New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | June 14, 2005

As D.C. gets set to pass a citywide smoking ban, Julian Sanchez invites all parties out for a compromise smoke on the front stoop.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← VHS, RIP | Main | "History's Has-been" →

See all 66 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.14.05 @ 6:09PM|#

When they first passed the ban in NYC, IIRC, they had certain exemptions such as spending thousands of dollars to build ventilated rooms, owner operated bars and whatnot. Of course, soon after the State ban came into effect and didn't allow for those exemptions.

Amazingly, Philly is just holding on, but it's only a matter of time before the ban passes here too. What's funny is that the ban is not having trouble passing because of anything worthwhile, it's just that our city government is so incompetent and corrupt that they can't even do this right.

First NYC, soon Philly...are there any cool cities left where I can still smoke? On second thought, you better not tell me. I'm sure they'll ban it once I move there.

|6.14.05 @ 6:12PM|#

Yes, outright bans are ridiculous. We all know that. Here in the greater Phx area, we've got some cities that have a total ban (Mesa, Tempe) right next to cities that don't (Scottsdale, Phoenix). There are some folks that won't go to Tempe, for instance, because there's no smoking, and some that won't go to Scottsdale because there is. Me, I'm what you would call a social smoker, but I don't care either way. The only thing that really bothers me is when the smoke is so thick, you can't see.

I have a question unrelated to the article, however. Why do journalists use so much latin in their writings? I realise that latin terms are used quite a bit in the legal arena, but I don't know latin, and every time Julian (or whoever) uses it in their posts or articles, I've got to look it up. Now I don't particularly mind learning something new, but isn't there usually an equivalent way of saying what you want in English? Latin is dead, right?

|6.14.05 @ 6:21PM|#

do you read the philly metro at all? every day under the "letters" section there's a new nonsensical argument about why smoking should or should not be banned. people just don't get it.

|6.14.05 @ 6:53PM|#

Lowdog, there are some situations where the latin (or French, in this case) word sometimes carries a certain sort of connotation that's lost in traslation. For example, fait accompli carries a connotation of being something that has been accomplished already or will soon be accomplished, and we are only now, after the fact, discussing it. It doesn't sound as impressive saying it like that, though, nor does it flow terribly well. So, the French is used. But, in many situations it's unnecessary at best and misused at worst (per se, anyone?) so I don't like seeing it too often either.

|6.14.05 @ 6:57PM|#

I forgot to mention that I also agree; in the case of this particular article it seemed like a bit of an overkill.

|6.14.05 @ 7:06PM|#

Speaking of smoking bans in DC...

When I was a rat in the warrens of Capitol Hill, the Senate passed a rule banning smoking, but you could still smell the cigar smoke coming out from the office of Senator Solomon of New York, who was the Chair of the Rules Committee.

|6.14.05 @ 7:12PM|#

Zach, I only read the Metro occasionally but from what I know of the paper it doesn't surprise me that the arguments are non-sensical. Try listening to Howard Eskin on 610 and you'll go absolutely nuts. As Julian pointed out, the only argument that holds any weight is employee health but no one ever seems to argue that, and no one ever is able to challenge the orthodoxy of inflated second hand smoke claims.

|6.14.05 @ 7:28PM|#

English phrases that mean the same thing as "fait accompli" include "sure thing," "foregone conclusion," "sure as shit."

|6.14.05 @ 7:41PM|#

Hate to be a pedant ...

Fait accompli is French not Latin and means literally "accomplished fact" but more than that as a common dictionary definition indicates - "an accomplished, presumably irreversible deed or fact".

Sometimes there is also the connotation of the person accomplishing the fact stealing a march on someone or soemthing.

... actually, I'm an incorrigible pedant.

|6.14.05 @ 8:02PM|#

"A hearing being held on the proposed ban today should make for gripping theater, but the ban's passage is now essentially sure as shit"

Much better.

|6.14.05 @ 8:08PM|#

"Foregone conclusion" would work better.

