the tip of the iceberg as tribes going on a building spree to take advantage of being allowed to be the only places in the state you can legally smoke. I-901 will cost the state easily $100 million a bienium in lost tax revenue and associated costs.
When you hear that sucking sound on Dec. 9th it's the sound of your tax dollars being sucked to tax exempt tribal facilities.
If the state is short $100 million who is going to make it up??. Sure, they reduce spending
to make up for the revenue shortfall. Ya right!

Posted by: Dave on November 7, 2005 11:45 AM
23. The flaw in the argument of smokers buying all of their cigarettes at the tribes at the expense of all other places is the notion that smokers ONLY buy cigarettes when they are out in a bar or restaurant or ca$ino. They don't. The state will still get plenty of tax revenue from smokers who buy their cigs at the grocery store or the mini-mart.

I'm still voting no on I-901, but not for that reason.

Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 11:53 AM
24. Dont Worry Dave !!!!

All of us Smoker's will have quit by then, and MOVED out of this "Green" state, that is run by the most selfish liberals I have known.

Of course our property will be taxed to the hilt, but a nice rich, lattee drinking, tired of condo living, Seattlite will buy my house and 10 acres (only 4 acres usable) and allow me to move to Boise, where you are still free to be FREE.

Dont worry, in the mean time, I will take up drinking, that is still legal I think???? Oh yes, our own STATE is the ONLY Seller of Booze.

My oh My, they are really concerned for my health!!! What is Next "Second Hand Drinking"

Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 11:57 AM
25.

Hey Palouse who said anything about smokers buying ALL their cigarettes at tribal facilities? I said 20% and that is conservatively $40 million a year in lost tax revenue just on cigarettes. They're also cheaper at tribal smoke shops so if that is the only place that can legally cater to smokers why is it so hard to believe SOME will buy their cigarettes there. Just like when you go to Costco you stock up. Smokers will simply do the same.

The three richest tribes in this state own the land that surrounds where 3/4 of the state live and that means 1 million smokers have a tribal business willing to cater to them within easy driving distance. Stick your head in the sand if you want to but I'll be proven right on.

So junk science doesn't bother you, lies and misrepresentations don't bother you from the I-901 side but one sign printed up not by the campaign but by someone who nobody knows changes your mind. Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life here.

Posted by: Dave on November 7, 2005 12:11 PM
26. Dave, your anecdotal analysis is still flawed. You use a 20% figure for smokers who buy their cigs at tribal establishments, but who is to say it isn't 20% right now who do the same to avoid paying higher prices? For your analysis to be relevant, you would have to have evidence of the percentage of people and the amount of cigarettes they purchase who currently buy their cigarettes at bars/restaurants/ca$inos and then estimate how many of them would switch exclusively to buying them at the tribal establishments.

As for the economic impact of people going to the tribes at the expense of private business, the evidence in other places does not support that conclusion.

Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 12:37 PM
27. Palouse....As a smoker, I myself will frequent smoker friendly places(indian establishments). When I go out to spend my hard earned money on a dinner, I will go where I can smoke. You see I enjoy my cig's. While I am there, I will purchase them also. I can't afford to stand outside on the white line, in the rain to catch a drag, and a cold. I will sit/gamble/eat and SPEND where I can smoke too.

Just my 2 cents

Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 12:47 PM
28. Chris, I am sure you are not alone in your desire to frequent places where you can smoke. I have no doubt that tribes will benefit in some degree from smokers migrating there. However, there are alot more of us non-smokers, and many of them are like me who have avoided certain places because of smoke, who will visit if this becomes law.

Don't get me wrong, I am still voting "no", but I admit I won't be that upset if this thing passes.

Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 12:51 PM
29. Palouse

By all means vote no, or yes, as it is your right. I can understand your reasoning for not going to those establishment's. I feel that this if passed, infringes upon our private rights even more. That is why I am voting NO!!

Again, Just my 2 cents...

Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 12:56 PM
30. As to your point about buying cigarettes when you go out to eat, I am sure there are additional sales the tribes will gain by that as well, but I don't believe it will cut into tax revenue to the extent Dave says.

