Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
CDA

Journal ces's Journal: Washington State Smoking Ban 34

Journal by ces

It appears there is a anti-smoking initative on November's ballot in Washington State.

Unfortunately I fear this ban will likely pass as the Yes on I-901 campaign has much more money behind it and many more political and media endorsements than the No on I-901 campaign.

Now I know some of you non-smokers are probably saying to yourselves "good riddance", but let me tell you why this is an extremely bad initative and not needed in Washington State:

  • Over 75% of restaurants and bars are already non-smoking by their own choice in Washington State. Non-smokers already have plenty of choices if they don't want to be exposed to tobacco smoke.
  • The law bans smoking within 25 feet of any door, window, or ventilation intake. This means bars and restaurants for the most part won't be able to allow smoking on outdoor decks and patios. Not only that but both the business and the smoker are subject to fines, this makes businesses responsible for policing smoking on surrounding public streets, sidewalks, and private property. This is far more extreme than any other smoking ban elsewhere in the US.
  • The law does not apply to businesses located on tribal land. Washington has a very sucessful tribal gaming industry located in close proximity to many of the state's population centers. Many of the non-tribal mini-casinos stand to lose business to tribal casinos. In addition a certain amount of the bar and club business will probably be lost to tribal casinos as well.

The good news from my perspective is I haven't seen any yard signs or other advertising in support of this Initative. The bad news is I haven't seen any against it. I can only hope that the courts will find some basis to toss the initative out on or at least toss the 25-foot rule if it passes.

BTW why the hell is the pharmacutical industry funding these smoking ban campaigns so heavily. Is it maybe because they stand to make a killing selling smoking-cessation products?

Furthermore I'm uncomfortable with this intrusion on private-property rights and the attempt to ban certain behavior through the backdoor when an outright ban won't pass constitutional muster. This can also be seen in the Seattle City Council's recent attempt to regulate strip clubs out of exsistence.

Again, I'm sure some of you out there would support an outright prohibition on tobacco, but just wait until it is your turn. Everyone engages in behavior or activities that someone somewhere considers disgusting, unhealthy, dangerous, or immoral.

This discussion was created by ces (119879) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington State Smoking Ban More

Washington State Smoking Ban

Comments Filter:
  • I used to live in Maine, and this was instituted. Fine. (I don't smoke, y'see...)

    I currently live in Massachusetts, and they did the same thing. Fine.

    In both cases, there were all sorts of people concerned that the ban would force people to go to businesses in nearby states (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, etc). When the ban took effect, you know what happened? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Life went on as it usually does.

    I'm okay with smoking bans, largely because I figure that second-hand smoke has bee
    • Well the two problems here are:

      * Pierce County businesses lost business when their smoking ban was in effect whereas the tribal casinos in Pierce County saw increased business.

      * The law makes businesses responsible for policing the surrounding area to ensure nobody is smoking within 25 feet of a "entrance, exit, window, or ventalation intake".

      Mind you I object to these bans on GP, especially since here in Washington non-smokers don't lack for places to go where the don't have to put up with cigarette smoke.
      • Mind you I object to these bans on GP, especially since here in Washington non-smokers don't lack for places to go where the don't have to put up with cigarette smoke. If you don't like the smoke, don't fucking patronize the business.

        What about the employees of these businesses?

        Even if they smoke (strike one), they are exposed (in an establishment that allows smoking) to second-hand smoke for extended period of time (strike two); more so than any of the people that come to the business-in-question to spend
  • I don't think this is a problem. It's not a matter of people having a place to go. Smokers can go to non-smoking restaraunts, they're just not allowed to participate an act that injures other people.

    People should be allowed to do anything they want to themselves in the privacy of their own home. But I think that they shouldn't be allowed to do things to other people in public. It seems wrong that I should have to walk down the street and be expected to be "tolerant" of my lungs being damaged.
    • I don't think this is a problem. It's not a matter of people having a place to go. Smokers can go to non-smoking restaraunts, they're just not allowed to participate an act that injures other people.

      You don't like cigarette smoke, don't go to places that allow smoking. If you hate Mexican food you don't go to Mexican restaurants. Same idea.

      It seems wrong that I should have to walk down the street and be expected to be "tolerant" of my lungs being damaged.

      Excuse me but car exhaust is doing more damage to you
    • Ok One point , there is no evidence that second hand smoke significantly damages a non smoker .. even if you live in the same house as them .
      That said i would not smoke a cigar near any friend of mine who doesn't smoke .Because it smells bad if you don't smoke . ... Es ist Seit for Anderung , Wir mussen die Raucher ausrausen .