English is a rich and expressive language. With a little work, a good communicator can come up with a plain English phrase that conveys the intended meaning in a way that can be understood by his audience. In my opinion, there's hardly ever a compelling need to use Latin phrases in one's writing, let alone do it ad nauseum.

Matt Moore|6.14.05 @ 8:17PM|#

Y'all could move to Denver, but make it quick. The only reason we don't have a ban is because the current mayor owns several bars/restaurants. He's pushing for a statewide ban so his patrons don't go to the bar across the street in Westminster/Aurora/Golden.

|6.14.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Monsieur Darkly,

Funny, that's just what the Academie Francaise says about French.

"Aujourd'hui, l'Academie agit pour en maintenir les qualités et en suivre les évolutions nécessaires. Elle en définit le bon usage. Elle le fait en élaborant son dictionnaire qui fixe l'usage de la langue, mais aussi par ses recommandations et par sa participation aux différentes commissions de terminologie."

I say English is best because we steal all the good words from the foreigners' languages, and incorporate them into our language making our language that much better. La resistance est inefficace!

In other words, your weltanschaung is showing.

Tchuss!

|6.14.05 @ 9:06PM|#

Classical Tiger wrote:

Hate to be a pedant ... Fait accompli is French not Latin and means literally "accomplished fact" but more than that as a common dictionary definition indicates - "an accomplished, presumably irreversible deed or fact".

I love being a pedant and I believe Lowdog was referring to Mr. Sanchez's use of the phrase 'eo ipso' which is indeed Latin. Dipshit.

|6.14.05 @ 9:19PM|#

English is a rich and expressive language. With a little work, a good communicator can come up with a plain English phrase that conveys the intended meaning in a way that can be understood by his audience.

But see, words like fait accompli are essentially English words by now. Eo ipso is a little out of the ordinary, but many others are completely normalized by now. I don't personally see a problem with using foreign words or phrases, so long as there's a reasonable expectation that your audience will know (or can guess) their meaning. I'm sure that the first time someone used the Latinate word "illumination" (as opposed to good old Anglo-Saxon "lighting") someone somewhere complained because there was a perfectly good English word for it; now it's read without a second thought.

See also "Uncleftish Beholding" by Poul Anderson.

|6.14.05 @ 9:48PM|#

But see, words like fait accompli are essentially English words by now.

Yes, and that's why I wonder whether anyone really noticed the last two words of my June 14, 2005 08:08 PM post.

(You've got me curious about "Uncleftish Beholding" now -- I like Poul Anderson, but haven't a story by him in a long time.)

|6.14.05 @ 9:52PM|#

Ah, found it online. Not really a story, more of a physics lesson. Point taken.

|6.14.05 @ 10:06PM|#

I agree that a simple ventiltion requirement is all that is needed. How hard is it to put in an exhaust fan and open a window.

|6.14.05 @ 10:10PM|#

I noticed Stevo. Thought it was damn funny, too. Good thing my skull has paradox-absorbing crumple zones though.

Chris|6.15.05 @ 12:25AM|#

Last year, San Francisco banned smoking in all public parks. Conveniently, the city-owned golf course (huh?!) was exempted. The city council said the public golf course would lose business to private golf courses if it enforced the smoking ban. These are the same people who claim smoking bans for bars and restaurants DON'T hurt business or that such bans would magically IMPROVE business (from the supposed flood of new non-smoker customers).

|6.15.05 @ 2:06AM|#

Are you still going to be allowed to smoke cigarettes when you're buying crack in DC?

|6.15.05 @ 2:14AM|#

Howza `bout....

A hearing being held on the proposed ban today should make for gripping theater, but the ban's passage is now essentially our dread doom.

Of course, proposed, theater, passage and essentially all came into English from Latin and/or French.

I once proposed a slogan for my fellow Libertarians who were doing public speaking in order to sell the viewpoint to non-L's: Restrain latinate verbosity!