Take a look at the statistics of cigarette sales by type of store (e.g. grocery, mini-mart, bar etc). Then you have to estimate the number of smokers who will switch exclusively to buying at the tribes (this initiative does not ban selling cigarettes in bars, only smoking them there).

Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 12:59 PM
31. Correction to my blathering

What I meant to say is "If this passes, my rights as an individual are more surpressed"

Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 01:00 PM
32. Palouse...

I would not buy cig's in a bar, where I could not smoke. It would drive me crazy to have a fresh pack and not be able to SMOKE them.

As a smoker, I am already made to feel as a second class citizen. Right next to the panhandler on the street who needs a bath, and a few bucks.

I just wish that if they are going to make it illegal to smoke, other than your home or car(and i am not sure if this is still legal, driving and smoking) then why dont the State just quit selling the damn things, and make us quit cold turkey.....That would be more humane than bannishing us to the street like lepers.

Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2005 01:05 PM
33. Chris, I do agree that cigarette sales in regular bars/restaurants will decline because patrons cannot smoke them there, but that is not to say they will cease completely. Smokers can still purchase them for smoking on the way out to go back home or to smoke on the way to the next establishment.

Honestly, I agree with alot of what you say and don't have an argument against in many cases. But having gone out to a few bars in a state recently that bans smoking everywhere, I can say it was fantastic coming out and not smelling like cigarettes.

Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 01:13 PM
34. I 901 is extremely bothersome. First of all, the free market is working on reducing the number of establishments that allow smoking. Ask any smoker how hard it is to find a place that allows it anymore. Even going to a bar is no certianty that smoking will be allowed. In fact, many "corporate" bars don't allow it anymore (ie. Red Robin, Billy McHales). Right now both smokers and non-smokers have options. That's how it should be.

Imagine if 50 years ago when more people smoked someone came up with an initiative that did the opposite of I 901 where smoking had to be allowed in every place open to the public and every private club. Not really fair.

I know I get really stressed out when I see someone eating (or purchasing) a fatty, sodium laden meal. I just know that this will lead to their becoming unhealthy and a drain on our health care system. Seeing this behavior really stresses me out. Especially when I food stamps used to purchase this meal. I have a heart murmur and any added stress is a real health hazard to me and others with similar conditions. So the stress this causes me is a real threat. Instead of not going to a McDonalds or Burger King...I think I'll get an initiative going that bans unhealthy foods within 25 feet of any business open to the public. This way, people that get stressed like I do won't have their health effected by this anymore.

It's just my $.02. But I would love to see someone try it.

Posted by: Mark D on November 7, 2005 01:43 PM
35. I don't smoke. I don't go to places that are smoke-heavy because of the smoke.

But I will still be voting No on I-901.

I have no right to tell private businesses that they CAN'T allow smoking, if that is their choice to do. And I have even LESS right to tell the government to tell private businesses that they can't allow smoking in their establishment.

It's all a choice thing, see.

Posted by: Sarah of WA on November 7, 2005 01:44 PM
36. Thanks for posting this!

Posted by: cc on November 7, 2005 02:10 PM
37. Right on Sarah.

I should add that many people have skin conditions that makes wearing certian types of clothing impossible. In a public place, they may bump into someone wearing a fabric that irritates their skin. We should ban clothing in public places.

Also, some people are bothered by perfume. It makes their eyes water and can be extremely irritating. Because of this, we should ban perfume in any business open to the public.

I become stressed out (detramental to my health because it makes my blood pressure rise) when I hear a person talking really loudly or when I hear a child cry in a public place. Let's ban speaking and children from any business open to the public.

I get stressed out when I see a local sports team losing on tv when I'm in a public place. Instead of going to a place without a tv, I think televisions should be banned in places that do business with the public.

Posted by: Mark D on November 7, 2005 02:24 PM
38. Mark--
If 51% of people were annoyed by those things, then you bet they'd be banned. That's called life in a democracy.

Posted by: Timothy on November 7, 2005 02:41 PM
39. If 51% of people were annoyed by those things, then you bet they'd be banned. That's called life in a democracy.

However, we live in a representative democracy, which means there are rights beyond the power of the mob.