      If you walk down the street and don't want your lungs damaged then wear a gas mask , because emissions from petrol burning engines. Avoid paint fumes , they will cause significant dama
      • I've heard people say that before, but medical experts don't seem to aggree with that outlook:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2053840.stm [bbc.co.uk]

        http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html#intr oduction [epa.gov]

        http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=3012640 [americanheart.org]

        I believe that people who say there is no connection are often smokers thesmelves trying to justify their habit to the people they are harming. I have not yet seen any credible evidence that the position you are advancing in your comment is accurate,

        • Second hand smoke is not a real issue its a media scare tactic .
          WHO found that second hand smoke did not increase the risk of lung cancer or emphysema .
          The AMA found it did , though the independents they had research it said no . This was disregarded as a vote winner.
          The European commission said that the second hand smoke studies were nonsense and sudo-science .

          I don't smoke near non-smokers for the reason i stated above (i know they don't enjoy the smell) , I smoke in private and away from people . I smok
          • Sorry deleted par to of that during a reworking .
            Who did say that it increased the risk by 20 % in a close environment ,(up to 0.23 percent)

            should have read "WHO found that second hand smoke did not increase the risk of lung cancer or emphysema unless in a closed environment "

            There may be a small increase , in closed environments (though studies differ a lot on this) , but definantly not near a doorway (if on the external side) .
            The who studied also stated that this was long term exposure (IE: living with t
          • If you want to work there then you have to accept that

            That's hardly true. To the contrary, it's very strongly established that we do not have to suffer undue physical harm on the job. I would say that the qualification of smoking as an occupational safety hazard is only up for debate because some people want to make it a social issue while ignoring that it is really a health issue. It's really no different than if I argued that I should be allowed to urinate at my cubicle because I find it unpleasant to hav
            • Read second reply .
              I corrected the missing bits from that one .

              If you want to work in a smoking establishment then it is your own choice if there is any health risk involved .
              I don't smoke with non smokers anyway so it doesn't really apply to me except in a smoking bar .. If people come in then they should expect people to smoke.
              I am not talking about places with smoking areas as that doesn't work segregating the smell .
              'But if a bar says it allows smoking and you go in there then fair be it , its your own
              • This is why smokres are so villified. We are concerned about the health problems you are forcing on us, and you are telling us that we should be the ones to leave public because of it. I doubt you would say the same thing if people were allowed to walk around punching people, and they justified it by saying that if you don't like it, you should seek out a no-punching zone and just stay off the sidewalk.

                Also, I'm sorry, but I don't believe you about the health issues. There are several reports that say that
                • OK I admit at first I was trolling a bit as I am fed up of people telling me what I can and Can't do .
                  No for the cold hard logic .
                  A bar is not public property , It is a publicans property which is open to public trade .. If the publican chooses to allow smoking then it is clear that a non smoker accepts that , If they don't like it then go to a place which does .
                  I don't go to "MEAT INC" and expect that they will sell my a vegitarian meal (I friccking hate the legislation that forces places to provide altern
  • We have some kind of city ordinance like that, here. I don't smoke, but I opposed it. And the reason is..
    Again, I'm sure some of you out there would support an outright prohibition on tobacco, but just wait until it is your turn.
    ..someday, I know it will be my turn. Divide and conquer.
    • Bingo!

      When the people behind this are done with us smokers they'll move on to alcohol, red meat, chewing gum, potato chips, soda pop, fatty foods, deodorant (I wish I was kidding), thong underwear, or some other 'public nusance'.
      • Smoking isn't just a public nuisance. It's one person actively causing harm to another by proximity. The only way it's differentiated from simple assault is that it's not immediately obvious that the smoker is injuring people. In fact, I think smoking in public should be a punishable offense. I think throwing a lit butt out a car window should be simple assault.

        Also if I eat an entire bucket of fried chicken on a park bench, the man next to me will not suddenly have fat entering his arteries. If he smokes,
        • I understand what you're saying about park benches and littering on the roads, since those places are really public. But in my town (and also in this Washington proposal), they define "public place" to include private property that happens to be available to the public -- i.e. restaurants, workplaces, etc.

          A nonsmoker has just as much right to a public park bench as a smoker, and may have to sometimes visit certain public buildings such as a police station, City Hall, etc, so I would join you in demanding

        • The 'anti-scent' crowd makes claims that their chemical sensitivity can be set off by scents in things like the laundry detergent you used to wash your clothes. In fact their arguments sound very similar to the anti-smoking crowd.

          Many vegans claim to get physically ill from the smell of cooked animal products.

          In fact if we go back and look at the arguments used by supporters of Prohibition we find a lot of parallels to today's anti-smoking bans.

          Given enough hype for long enough, I'm sure that just as much o
          • There is a difference between having an allergy and being injured by smoke. Smoke injures all people, irrespective of their allergies. Only people with allergies are harmed by detergents. Also, people who smell meat and "get physically ill" are not actually being hurt.