Bill Buckley was once asked why a sentence he wrote contained the word irenic, rather than the more familiar peaceful. WFB opined that it needed another syllable.

Kevin

|6.15.05 @ 3:32AM|#

Yes, and that's why I wonder whether anyone really noticed the last two words of my June 14, 2005 08:08 PM post.

I noticed them, but my sarcasm detector is impaired today, apparently. Sorry to overreact so much. Though I'm glad that I could share "Uncleftish Beholding;" it's a pretty brilliant piece of work (and is pretty much how German handles the whole borrow words / make up words debate).

|6.15.05 @ 3:33AM|#

Demented Francophile,

If you must use German, then please check your spelling and capitalization: Weltanschauung, not weltanschaung.

|6.15.05 @ 3:47AM|#

The San Francisco board of supervisors are a bunch of idiots. Their public park ordinance is both stupid and un-inforcible(at least in any practical way, it still gives the the cops a reason to fuck with you) but what are they gonig to to do? Ticket every bum smoking a cigarette in Golden Gate Park? Golden Gate Park is Huge. And so are the bums, and they're only a small percentage of the smokers in the park.Guess who's gonna get fined.(Randomly & indiscriminately)

|6.15.05 @ 8:18AM|#

"Their public park ordinance is both stupid and un-inforcible(at least in any practical way, it still gives the the cops a reason to fuck with you) but what are they gonig to to do? Ticket every bum smoking a cigarette in Golden Gate Park? ... Guess who's gonna get fined."
-Kris

Contestant: "I know Bob! The dorky tourists and any other semi-well dressed, wimpy looking, fat-walleted, ne'er-do-well!"

Chessy Game Show Host:
In the great game of 'Follow The Money'-- We have a winner!

|6.15.05 @ 9:21AM|#

Julian mentions that a more valid study of the effects of a smoking ban on business would be "the relative revenue changes over time in comparable smoke-free and smoke-friendly areas."

Looks like there will be an opportunity for someone to study post-ban DC vs. northern Virginia. It interests me as a Cincinnatian because it's looking like Ohio may go over to the darkside in 2007, and the northern Kentucky bar owners are quietly cheering us on.

|6.15.05 @ 9:26AM|#

All you pedants got so hung up on foreign phrases that you missed "corrolary." I believe the correct spelling is "corollary", although it's probably just a typo. When I'm typing fast, I sometimes mix up double and single consonants in such words.

|6.15.05 @ 9:40AM|#

Apropos of nothing, but I love how cities increase cigarette taxes "for education" and then a year later enact "no smoking" legislation, in effect eliminating all the revenue increase for education.

|6.15.05 @ 9:41AM|#

Chris,
As a former restaurant worker and frequent diner in the NoVa/DC area, I can vouch for their having already been a signifigant trend towards less smoking in restaurants around here. Over ten years ago I worked at one of the first all non-smoking restaurants in the area (Carlyle Grand in Shirlington). A lot of people came out to the restaurant that otherwise wouldn't have come out and so the place was quite successful. Neighboring restaurants were more than happy to get the smokers and they did quite well. It was a win-win, but I wonder if any economic studies take that increase in customer choice into account as it would not support their argument for a total ban. Once again, like the WoD, we see nanny-state busybodies hitching their wagons to an already occuring phenomenon and declaring victory.
Christopher Hitchens showed up and put in his two cents. Good for him. It's also worth mentioning that Carol Schwartz was also the person who resisted that stadium debaucle. She's no libertarian, I'm sure, but I think she almost warrants a Reason interview.

M1EK|6.15.05 @ 9:46AM|#

Julian has used the same argument here as the anti-ban people did (unsuccessfully) in Austin, so I doubt very much whether "hundreds of smoke-free bars" truly exist (it was a lie here, I suspect it is there too).

The fact is that the magic of the market did NOT solve this 'problem' to the satisfaction of the grass-roots for restaurants or airlines (both of whom later saw no drop in business after a ban passed by evil regulators). The grass-roots SAW this, and said, "huh, guess not ALL regulation is evil".