Posted by: South County on November 7, 2005 02:56 PM
40. Except that here in WA State, we have a fourth branch of government, called The People, and we get to roll back gas taxes, ban smoking, and recall mayors of Spokane to our hearts content.

Posted by: Timothy on November 7, 2005 03:00 PM
41. [i]Except that here in WA State, we have a fourth branch of government, called The People, and we get to roll back gas taxes, ban smoking, and recall mayors of Spokane to our hearts content.[/i]

Hear, hear!

Thank goodness it would require a Constitutional amendment to repeal the initiative process, else the elites in Olympia would have done so already. They have already usurped our right to referendum with the ridiculous emergency clauses.

Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2005 03:36 PM
42. I would be inclined to support a more reasonable indoor smoking ban. I-901, in my opinion, goes too far by extending the ban to 25 feet from the entrance.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 7, 2005 05:10 PM
43. Though I disagree with them on this issue, I understand some don't support 901 because of their thoughts about "property rights" and "choices", etc.

For Palouse and Stephan:
It seems not to support it due to the 25FR is shortsighted. I have a friend that visited NY recently where they have this law without the 25FR. People there are complaining because people that choose to smoke naturally congregate in the doorway and the smoke blows into the building. They get no smoke-free indoors if the immediate outdoor area isn't. I don't think it was put in 901 for the hell of it. We might as well get it right here the first time by including that provision (it's not new...Albuerqurque and other communities have them). People would soon be bitching here if we didn't have it.

By the way in my Voters' Pamphlet, it states 25Feet OR a lesser approved distance. I'm not sure how you could get more flexible than that.

On the whole, there are a lot more benefits to this initiative than the few imagined "what-ifs". Sometimes I think we tend to get stuck in overthinking minutia with the big prize right in front of us.

I look forward to not wallowing around in secondhand smoke any longer at the places I want to go. I'm done with it. And I'm sure as a "side benefit" some workers' lungs will benefit too. If we were already smoke-free in these places, we'd never think of allowing it knowing what we know about the negative health effects of secondhand (unfiltered) smoke...just like we can't in offices.

That's the big picture for me, and it looks pretty good. Long-term this initiative will be a non-issue. We'll wonder what took us so long to do it.

Posted by: Jason Sieverson on November 7, 2005 07:48 PM
44. Yep Jason, one day (soon) when there is a government entity that tells us what you can eat, whether or not you can drive, maybe even when you can die, you'll wonder what took us so long to get there.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 7, 2005 09:13 PM
45. Jason said, "... 25 Feet OR a lesser approved distance. I'm not sure how you could get more flexible than that."

I couldn't agree more. I have kids who are extremely sensitive to smoke. It actually gives them a sick stomach or headache. We can steer clear of most smokers, but the one that's really hard is waiting in a outdoor line or at an outdoor concert. Invariable the person next to us lites up.

Couldn't 901 go a bit further and ban smoking while waiting in public lines? Not many have put them out when I politely ask them to.

Posted by: Mike J on November 7, 2005 09:24 PM
46. "Yep Jason, one day (soon) when there is a government entity that tells us what you can eat, whether or not you can drive, maybe even when you can die, you'll wonder what took us so long to get there....."
Posted by alphabet soup at November 7, 2005 09:13 PM

Funny how you go from a smoking ban to a "government entity that tells us what you can eat, whether or not you can drive, maybe even when you can die". Not compelling analogies. Sounds like you're trying to change the subject...now back to I-901.

If it takes "government" by the vote of the people to rid ourselves of secondhand smoke via 901, then so be it. In this case, it works. The status quo isn't.

And if freedom means "More of The Same" with being exposed to secondhand smoke, then it's a freedom that has no value. At least make it sound enticing.

Posted by: Jason Sieverson on November 7, 2005 09:35 PM
47. Timothy...please read the Federalist Papers adn the constitution...we don't have a democracy on purpose. We have a republic...also, the whole basis of the Bill of Rights is so that a majority can't opress a minority on very fundamental rights. Especially when that minority is engaged in legal conduct.

If majority rules...and we aren't concerned with the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights anymore..then I'm sure a majority of people could vote to take your property and turn it into a park. Timothy..please read up on the constitution and the theory behind it and what it actually means. The founding fathers were extremely careful to avoid a "majority rules" type of system.

