The Ban is Back

Ban the Ban joined restaurant and bar owners in preventing the passage of a Bloombergian smoking ban in Washington D.C. workplaces in the City Council. Now, the banners have decided to ressurect their crusade in the form of a ballot initiative. The idea, apparently, is to have folks who haven't set foot in a bar since before the Yalta treaty ensure that the only place left to smoke will be under your bed with the doors locked. And then, only if you haven't hired a nanny or contracted to have your house renovated at the time. Surf over and see what you can do to help if you live in the area.

Comments

[Megan Casey]

Well I, for one, hope the people of DC are able to have a smoking ban. I hear a lot of talk about the freedom of smokers. What about the freedom of non-smokers?

I can bear witness to the fact that New York City is a much nicer place since Mayor Bloomberg banned smoking.

I guess you don't care how long people live.

[anon]

Obviously the "freedom of non-smokers" includes the right to impinge upon the freedom of smokers. Similarly, the freedom of non-gays includes the right to ban homosexuality, and the freedom of white Americans comes with the ability to vote for a revoking of Arab-Americans' freedoms....

[Mo]

It's not about smokers' rights, it's about the rights of bar owners to allow or not allow smoking in their place of business. If there was a massive outcry of people that wanted to go to non-smoking bars, there is nothing stopping proprieters from banning it at their own places.

[matt]

Basically what Mo said, but I have one thing to add....

Here in Athens, GA I believe a bar opened up a few years back that banned smoking. I think it lasted less than a year. Anyway, the point is that if there is a high enough demand for smokeless bars and restaurants, the market will provide. If not, then you'll have to make do with non-smoking sections and get over the second-hand smoke if you wanna go out to a bar.

[late for the boom]

Great point Mo, a point that I have been making for a long time.

If there really was a market for non-smoking bars dont you think there would be one?? Seriously, its amazing to me that out of one side of thier mouth these zealots cry 'let the market decide' while the other side of thier mouth says 'we must regulate this'.

The reason they are screaming for regulation is because the market HAS decided, it decided that bars are frequented by people that smoke.

If you want a non-smoking bar, open one, but dont cry because you dont have any business.

[Mo]

Full disclosure: I am a smoker that lived grew up (and currently live) in SoCal. I also lived in NYC before the ban and in Boston when you could still smoke in restaurants.

I actually like the smoke free bars of California, but that is primarily because of the climate. But I like the occasional bar that flouts the laws and allows smoking in the permises (makes me feel like I'm cool and in a 20s speakeasy). I would despise being forced outside to smoke in the winter during the Northeast. There are a couple of cities around Boston where it is illegal to smoke on the sidewalks as well as in bars and restaurants. That is insane. The next best thing to having the pure free-market solution is to have transferrable tobacco licenses for bars. Create a number equal to some percentage of liquor licenses and then sell them auction style. The price of the licenses will reach an equilibrium at the approximate fair value of the license.

There are all sorts of issues with this of course. I think California will be one of the few states that non-smoking bars will be able to compete with smoking bars in significant numbers. So what will end up happening is that the bars with the licenses will be able to put those without the licenses out of business and new licenses will be prohibitively expensive. But I'd prefer this approach to the current Cali/NY/Boston solution even though it's not the ideal solution IMO.

[Julian Sanchez]

Well, there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants in the district, and at least one quite hep (and, as far as I can tell, busy) non-smoking bar right along the U-Street corridor, called "Health Bar". If everyone who's out petitioning would go have a gin tonic there, and show what a great business model this is, they might get enough copycats to make this whole thing redundant. But, of course, that doesn't offer the same thrill of Changing the World in one fell swoop.

[Sam I Was]

The only "solution" that's needed is to let property owners decide who and what they want on their own property.

I thought we figured out that sophisticated piece of policy-making, like, 200-some years ago.

[Nicole]

It always saddens me to see a restaurant I like go entirely non-smoking. It's not that I love smoke-filled rooms, but around here (Northern Virginia), the non-smoking section is the screaming baby section.

[Scam]

I must agree with Mo. Also note, as far as I can tell the danger of second hand smoke is totally made up.

[Megan Casey]

Do you have any proof it's made up?

[A Non-Smoker]

I wonder how many of you anti anti-smoking bans were defending my rights as a non-smoker when I had to suffer through clouds of cigarette smoke in airplanes, offices, trains, etc. My guess is few, if not none.

It is pay back time. How many years did we (non-smokers) have to suffer?