That's a tough hurdle for you to overcome. And every time you try to claim that this is a problem for the market to solve, people like me will be there to remind you that it took the government to solve it for restaurants and airlines.

|6.15.05 @ 10:04AM|#

M1EK misses my point, I think. First, the "hundreds of smoke free bars and restaurants" number doesn't come from me: It comes from the anti smoking people, and (before you ask) it excludes fast food places and the like.

Second, if you read the article again, you'll see that I suggest that the market HAS been slow to adapt to consumers' preferences for more nonsmoking venues. That's precisely why I say that legislation like Schwartz's could satisfy everyone, by kick-starting the transition to a new equilibrium where smoking and non-smoking places are in balance. (Ideally with the differential treatment to be done away with when the new equilibrium is hit.)

|6.15.05 @ 10:21AM|#

The free market just isn't fast enough to accomodate the busybodies. I mean, just because it will eventually come up with a better and fairer solution, if it doesn't happen within 6 months what's the point, right?

M1EK|6.15.05 @ 10:30AM|#

First comment withdrawn. Sorry, Julian.

Second comment holds. The market hasn't just been SLOW; it's been GLACIAL. The restaurant-going public has been >90% nonsmoking for a couple of decades now, and yet, until the smoking ban in restaurants passed in Florida, there were essentially only a handful of non-smoking eating options when I went home there last time before the ban a couple of years ago.

Same results here in Austin. Before the ban, essentially zero (beyond a few health-food stores), yet even most SMOKERS didn't want to smoke and eat at the same time.

At some point, one has to ask whether there are structural problems in this market which might effectively prevent it from EVER reaching the outcome which the grass roots deem acceptable. (for instance, >90% non-smoking patrons = 50% nonsmoking venues might be acceptable, but we never got anywhere NEAR that).

|6.15.05 @ 10:32AM|#

I love that the city of SF thinks it can stop people from smoking cigarettes in Golden Gate Park, when it can't stop bums from shooting up in Golden Gate Park, or on street corners.

M1EK|6.15.05 @ 10:34AM|#

Oh, the chunk I forgot:

In Austin, our anti-ban forces were using a handful of music venues which (at that time) had gone smoke-free as the argument against the "I want to see live music, but I can't because of the smoke" people. The anti-ban people used the existence of these venues as 'proof' that the market 'was solving the problem'.

Unfortunately, it didn't work for anybody who knew what they were talking about, since those handful of venues comprised:

1. A venue at the University of Texas, which was forced to go smoke-free years ago because UT did

2. A handful of venues downtown which did a lot of all-ages shows, and which were therefore forced to go non-smoking by the previous iteration of the ban (they could have gone over-21 and continued to allow smoking; some others chose that option)

3. A handful of venues downtown which made a lot of money off food (previous iteration of ban hit them as restaurants).

Before the ban N-1 and N-2 (N-1 was a minor update to N-2, which was basically the restaurant ban), the only smoke-free live music venue in town worth a damn was the one at UT.

|6.15.05 @ 10:40AM|#

In the live music case, I doubt there was a "problem" to solve. First, among concertgoers I suspect you'll find a higher proportion of smokers than among the general restaurantgoing population. Second, you need to take into account preference intensity. Most of the nonsmokers might well prefer a nonsmoking venue, but it's not intense enough at the margin to be a dealbreaker for enough of them to make it worth the club's while to shift when it is a dealbreaker for more of the smokers.

That said, though, I know the Black Cat here in D.C. often goes nonsmoking on the show floor on a case-by-case basis, at the band's request. (I recall Blonde Redhead, for instance, asking them to go nonsmoking.) Part of the reason they're able to do that without much hassle, of course, is that they've got a bar downstairs, so the smokers can just pop down, rather than having to leave the club.

|6.15.05 @ 11:08AM|#

Eventually, I hope to see Reason articles entirely in Latin.

|6.15.05 @ 11:11AM|#

as opposed to the larger venues in new york, which basically lock smokers in for the duration of the show.

