December 6, 2005
Breaking News: Smoking Ban Passes (Updated)
The day many feared has finally come to the District -- the City Council this afternoon endorsed a smoking ban in restaurants on a 12-1 vote.
Bars and nightclubs may be spared, though, as the legislation merely requires that they install special ventilation equipment or arrange special accomodations for smokers by January 1, 2007. The legislation allows businesses to seek a hardship waiver, should they prove that the law decresed their sales by 25 percent. Council-member Jim Graham is seeking to allow exceptions for cigar stores and hookah bars.
The only dissenting vote on the measure was that of Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), a longtime opponent of the ban.
As more information becomes available, DCist will report on it.
Update: Initial news reports have been somewhat confused as to the details of the law. WTOP is reporting that the ban will cover all establishments, with an eye towards exemptions for cigar stores and hookah bars. They also write that some are hoping to push the law's implementation up to July 2006. D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams has not expressed support or opposition to the law.
|
Also important to point out that this was just the first reading for the bill. Second reading will most likely be in January.
Alan Heymann, Communications Director
Councilmember Jim Graham
What a refreshingly useful comment - thanks, Alan.
Seriously great news for folks that like to go out but hate coming home reeking of cigarettes. The reeking of beer part, well, at least second hand beer doesnt' cause cancer.
im going to put my cig butt out on in your eye next time i see you out at a bar.
on a more serious note, this is one of the few times i agree with Schwartz.
Sweet, comment at DCist, get threatened with blindness. I love it!
Tom,
We can't be held responsible for violent commenters...
Lately, I've been dismayed by a lot of the commenters here, I really shouldn't find it surprising.
No worries, Martin.
Freeze on the back porch Smokers!! Hah, hah, hah, (cough), (cough).
Washington Post (page weirdly unresponsive):
"Earlier today, the council voted against a substitute bill written by council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large) that would have allowed smoking in bars and restaurants that install high-capacity air cleaners and pay higher fees. It also rejected a proposal by council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) to exempt bars, taverns and nightclubs from the ban."
So that clears that up. What happens at the second reading?
From what I understand, the second reading is essentially the second vote.
Have you ever heard of civil liberties? Individuality? Freedom?
Why can't this be solved by people opening some nice, trendy bars and other venues where smoking is not allowed. Let the owners and the customers decide.
A smoking ban is like banning restaurants from cooking peanuts simply because some people are alergic. No matter that peanuts are food. Some people would argue that the right to smoke enriches their lives and lets them enjoy their time above ground much more than peanuts do. And yes, liberty involves the freedom to make decisions decision that end up shortening our own lives. Smokers don't choose to smoke to harm non-smokers. Non-smokers should likewise not choose to harm smokers' liberty with a ban -- they should simply find new smokefree venues alongside the existing smoking ones?
How do you make the non-smoking bars a draw to smokers? Maybe use some of the funds from cigarette taxes to help make gimics at smoke-free establishments that will outweigh the deprival of the right to smoke. Free beer, perhaps? (Rather, one cent beers -- you can't give alcohol away for free in most states).
Rights, Elaborated: if you support freedom, liberty, and individuality, we should have the right to do anything that does not harm others against their will. if doing something will harm others, then it is ethical to limit the ability to make the action in question only minimially, as necessary to prevent harm. Letting non-smokers avoid smoke by fostering smoke-free bars is much less drastic than a ban in limiting smokers' liberties. Therefore, a ban is immoral.
Evan,
You're right. Smokers don't choose to harm non-smokers, but they do. This, in essence, is where your argument falls apart. My freedoms end where yours begin. I can't just walk up to you and punch you in the face, using as my excuse that it's a free country and I didn't mean to hurt you. Second-hand smoke is a reality, and realistically, it has been proven to affect non-smokers. This is fundamentally a health issue that government is allowed to act upon. You're stil free to smoke -- outside.
I'm a smoker, and I'm still for the ban. It's important to realize that the real beneficiaries of the ban are not other customers but the people who work in the service industry, a group who is usually screwed over royally by the powers that be... A good in-between solution might be to allow designated smoking areas with proper ventilation, etc, and i think they're discussing that, right?
This is the death of nightlife in DC! We'll be just like New York or California, where no one goes to bars!!
Smokers don't choose to smoke to harm non-smokers.
What does the smokers' motivation have to do with the end result of their actions? By smoking in public, they have chosen to harm non-smokers. You can argue over the relative level of the harm, and whether or not second-hand smoke is really as much of a carcinogen as the ban proponents claim, but pointing out that "harming others" isn't the main reason people smoke seems both obvious and beside the point.
In my opinion, trying to turn this into a civil liberties and individual rights issue is a lot like making a case on behalf of littering as a form of protected speech.