If "majority rules" was it...the problems that could be created are enormous...I guess you wouldn't mind gassing Jews...If the majority thought it was okay? Extreme example..kind of..it actually has happened though, when a "majority" didn't care and when a "minority" had no protection.

Posted by: Mark D on November 7, 2005 09:46 PM
48. Jason...thanks for taking my rights away. I can't wait to come up with an initiative that limits activities my children find irritating or annoying. There are children that are allergic to the Sun. (Look it up if you think I'm kidding.) Do you think we should ban the Sun from public places? Also, using children as the basis for a law is an excuse for bad parenting. Even the "enlightened" liberal democracies of Europe haven't banned smoking..and they have socialized medicne. I can't wait to get a few of initiatives started on the things that annoy me in public.

Posted by: Mark D on November 7, 2005 09:52 PM
49. Not compelling to you perhaps. Too bad. It is not in any way changing the subject. Apparently you are willing to acquiesce to a nanny state....mores the pity.

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 7, 2005 09:53 PM
50. Dave Wilkinson admitted last Friday during a debate on KIRO that the 25 foot rule WOULD NOT force smokers out into the streets. Recently, some media members and health officials actually bothered to walk the high density bar areas(instead of relying on hearsay). When presented the evidence on air, Mr. Wilkinson had no choice but to recant previous claims. Sorry folks, but "we'll be forced out into the streets" is officially an urban legend. 25 feet is less than the distance you park your car near a stop sign. Many smokers are voting "yes" because they've told me it's not that big of a deal to step outside for a minute and take a few steps sideways.
In addition, in every instance nationwide and worldwide, after one year of implementation, polls have shown 77-82 percent approval ratings and 92-98 percent compliance.

Posted by: Jay Holzman on November 8, 2005 12:43 AM
51. I'm a non smoker who's hated cigarette smoke all my life, but I will most certainly be voting AGAINST 901. There is a principle at work here of infringing on basic freedoms. I view this kind of legislation as one of the most insidious in the realm of taking away basic liberties. And the no on 901 folks are lying? What about the fear mongering commercials in favor of 901??? There's the commercials that were on in the summer showing a bug sprayer in an office (yeah, like that's really a comparison folks) and then there's this commercial out right now showing a mother trying to get her two small children throwing a haze of smoke at a restaurant. Thing is, MOST restaurants in this state are non-smoking for the entire establishment. Good ole big brother liberalism there.

Posted by: Steff on November 8, 2005 08:23 AM
52. To Mark D:
I'm not a big fan of the majority voting over the minority in SOME cases...not in this one though...when that minority's actions (smoking and secondhand smoke) are having a negative impact on others. It's just the nature of smoking...there's no way to "cleanly" smoke. People's essential need for clean air trumps people's non-essential choice to smoke.

Smoking is a choice made by people that affects others around them when in an indoor envirornment open to the public or workplace. Most analogies I've seen (re: the sun) don't equate to this. People affected by those people who choose to smoke and create secondhand smoke have looked into it and taken action to effect change. People that choose to smoke can still puff away...again, just not around others in an indoor building open to the public or workplace.

As far as the "liberal democracies in Europe" they are banning smoking...we don't live in a bubble here. Italy, Ireland, Sweden, Norway and Malta have. Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales will be following. Not to mention outisde of Europe...India, Uganda, Bhutan, etc.

To alphabet soup:
One can call it a "nanny state" or any other knee-jerk scary and unattractive adjective. In the end, it's simply freedom from smoky indoor air...that's clear to me. I know what I'm "wishing for", and I know what I'll get...the same smoke-free laws that 9 other states, many municipalities, and the countries mentioned above already have. If they were wildly unpopular or ineffectual, we wouldn't even be having this conversation in here WA state.

Thanks. Good dialogue.

Posted by: Jason Sieverson on November 8, 2005 09:32 AM
53. I know there is mainly King County people on here but I recommend the following
Snohomish City Council Picks:
Chris Harper
Doug Thorndike
Swede Johnson
Randy Hamlin

Posted by: Teri Jo Countryman on November 8, 2005 09:45 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?