M1EK|6.15.05 @ 11:21AM|#

Julian,

You may in fact be right about preference intensity - but the problem is that the same exact argument was used for airlines and (in the cities that have gone that far) restaurants.

The grass roots, even most smokers, were more than satisfied with the outcomes of both of those bans.

And nonsmoking on a show-by-show basis is a nonstarter for the grassrootsers - the venue still REEKS.

fyodor|6.15.05 @ 11:23AM|#

I think "foregone conclusion" would have worked better than "fait accompli." Maybe "fait accompli" technically can apply to something that technically hasn't happened yet but is, well, a foregone conclusion, but I think it works much better for things that have fully happened already. It also works better for the kind of situation where one might speak of the "facts on the ground" having changed.

|6.15.05 @ 11:37AM|#

I handed out about 25 copies of a 1996 British Medical Journal article on the Nazi origins of the smoking ban at Jim Graham's shammockery last week. The anti-smoking folks seemed interested, if offended. [Maybe it was the cover sheet (which is part of the article) I attached.] But the pro-smoking-choice folks seemed somehow more aghast. One said to me, "You don't need to do that -- a picture of Hitler...?"

No offense to the Ban the Ban folks -- good people who are taking a political approach -- but I think reminding opponents of smoking choice that they are reviving a Nazi policy is exactly what I (and others) should do.

|6.15.05 @ 11:43AM|#

Yes, I was referring to eo ipso...I had heard ipso facto, but not eo ipso before.

And I understand that American english (and even English english, for that matter) would be much different if we didn't borrow a bunch of words from Latin and French, mostly, along with every other damn language...I guess I was mad because someone made me feel ignorant. *sniff* :)

I actually read right through fait accompli because 1) I took French in HS and 2) I guess that's one of those phrases you hear (and read) more often.

It's really the Latin that bothers me more than anything. Especially when a journalist is writing about law. Christ, then I'm totally lost.

|6.15.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Personally, I don't care what the economic/public health benefits or harms are.

To me it is clear cut, to deny a property owner the right to control his property, in this case to choose whether to permit smoking or not, is a violation of property rights.

To me, arguing about the economic effects is as silly as justifying eminent domain based on the tax revenue that the property will bring in.

So what? It is still wrong.

*disclaimer, I am a non-smoker who is allergic to tobacco. Therefore I do not patronize businesses that permit smoking. Thus, I personally benefit from smoking bans. I still find them immoral and would vote against one given the opportunity.

|6.15.05 @ 12:02PM|#

I think one of the major problems with smoking bans is that it's typically an all or nothing propsition. In Philly we still have restaurants with smoking sections. This seems to be a perfectly workable compromise. In casinos there are non-smoking sections that do very well. Smokers usually understand that their habit is offensive to others and are willing to compromise, but to the banners, no compromise is acceptable.

Honestly, I'd be happy with only being able to smoke during happy hour. Give me one hour per week day during which I can both drink and smoke, and I'll even walk over to the non-smoking bar to pick up my drink so I don't kill any bartenders.

|6.15.05 @ 12:03PM|#

what the hell has happened to the world? you want to go to a rock and roll concert without "dealing with" the cigarette smoke? jesus christ. what's next? people who want to go to a show without dealing with the sound levels? with the crowds? with the clouds of pot? with the flying drumsticks?

instead of complaining, maybe you're just better off spending your time at the ballet.

|6.15.05 @ 12:04PM|#

I'm not bothered by the Latin. I had to look up eo ipso, but at least I learned something today. Thanks, Julian.

|6.15.05 @ 12:13PM|#

Baylen,

Um, no. Comparing your opponents to Nazis is never helpful, unless they're actually bent on mass murder. Saying, "Hitler banned smoking, so smoking bans are evil" is like saying, "The Italian Fascists made the trains run on time, so making the trains run on time is evil."