"merely requires that they install special ventilation equipment or arrange special accomodations for smokers"
"Merely?" How much does it cost to install ventilation ducts, exhaust fans, and "smokers' aquariums" in a restaurant? I can't imagine that it would cost less than simply saying "no smoking in here, please."
I made a mistake in the original post. The option to install the ventilation and all was part of an alternative proposal that was voted down, or so I understand...
The AP story had the stuff about ventilation, which is apparently not actually in the bill, and the bad information is popping up all over the place now.
Oops, okay.
Nate,
By going into (or working at) places that allow smoking, non-smokers choose to be "harmed." To look at it any other way is to start from the supposition that non-smokers don't have free will, an argument I don't think you want to try to defend.
I agree that the most beneficial choice for a lot of people (young folks and recent immigrants in particular) is to work in a restaurant, but the amount of time they are "forced" to work in the service industry by their circumstances is minimal and the epidemiological effects of their exposure are so small as to be immeasurable. Students working through school eventually have career options outside the service industry, as do immigrants who have built up sufficient work experience. The "workers are trapped in the industry and it's killing them" line is a sham, no two ways about it.
Did your mother ever tell you that you can't be responsible for other people's behavior, only your own? It's a little life lesson that's applicable here: you can't decide if a bar owner decides to allow smoking, but you can decide whether or not to go in, whether it's to have a drink or apply for a job. The very idea that we've gotten the government involved in this issue scares the crap out of me.
"The very idea that we've gotten the government involved in this issue scares the crap out of me."
Are you kidding? Do you think the government is only now getting involved in regulating bars and restaurants? So you were fine with the health regulations, the building code, the OSHA inspections, the labor rules, the local blue laws, the liquor licensing board, the requirement that the bars close at 2 AM and don't serve to 20 year olds, and a whole host of other government regulations. It's only now that the government wants to ban smoking that "the government is getting into this issue"?
I love to see that a lot of people have converted to libertarianism on the road to Damascus (where are you on gun control by the way?), but honestly, you're a little late in the game. For better or worse, that cause was lost under the Roosevelt administration. The government has a solid right to regulate commercial establishments, and this is just another facet of that regulation.
The version of the smoking bill approved by the Council yesterday is a bad law. It provides the current mayor, or any future mayor, with the opportunity to exempt any establishment from the ban. It's confusing and vague. And it reaches to far.
Nice comment Brooke. The argument about smokers "choosing" to hurt non-smokers is just crap. It's almost as ridiculous as saying drivers of automobiles are choosing to hurt pedestrians with their emmissions. The ban should rest solely with the proprietor of the individual establishments. If they choose to ban it for the workers, customers,...etc, that is their call based on their right to own a business. Let the gov't offer incentives for non-smoking places to encourage more healthy environments, but let the proprietors choose to run their businesses. Just as we can choose to visit these establishments. There are 200 smoke-free bars/restauraunts in DC...is that not enough of a selection??
No Reid, as a general rule, I'm in favor of regulations that protect people from things they can't reasonably be expected to protect themselves from. I'm not in favor of regulations that protect people from things they can easily avoid but choose not too.
I don't think that's unreasonable, or even particularly libertarian. On most issues, I'm far more libertarian. And I don't think the cause was lost in Roosevelt's time. The term wasn't even in widespread use in this country as a political leaning until the 1950s.
Also, check out your Constitution before you go bandying about a term like "solid right." It may well be established law (and if you're interested, be sure to check out the history of the switch in time that saved nine to see what political manipulation can do to checks and balances), but it is far from what I would call a "right."
As a smoker myself I'm kinda glad that they are doing a ban like this. Personally I feel that smoking in bars is gross, too many establishments do NOT have appropriate ventillation for this, and hopefully the new law will change that. I think there can be an even ground here, maybe something where you can smoke in certain sections of the bars and not in others (the ones that are well ventillated) all-in-all I think this is probably the best solution
A: It is libertarian to say that the government is infringing on the bar owner's right to choose whether to allow smoking or not. I think your own blog says this "That said, we have until September 29 to make as much of a nuisance of ourselves as possible. You know, for liberty and all that jazz." How is that not a libertarian argument? (for the record I used to be libertarian, have many friends that are libertarian, and generally am sympathetic to their cause, just not on this one)
B: The Supreme Court began allowing government regulations of commercial activity with only a rational basis in the 1930's. Prior to that time, the court's would overturn regulations of businesses (such as labor laws or health codes, etc.) saying that the regulations violated the business owner's constitutional rights. Therefore, the libertarian argument against government regulation of businesses was pretty much lost in the 1930's. Whether the Cato society came later or whether people started calling themselves Libertarians came later, the point is that this line of argument will be futile until you can overturn that 1930's precedent. Nowadays Libertarians are only mostly successful in overturning environmental laws that affect their ability to use their land.
