Smoking Ban Passes
Initiative 901 (Washington’s statewide smoking ban initiative) passed in yesterday’s election with an apparent huge margin. Starting in 30 days, Washington will become the strictest state in the [thanks for catching those missing words, L At!] nation with regards to where you can and cannot smoke in public.
Now, I gotta admit, as an asthmatic, I like this idea. I like the idea of being able to go out to a club, or even have dinner in a restaurant whose ventilation is sketchy (and thus creating a “smoking” and “haze” separation of seating areas). So on the one hand, yay health! But, on the other hand - are we legislating morality? Does this just fall into the same category of law as the four-foot rule for strip clubs? I don’t know.
People who say we (the people and/or government) don’t have the right to legislate things like smoking are apparently forgetting that there is legislation on alcohol and where you can drink it, as well as drugs (both medical and non). It’s not unusual to have this sort of policy in place. What is unusual is how public opinion towards smoking has changed so dramatically, and caught some people up in the change while others have been at least somewhat left behind.
I suppose when it comes down to it, I say that you can have your vice - as long as I don’t have to have anything to do with it. Smoke up inside your home, but please don’t smoke next to me at the bar.
Related posts:
It is not legislating morality. It’s not a law to protect and reform the smoker but rather to protect those who choose not to smoke.
I, for one, will be so happy to come home from a bar or club and not smell like a dirty ashtray!
As far as the rapidly changing public opinion on smoking, you have to remember that in the 50’s they didn’t have the scientific data we have now that shows what smoking does to one’s body. I doubt the change in attitude reflects a changing public morality as much as it reflects a changing public intelligence and awareness.
it’s not a moral issue. cigarettes are a legal substance. there are smoke free bars and clubs all over seattle. if you don’t want to breathe smoke, go there. the government is not my mother.
actually, i’m not so unhappy about the bars. whatever. but the 25-foot rule is foul. how can you say i can’t smoke outdoors? how are they going to enforce this?
Zingzing, you’re right about the 25-foot rule. It’s ridiculous and impossible to enforce. Maybe they were thinking it would prevent people trying to get around the law by holding a burning cigarette outside the door while remaining inside.
Are there any smoke-free bars in Capitol Hill? I’m curious as I’ve had no idea.
Trey: There’s one, The Stumbling Monk - but I don’t know if they got around to getting their license to serve more than just beer.
Zingzing: We legislate alcohol, which is another legal substance. Can only serve it in certain places at certain times. We legislate a LOT of things along these same lines.
However, I do agree that the 25 foot rule is silly. What’re people in Pioneer Square going to do - stand in the street?
I think this law is great. One of the few that I’ll see an immediate effect from.
In my Voters’ Pamphlet it stated 25 Feet or a lesser approved distance (buffer). That’s between the business and its local health department to work out.
The main reason for the buffer is so that smoke doesn’t creep back into the buildings. If it wasn’t there, people that choose to smoke would naturally congregate in the doorways like they do in NY (another place with a smoke-free law but with no buffer) and other places. I think it was smart of WA to get it right the first time by looking at other communities’ experiences. People would be complaining if it we didn’t have it. I think it’s reasonable for people that choose to smoke to place themselves out of the way of those that choose not to by not positioning themselves close to buildings.
Overall, the ban/buffer will be a positive and a non-issue.
I think that we the people need to let the goverment know that there laws suck.what gives them the right to tell me where I can or cannot do something.We can’t say our allegiance to the flag because it offends someoneTHEN LEAVE we can’t pray because it offends someone THEN LEAVE we can’t have the ten commands up because it offends someone YHEN LEAVE get the message.People stand up for your rights.
My question is this: has anyone considered the both the economic and practicle ramifications of this? Case in point is Great Brittain where a similar smoking ban went into place last year. As of last moth revenues were down by more than 30% in the same bars. Why? Because people with a nicotine addiction can’t stay as long. Think about it. If you are in a really crowded bar and start feeling the urge…You have to get up and leave. When you get outside you have to find a place that is an “acceptable” distance from the door. When you return if you cannot find a place to sit, you may choose to just leave.
This also really sucks for those of us who are not ciggarette smokers. 90% of the time when I go to a bar it I make my choice in whether or not they are cigar friendly. I smoke at these establishments becuas they usually have the proper ventelation for this kind of activity and my house doesn’t. Now I will be going out less and finding other places to smoke cigars. MORE LOST REVENUE…MORE LOST TAXES…LESS MONEY IN THE POLITICIANS POCKETS.