And I'm against smoking bans.

|6.15.05 @ 12:18PM|#

I agree Steve,

After all, the Nazis had laws against murder too ... :)

|6.15.05 @ 12:26PM|#

i'm an ex-smoker who lives right outside Philly (ardmore). when i say 'ex-smoker' i mean i don't smoke a pack a day anymore, but i still enjoy the occasional smoke. the thing is, i don't let anyone smoke in my apartment. instead, when my friends come over, we can walk a block or two to a bar, hang out, watch the phillies, have some drinks and some camels.

so being able to smoke in bars means that i can avoid having people smoke in my home, without everyone needing to boil outside. it seems to me a natural extension of the basic purpose of a bar - a place to get drunk and yell without upsetting the neighbors, or trashing your own home. anyway, hopefully a philly ban won't extend to here any time soon.

Julian Sanchez|6.15.05 @ 12:27PM|#

I'll defend the choice of "fait accompli" as a figurative description, in much the same way as I might have described the ban as a "done deal" even though, if you want to be literal about it, the vote hasn't happened yet. (And "fait accompli" has the added connotation of something that's unlikely to be revised or improved once the law is passed.) I hope nobody who had to look up "eo ipso" was too put out by it; I promise I'm not trying to be deliberately inscrutable.

|6.15.05 @ 12:30PM|#

well, i haven't read anything about this, but i think baylen's point is that the smoking ban originated with the nazis, which i do think is a worthwhile question. similarly, there was an article in Reason a month or so ago about gun control's origins with white hate groups in the south, which i thought was interesting and worthwhile.

M1EK|6.15.05 @ 12:33PM|#

"In Philly we still have restaurants with smoking sections. This seems to be a perfectly workable compromise. In casinos there are non-smoking sections that do very well. Smokers usually understand that their habit is offensive to others and are willing to compromise, but to the banners, no compromise is acceptable."

Are you kidding me? Smoking sections are a friggin' joke - they're about 1% better than having the smoker at your very own table.

|6.15.05 @ 12:45PM|#

Steve,

Point taken. I didn't compare opponents of smoking choice to Nazis and didn't call anyone who supports the smoking ban a Nazi or equate them in any way with Hitler. I simply printed out and handed out what seems to be an authoratative report from a scientific journal and -- without editorializing -- let people draw their own conclusions. I agree that there's no bright-line test we can apply to all policies created by fascists or those of other ideologies (with the possible exception of libertarians). As you and many thoughtful people have pointed out -- Reason's Cathy Young among them -- the time for Hitler comparisons has long since passed. But I don't see a day when it's not appropriate to point out the evils Hitler himself committed in the name of his so-called master race.

Tarran,

Interestingly, the brilliant Charles Lane had a fascinating op-ed in last weekeend's Washington Post about the Nazi origins of death-penalty opposition in Germany. Again, Lane was not saying that death-penalty opponents (I'm one) are Nazis, just that the origin of certain policies and policy stances -- especially high-horse ones -- are often at least worth a second look.

|6.15.05 @ 12:54PM|#

Well it's still ok to smoke in Chicago...so far. One of the few things I can credit to Daly lately.

However, the Gov. is on a kick and is going to sign a bill very soon giving individual towns discretion over their smoking laws. Sounds like a good compromise to me. Still, 'When Chicago goes, it's time to move to Mexico.'

|6.15.05 @ 12:56PM|#

Not much about Europe impressed me on my recent visit, but one thing did: the casual indifference of Romans to their new smoking ban.

The police were far too busy to even consider checking on restaurants for ban compliance.

Which leads me to wonder: given DC's generally accepted status as one of the most crime-infested cities in the nation, how do the smoking banners propose to enforce smoking laws? Will they pull cops off violent crime cases and patrols through dangerous neighborhoods?