C: I have read the Constitution, I have gone to law school, and I know what I'm talking about. But perhaps "right" wasn't the exactly correct word. How about "solid perogative".
In the end it doesn't really matter what you call it. The point is is that there is no question whether the government can do this. The only question is whether we want it to do this. I for one do want it, and I believe I'm not in the minority.
Bars are spared?! Then what the hell is the point?
If I remember correctly, when NYC started their smoking ban, an unintended side effect was that people would go outside to smoke, and then split on their tab.
Brooke said "By going into (or working at) places that allow smoking, non-smokers choose to be "harmed."
That is true. However, why should a non-smoker have to choose to be harmed? For example, let's say my favorite band is coming through town and playing a small, smoke-filled bar. Why should I have to be subjected to that atmosphere to see them? I don't have to deal with smoke when I go to see a movie or a play.
i think this is a great idea because we wont have to smell the nasty smell of that junk.they should make another law that say not to let people smoke on there house because it effects their family and friends.
Good news! A new study show that smoking bans are necessary after all.
Press Release
For Immediate Release: December 5 , 2005
Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in admissions for myocardial infarction in hospitals?
December 5, 2005
Antismokers claim that studies have shown that bans bring about an immediate and drastic decrease in heart attacks among nonsmokers exposed to smoke at work.
This claim was never true to begin with - the cited studies never separated and analyzed nonsmokers as a separate group - and it has now been pointed out in the pages of the BMJ that even the claim of saving lives among the combined population of smokers and nonsmokers might be worthless.
While many making that claim may have believed their information to be accurate, it is now obvious that its basis has been thrown strongly into question. As Jacob Sullum noted in a December 1st reaction to the announcement, "An effect this dramatic (i.e. an immediate and pronounced drop of hospital admissions for heart attacks) should have been noticed all over the country..."
Just a week before the Chicago Aldermen were due to vote on a citywide smoking ban, two independent researchers working together, David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden, unveiled a new study covering a population base roughly 1,000 times as large as the previous town-based studies. The new study indicates strongly that rather than a 30% decrease in heart attacks, statewide smoking bans seem to have literally NO EFFECT AT ALL on heart attack rates. Incredibly the data even indicates that California's statewide heart attack rate went UP by 6% in the first full year of their total smoking ban!
The data for the study and the basis of its design have been backed up and expanded by well-known antismoking researcher Michael Siegel who has come out in support of the researchers' approach as providing "compelling evidence that brings into question the conclusion that smoking bans have an immediate and drastic effect on heart attack incidence." His observation is echoed by researcher Kuneman who asks, "Ever wonder why you didn't hear about post ban heart attack declines in New York City? Or in Minneapolis or Los Angeles? Now you know!"
On December 4th the British Medical Journal entered the fray with the online publication of a Rapid Response by Mr. McFadden outlining the new research and posing sharp criticisms of the earlier studies and of the refusal of the authors of those studies to respond to previous criticisms and questions. McFadden points out that the data in the Kuneman/McFadden study are fully open for public examination and far less selective than the data in the earlier studies and notes with pride that he and his co-researcher have been quick to respond to all queries posted about their methodology on Dr. Siegel's web blog.
He also poses the wider ranging question of whether studies commissioned by the "Antismoking Industry" should begin to receive the same cautious reception accorded those commissioned by "Big Tobacco." The current study, as well as an earlier one by the duo, were unfunded and neither researcher receives grants for their work from either interest group. Kuneman sharply asks the question, "Why the difference between the studies? For one thing we weren't dependent on antismoking-targeted grants!"
At this point there appears to be very little, if any, real scientific support for the claim that protecting nonsmokers from normal levels of exposure to secondary smoke prevents any heart attacks. And it is this claim that has always provided the impressive numbers upon which ban advocates have pressed legislators to pass smoking bans.
Without those numbers proponents of extreme bans are left with little other than the widely discredited EPA figures relating ETS to lung cancer and a few isolated instances of hospitality workers who have come to believe that their own cancers were caused by working in smoking establishments. Samantha Phillipe, editor of the longstanding smokersclubinc.com newsletter, notes that while it's always a cause for sadness when someone becomes ill that it's even more sad when they are misguidedly advised to blame family and friends for their illness.
Without a compelling body of scientific evidence backing them up, smoking bans are an unnecessary and overbearing intrusion of government into the spheres of free choice, private property and free enterprise. And the Kuneman/McFadden study points up just how uncompelling even some of the strongest and most publicised evidence actually is.
References:
1) Article: A Preliminary Study
2) Mike Siegel's blog analysis and follow up comments:
3) BMJ Response: Helena 1000 Days
4) Jacob Sullum's REASON column: Hit and Run
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of SmokersClubInc.com
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Email: Cantiloper@aol.com