Smoking Bans in D.C. and N.J.

Jacob Sullum | January 6, 2006

This week the D.C. Council gave final approval to Washington's smoking ban, which applies to restaurants right away and to bars beginning in January 2007. Hookah bars and any business that gets 10 percent or more of its revenue from tobacco sales (not including cigarette purchased from machines) are exempt. So in the city of Washington, unlike the state, people will still be able to smoke cigars in cigar lounges.

In New Jersey, meanwhile, a smoking ban that has already been passed by the state Senate is likely to win approval from the state Assembly on Monday. The ban does not apply to casino floors, cigar lounges, or tobacconists. Bar owners are upset about the casino exemption. "Essentially," one told A.P., "the smokers are being bribed: If you want to smoke, you have to gamble."

Comments

|1.6.06 @ 9:37AM|#

Is the line about Hookah bars supposed to end with "...are exempted from the law?"

|1.6.06 @ 9:41AM|#

How much worse could cigarette smoke make the air quality in Jersey anyway?

|1.6.06 @ 9:51AM|#

Science makes northeners itchy.

Second hand smoke sounds bad so it must be bad.

mike in ftw

Warren|1.6.06 @ 9:59AM|#

I heard you can't pump your own gas in Jersey.

Ed|1.6.06 @ 10:08AM|#

If you want to smoke, you have to gamble.

Yes, that sums it up nicely.

Stephen Macklin|1.6.06 @ 10:24AM|#

I worked in a bar for about a week once. I didn't like the smoke and I couldn't stand smelling like an ashtray. I quit and found another job.

It's really simple - if you don't want to be in a smokey environment, a job as a bartender might not be right for you. Most jobs come with hazards. If you are not willing to accept the hazards of a particular career - find another one.

|1.6.06 @ 10:27AM|#

"The hypocrisy is just astounding."

Once again Carol Schwartz is the lone voice of reason in DC.

If Anthony Williams actually vetoes this, I will plotz. My cynical mind says that he is gonna let it pass while saying to the restaurant industry "sorry, my hands are tied" thereby minimizing any negative consequences for him from this down the road.

|1.6.06 @ 10:30AM|#

Stephen,
You are right, but at the risk of conjuring M1EK, it is worth mentioning that there are already restaurants that do not allow smoking. I worked for one over ten years ago in the smoking friendly state of Virginia (The Carlyle in Shirlington). It is possible to work in a restaurant that is non-smoking. So, even that compelling argument isn't entirely necessary.

|1.6.06 @ 10:37AM|#

Stephen Maklin- You obviously don't care about the working man. Workers must never be forced to endure hazards just because they are "part of the job." An example: although my day job is fairly sedate, I'm also a volunteer firefighter. You would not believe the risks the department asks me to take. Why, a month or so ago, they asked my to climb this really tall ladder (It MUST be taller than OSHA regs allow) and spray water at a burning building!. I mean, the thing was ON FIRE, for god's sake! And talk about second-hand smoke exposure!
Also, sometimes we drive those trucks really fast. Like, way over the speed limit. And those sirens can't be good for my hearing. I'm just waiting for someone to have an epileptic fit from the flashing lights!

There is no reason I should be exposed to a hazardous workplace like that just because I want to be a volunteer on the department. I'm CCing this post to my congressman!

|1.6.06 @ 10:38AM|#

Does anybody have any info on the EPA's report in 1993 suggesting that people who grow up in househlds with a certain level of second hand smoke are no more likely to get lung cancer than folks not raised in that atmosphere? I heard that recently the study's conclusion was in a way debunked because there was a difference between the two groups and what at first seemed statistically insignificant now appears as if it was in fact statistically significant.

I vaguely remember hearing something about this study. In fact it was used by Penn & Teller in their show Bullshit! Anybody have anymore info on this?

|1.6.06 @ 10:48AM|#

Emme-I remember the study being discussed, but I don't recall the specifics. I also remember something about the study most of the second-hand smoke hysteria is based on being flawed, but again, I don't recall any specifics.

digamma|1.6.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Hookah bars and any business that gets 10 percent or more of its revenue from tobacco sales (not including cigarette purchased from machines) are exempt.

Is this a legal loophole? Can a bar set up an operation with a smoke shop whereby the bar buys the cigarettes by the case and immediately sells them to the smoke shop?

|1.6.06 @ 2:20PM|#

"The ban does not apply to casino floors, cigar lounges, or tobacconists"

casino floors??

Better lobbyists, more "campaign contributions", more bribes. How can anyone respond to the Jack Abramoff story by saying anything other than "and?"...

Lazlo|1.6.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Is this a legal loophole? Can a bar set up an operation with a smoke shop whereby the bar buys the cigarettes by the case and immediately sells them to the smoke shop?

I'm thinking more like "buy this $40 cigarette and we'll include this free steak dinner"...

|1.8.06 @ 1:04PM|#

Stephan M said,

If you are not willing to accept the hazards of a particular career - find another one.

Gimme a break. Any degree of safety involved in the work place of most factory workers, miners, etc... is there because of regulations. That is part of the government's role in the workplace. Just because you don't like the idea that a particular city has decided that smoke filled workplaces are an unreasonable (and easily fixed) health hazard for workers, doesn't make it an unreasonable addition to the list of things that are regulated. Some cities have decided that the worker shouldn't have to balance potential health hazards against career choice. It is just like regulations that say things like, oh, workers using sonic welders must be provided hearing protection. Workers can choose not to work anyplace that puts them in unreasonable danger. Society can decide that certain dangers are easily mitigated, allowing workers to concentrate on other priorities when making the choice of how they want to "persue happiness" (and yeah, the framers changed that from "persue wealth" for a reason).

Your argument about worker choice is just not worth taking seriously. Maybe that is why these kinds of regulations pass more often than they are defeated. If you want to oppose them, find a better argument. Otherwise stop whining.

|1.8.06 @ 1:06PM|#

yeah, that's pursue (spelling doesn't make the argument good or bad).