In Los Angeles, there are a number of bars and restaurants that cheerfully ignore the ban. They get away with it because, frankly, the LAPD has better things to do than enforce the nannyism foisted on the state by do-gooder busybodies.

I'd always thought that there was a legal test for laws which, being nearly impossible to enforce, served only to make a mockery of the law. Guess DC is familiar enough with the process of making a mockery of law that they don't mind.

|6.15.05 @ 1:20PM|#

isildur,

it could be worse than simply making a mockery of the law. these types of unenforceable laws always make me nervous about the prospect of government officials using them as ammunition against certain businesses in entirely unrelated matters. not to be too stereotypical, but for instance, let's say every bar in town is continuing to allow smoking post-ban. a cop wants information about who has been doing what in a specific bar lately, and the owner tells him to shove it. he could use the threat of smoking fines (or whatever penalties are allowed) to coerce this information, regardless of whether it's being enforced anywhere else.

knowing philly specifically, i'm sure our pols could think of much worse than this.

|6.15.05 @ 3:40PM|#

Someone called me a name.

If I were the president, could I have him banned?

|6.15.05 @ 4:08PM|#

Been away from this thread for a while. My favorite comment so far is Doug Fletcher's "Are you still going to be allowed to smoke cigarettes when you're buying crack in DC?"

|6.15.05 @ 8:26PM|#

I also worked at a restaurant that did allow smoking in the DC area (Paolo's). I worked there on and off for 7 years and in that time, I saw the smoking section dwindle to almost nothing. When those tables were sitting empty while there was a wait in non-smoking, it didn't take long before the smoking section became two small tables by the bar.
Once again, I just don't buy that the market doesn't work where this issue is concerned. I've seen it work.

|6.15.05 @ 8:42PM|#

Smoking bans are politicized class warfare. Smokers tend to be blue-collar types, and the banners are often yuppies. The Democrats are far removed from any concern for Joe Sixpack and his brother, Joe Camel; they are largely a creature of public school employees and municipal unions. When will a ban on energy-wasting NASCAR racing be coming? A lot sooner than a ban on Starbucks coffee.

By the way, Poul Anderson has been quiet since 2001, as befits the deceased.

|6.15.05 @ 9:30PM|#

I remember hearing that Anderson died -- it's too bad. But I meant to say I haven't read a story by him in a long while (knowing he won't be writing any more, but there's a lot of his existing stuff I still haven't touched yet).

M1EK|6.16.05 @ 9:11AM|#

mk,

You don't get it. YOU CAN'T HAVE A 'SMOKING SECTION' without separate air, just like you can't have a 'PEEING SECTION' in your pool without separate water.

Even if it's just two tables. The whole restaurant is smoking, even if it's just ONE table.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

|6.16.05 @ 10:09AM|#

M1EK,
What's wrong with me, apparently, is that I disagree with you. Nothing more or less. I'm sorry if there aren't enough non-smoking restaurants in Austin to suit you yet, but I think you are confusing your wants and desires with what ought to be legislated. I don't smoke either and I don't like it when people smoke right next to me while I am eating, but it is worth mentioning that it has not been a problem that I have encountered literally for years.
Also, this may sound nitpicky, but the article was about the situation in DC and I am speaking as someone who is in DC. I've been to Austin several times and I really love the place. One of the reasons I love it is that it is not much like DC.

M1EK|6.16.05 @ 11:51AM|#

"What's wrong with me, apparently, is that I disagree with you."

No, mk, it's not just that; it's that you fundamentally don't understand that a smoker need not be "next to you" to be causing you to inhale his smoke. Smoking and non-smoking sections were a friggin' JOKE.

G. Hamid|6.16.05 @ 12:29PM|#

Well, well, well, look who starts shouting in an otherwise civil thread, the banner. M1EK,why don't you put your money where your mouth is and open a non-smoking bar in Austin. You seem to think there is a huge market for one, and you're probably right. By the way, I smoke yet if anyone tried to make you allow smoking I would stand four-square behind YOU.