Just my tow cents.
I don’t think that pointing to other existing legislation necessarily makes this law OK. That’s assuming that the regulations of alcohol and other drugs are as they should be. In any case, this is far more draconian than the rules about alcohol - at least there are places I can choose to go to have a drink, but there is no longer anywhere I can choose to go and smoke.
I rarely take my pipe to a bar, and I tend to avoid the smokiest bars because I find them unpleasant, but I’m still furious about this law, because it removes choices. I don’t want my friends to have to leave the table every time they want a smoke.
The opposition to the smoking ban seems short-sighted. First of all, I wonder how smokers would feel if non-smokers had a perfume they could wear that would cause nearby smokers to feel ill instead of feeling the nicotine buzz. Following the smoker’s logic, non-smokers should shrug and say, “well, if you don’t like it, find a bar where no one is wearing this perfume. It’s my god-given right to wear it because I enjoy it.” In this context, wouldn’t you support a law prohibiting this perfume? It’s the same thing.
Chris, why should laws be more concerned with commerce than for health and individual rights? Would you rather laws protect cash flow? I don’t understand the logic.
Kelly:
That’s a very good analogy. And I would still oppose banning it. I would hope that I could find some bars that banned it themselves, just as some bars ban smoking, but that’s not the same as forcing every bar to ban it.
I like the idea that Washington is a nation.
(And just to clarify, the Kelly with the good analogy is not the Kelly that blogs for Metroblog Seattle!)
Bwahaha - thanks for catching that typo, L At!
I’m so glad I was able to find this blog and vent a bit! I agree with all of your posts about this and especially think the 25 foot rule is absolutely ridiculous! I would like for some supporter of this measure or even better, a politician to explain to me how my standing on the street, outside, smoking a cigarette is more harmful to the person standing next to me than is the exhaust from the cars and buses passing us by!
Personally, I think that the $1.8 million that was spent in support of this campaign certainly could have been put to better use….anyone see the yard in front of the courthouse downtown lately??!! I’m sure the people lying under those blankets could have used a few of those dollars!!
Sharon-
I’m a supporter of I-901.
Please see my previous post above to get an answer about the 25Fr or buffer.
Well, I can definitely agree that smoking can damage people’s health, and maybe they have a right to say that they shouldn’t have to be put at risk when they go out for coffee or for a drink. that’s fair.
My problem is this: there are a few cafe’s and other such places in seattle where everyone smokes. I was always under the impression that if you chose not to smoke you wouldn’t go to those places, esecially since the food isn’t necessarily great, or good at all, and the service blows. If I was a non-smoker, I wouldn’t set foot in the place, even if there was a no smoking rule. In fact, I will probably never go back to a particular cafe, simply because nothing about the place is appealing, besides that it’s open 24 hours and I could smoke.
Enforce the smoking ban, fine. Just give us one haven. just one. I don’t care that I can’t smoke in a denny’s or an IHOP, just give us one place where we can smoke that has heating and coffee.
Washington state’s smoking ban as it currently stands is far too draconian. While I believe that it is reasonable to have a smoking ban in areas that are shared by all members of the public, I think that I-901 was far too extreme in its scope. I suggest the following two changes and return some appearance of reason to the smoking ban.
Allow smoking in dedicated Cigar Bars. No other state has gone so far as to ban cigar smoking in cigar bars. Establishments with physically separate cigar rooms and dedicated ventilation systems should be exempted from this ban. No non-smokers that I know of have any reason to enter a cigar shop or cigar bar, so their health is not being compromised. These venues are patronized only by cigar smokers with very little chance that any non-smoker would ever walk into one or be affected by them.
Allow smoking in Cigar Stores. Cigar stores should be exempted provided that the sale of OTP (other tobacco products which include premium cigars & pipe tobacco but NOT cigarettes) is their primary business. No other state has banned the consumption of cigars in the store that sells them. If a business owner cannot sample cigars or pipe tobacco in his own shop, how can he make proper business decisions with regard to what to purchase. No other state restricts the consumption of cigars to this degree and Washington should not either.
A cigar is a legal product and as such, there should be a place for a person to enjoy one if he or she so chooses. Cigars are not cigarettes and should not be regulated with the same disdain.
http://amendwasmokingban.blogspot.com/