            All the other things you mentioned have positive uses, but smoking does not. It only hurts people, and I should not be hurt by your habits. That's what it comes down to. Smokers choose to smoke for no reason at all, and then they hurt other pe
            • There is a difference between having an allergy and being injured by pornography. Pornography injures all people, irrespective of their allergies. Only people with allergies are harmed by detergents. Also, people who smell meat and "get physically ill" are not actually being hurt.

              All the other things you mentioned have positive uses, but pornography does not. It only hurts people, and I should not be hurt by your habits. That's what it comes down to. Consumers of pornography choose to view pornography for n
      • Excuse me but car exhaust is doing more damage to your lungs than any tobacco smoke you might briefly encounter.

        I am unconvinced of that: tell it to kids who have blacklung because their parents smoke. And even if it were true, tobacco smoke causes a lot more discomfort. Like, I can inject you witha virus that will kill you slowly over 20 years, or I can punch you repeatedly in the stomach: the latter is not as bad, so hey, that makes it OK!

        FWIW the evidence in support of second-hand smoke being harmful i
  • Any more than the smoking ban on airplanes was about patrons. It's about the wait staff (flight attendents.)

      If you work in a restaurant you have a right not to be breathing second hand smoke all day, end of story. It's an occupational safety issue.
    • Any more than the smoking ban on airplanes was about patrons. It's about the wait staff (flight attendents.)

      If you work in a restaurant you have a right not to be breathing second hand smoke all day, end of story. It's an occupational safety issue.

      Thing is a lot of those same staff in establishments that allow smoking are smokers themselves.

      Non-smokers who have a problem with being around smoke tend to work in non-smoking establishments. The reverse is true as well, many smokers will seek out
      • It doesn't matter if 90% of the employees of these restaurants are smokers - each of the remaining individual employees has an absolute right to keep their job and an absolute right to do it in safety.

        Have you got a link to that study? They measured a fixed set of known carcinogens? How? Because as a chemist I find that very difficult to believe, although it depends on the grill - they were cooking over coals? Off I go to medline.

        That's bull:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd [nih.gov]
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I know nothing of it other than what you posted in your JE. But based solely on that information, NO. WRONG.

    The situation you described, where most venues were voluntarily smoke-free, is what I would like to see happen. That’s the free market at work. If enough people want a smoke-free bar, those bars will thrive and the remaining will ban smoking to regain lost patrons. Vote with your wallets, people.

    If the powers that be think they can get away with it, try adding tobacco as a Schedule 1 drug, just
    • I agree 100%, you've hit the nail on the head why I don't like smoking bans in general and this one in particular.

      Furthermore the fact that businesses are required to police the surrounding area just adds to the outrage.

      On the other hand I doubt we'll see any state outright ban tobacco, they make far too much money off cigarette taxes to ever do that.

      OTOH I don't doubt that big-pharma is going to ensure it is increasingly difficult to remain a smoker so the smokers will buy lots of their smoking cessation p
    • The situation you described, where most venues were voluntarily smoke-free, is what I would like to see happen. That's the free market at work. If enough people want a smoke-free bar, those bars will thrive and the remaining will ban smoking to regain lost patrons. Vote with your wallets, people.

      But how do you know an establishment is non-smoking? That's why I prefer a law that would specifically designate establishments as smoking, with a sign at the entrance.
  • Lincoln, that is, passed a no-smoking thing for the whole city. No smoking in any public businesses, bars, restaurants, anything. I'd have voted against it, not because I'm a smoker, but I think it's sad to have to see a group of smokers having to huddle together in the winter for heat, while they smoke out in the snow & whatnots. When they start making fat people eat out in the cold, then I'll be happy. Fatties drive up health insurance costs, take away their rights like we have the smokers.

    Anyway,

  • Public (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    The law bans smoking within 25 feet of any door, window, or ventilation intake. ... both the business and the smoker are subject to fines, this makes businesses responsible for policing smoking on surrounding public streets, sidewalks, and private property.

    It's not enforceable. A business has no legal authority to tell someone to stop smoking on a public street or someone else's private property, and as such cannot be held responsible for people who do so. I am in favor of a ban on smoking near main entra
    • I am in favor of general smoking bans, but not a total one. That is, public places (bars, etc.) that allow smoking must be specifically designated as smoking establishments, perhaps with a permit. And of course, no ban on private property, though perhaps limiting the amount of excess smoke that drifts into public places.

      here in tempe, az, we've had a smoking ban for the past few years. the laws here are *insane*

      suppose you own a smoke shop. you know, where you sell cigars, pipes, etc. if you wish to a
      • we've also got the "environmentally drifting smoke" nonsense for around entrances and exits to businesses. i've seen it enforced. it's entirely stupid

        If you mean making sure no one is smoking at or near public entrances of non-smoking establishments, I am all in favor of that. Yep.

        But this doesn't need to be legislated! Why must we punish some group?

        It's not about punishment of you, but protection of me. If it were not about me, and were all about you, no one would care.

        Why can't the consumer make that

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell

Close