[Megan Casey]

Non-smoker,

As much as I love smoking bans, I found the theory of justice inherent in your remark a little disturbing. I don't think it is a good foundation on which to build a healthy civil society.

[Scam]

The people who want others to believe second hand smoke is deadly should have to prove that it is so, not the other way around. Here is a URL that shows alot of non-proof. (you may have to look around to find it but it has alot of other good stuff as well)

http://www.junkscience.com/

Also a quick question, if a smoker can stop smoking and pretty much be 100% within a year,if he has not already got the cancer bug, then how long must a non-smoker be second hand smoke free before he is 100%? Keep in mind, a smoker gets both first and second hand smoke he must after all breath.

[Scam]

The people who want others to believe second hand smoke is deadly should have to prove that it is so, not the other way around. Here is a URL that shows alot of non-proof. (you may have to look around to find it but it has alot of other good stuff as well)

http://www.junkscience.com/

Also a quick question, if a smoker can stop smoking and pretty much be 100% within a year,if he has not already got the cancer bug, then how long must a non-smoker be second hand smoke free before he is 100%? Keep in mind, a smoker gets both first and second hand smoke as he must after all breath.

[scam]

Opps sorry bout that double dump.

[Megan Casey]

Scam,

You can't prove a negative.

[scam]

True. However I think they should prove a positive. Second hand smoke is dangerous.

Proving an negative would be; second hand smoke is NOT dangerous.

[Scam]

Here is a book on the subject if you are interested. The title is

Passive Smoke: The EPA's Betrayal of Science and Policy

http://www.junkscience.com/store.htm

P.S. In case anyone cares, I am not a smoker. I am a freedom loving man who believes it should be up to the property owner (as Mo said) to decide this issue.

[Scam]

And finally if anyone cares anymore, from Junkscience:

http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn030901.htm

[J]

I'm always a bit suprised that there aren't more non-smoking bars. I certainly hear enough people complain about it, including a few friends that don't go to bars in part because of the smoke.

Speaking of the smoking ban in California bars, when I was visiting there a couple years ago a few people were smoking in the two bars I went to. The person I was with asked the owners about it, and each said they weren't required to enforce the ban and they didn't want to because it was bad for business. Was/is this is a common occurrence there? Are the bars _really_ non-smoking?

[SteveInClearwater]

If you don't like eating around tobacco smokers, then do any or all of the following:

1)Eat at home

2)Eat at restaurants that are non-smoking.

a)Tell the ones you like that currently allow smoking how you would preefer non smoking.

b)Commend those that are non-smoking already. Give them increased business.

3) Start your own restaurant with like minded friends, presuming you know others who agree with you and feel that #1 and 2 above are not sufficient to address their concerns.

For #3, you might not even need to open a commercial business. Simply make arrangements with like minded friends to host a meal once a month each...pot luck or some kind of preplanned menu furnished by members of the group.

Wow, meet your neighbors more than once in a blue moon.....almost....social, doncha know.

[MJ]

SteveinClearwater,

That would mean work on the part of the pro-banners and no assurance of success. Besides, it also means that there would still be places that allowed smoking and trampled on their "rights". No, it is easier and far more satisfying for them to have government to force the results that they want.

[Joe Camel]

From what I see, many people in bars have a few drinks and then start to smoke. Not that they are habitual smokers, but I guess the "living on the edge" feeling of boozing it up in a bar also makes you want to smoke.

My feeling aboput this is if I'm feeling oppressed about the laws the majority make restricting my behavior but not theirs, then I will not care about respecting the right of the majority when it comes to "accidentily" scratching cars of self righteous jerks.

[Douglas Fletcher]

There is a market for non-smoking bars, and it's called COFFEE HOUSES.

Besides, if you're hanging around bars enough for the second hand smoke to kill you, you've probably already pickled your liver for good.

[Corey]

I can think of a bunch of non-smoking bars in DC.

Tryst on 18th street in Adams Morgan
All the XANDOs
The Health Bar on U St

And of course, take the red line a couple of extra stops, and you're in Montgomery County, MD, where all the bars are non-smoking.

[nobody]

Isn't this a recycled thread from two weeks ago?

[jdog]

Of course smoking bans having nothing to do with protecting the health of non-smokers. Were that the case bars would simply be required to add air filters or ventilation systems that bring the smoke content down to some acceptable level.

Smoking bans are 100% about the guvmint telling people what to do just for the sake of telling them what to do.

jdog