December 11, 2005
Opinionist: DC Smoking Ban
On Sundays, DCist publishes opinion pieces about life in D.C. The views expressed below are solely those of the author, who, in this case, is Charles Gray. If you have an Opinion to share, please email us.
It looks like we are going to get a smoking ban in the District. Let me start by saying that, as a smoker, I actually don’t particularly care about the effects of the smoking ban. I smoke outside of my work and my home, so going outside of a bar isn’t that big of a deal for me. I have even been in bars that were too smoky for my taste.
As a waiter, I can say that the smoking ban has little to do with worker safety. If people actually cared about waiters and waitresses they would tip better -- and not view the term “server” along such feudal lines. Also, the people who have not been going to restaurants and bars -- but promise that they will return after the ban is enacted -- are not boycotting these establishments because of the health risks to bartenders and servers.
So let us just do away with the workplace safety issue. This ban will be enacted for one reason: because non-smokers hate smokers.
I am not quite sure where this hatred developed. Non-smokers seem to think that smokers are trying to kill them. We really aren’t. I know that the effects of second-hand smoke are real and serious. But at least those who smoke don’t want to harm those who don’t. I’m not sure you can say the same for ban advocates.
Let’s take this comment, for example:
“Freeze on the back porch Smokers!!” by Mr. Pink Lungs at December 6, 2005.
I can vaguely understand this comment. I am sure Mr. Pink Lungs feels that he has been oppressed for a while now and that this is his time for a victory shout. At least he doesn't wish any more harm to me than a browse through the North Face catalog can cure.
I also like this comment:
"Dear DC Smokers:
Enjoy it while you can. The tide of progress is bound to sweep you away like the antiquated garbage you are."
- Eric (November 10, 2005)
Who am I to stand in the way of progress? I couldn’t bear the thought that my smoking might be the reason why we don’t yet have flying cars. And what will people's reactions be when the (tragically earthbound) garbage truck takes me away?
“And when you die of lung cancer, no one will shed a tear.”
- Ben (December 6, 2005)
Really? No one is going to cry at all? My pack of Camel Lights makes me completely incapable of being loved at all? That’s what they should put on the warning label: "Will cause you to die alone and cold, mourned by no one." At least I won't have to worry about a gravestone that would clearly go unattended -- any old hole will do.
I guess my problem with the smoking ban is that it seems born out of malice more than anything else. That is why I found this comment the most honest:
“I want to be able to go to any bar I want without there being smoke. I don't care that you don't like that conclusion. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the DC Council has concluded that there are enough people that want the same thing I want, and therefore will get reelected for passing the ban. That's it. There's nothing more to be said.”
- Reid (December 7, 2005)
That is what it all comes down to. The non-smokers have the numbers, so they get what they want. The ban may be good public policy, but I’m not sure if I am comfortable with that policy being driven by spite.
I realize that smokers have fired as many shots as they have taken. They have threatened to blind people; called non-smokers boring and fascist; blamed ban proponents for the rise of chain restaurants; and worse. To call what has occurred on this website a debate is to do a disservice to the word.
So when this is finally passed, I hope we can move on to other, more important things. Like how the fact that I grew up in Arlington makes me lame. Or how things are better in other cities. Or my personal favorite: how the people who have volunteered their time to write here are not entertaining you.
|
Although I support the ban (and yes, it DOES improve worker safety, the evidence is clear from the statewide ban in California). I've said it before and I'll say it again (and you can call me a collectivist fool if you'd like, but I'd counter that you probably really don't know me: I drive a private car, live in a single apartment and work for private company), but if this ban were REALLY about the worker, the exemptions would not be for the hardship of the OWNERS unless those owners are the workers.
I really have to disagree with the characterization of non-smokers as driven by spite or hatred of smokers. While I'll certainly agree that there are some bitter, malevolent non-smokers out there, I think the vast majority of non-smokers in favor of a public smoking ban simply don't like smoke. (I'll count myself among this latter group.) It's simply not fun to go out and sit in the smoke and come home saturated with it. I don't hate the smokers for this, but I do hate the smoke itself, and will not miss it one bit when it's gone.
Exactly, it is not the smokers, it is the smoke. I have many friends who smoke, and as long as I don't have to kiss them, they can smoke all they want. I just prefer to kill my liver, and spare my lungs when I am out on the town with my smoking friends.
If you truely "hope we can move on to other, more important things" once the ban is passed, then it would have been better to leave out the part about "This ban will be enacted for one reason: because non-smokers hate smokers." That's a broad generalization and not the type of statement that encourages moving on.
As a non-smoker, who supports the ban and looks forward to being able to enjoy live music or the unique atmosphere of certain bars and clubs without the smoke, I can tell you that I do not hate smokers; I don't like the way some of the opponents of the ban paint supporters as facists or the way some smokers act as if they have a right to smoke anywhere they want, but hatred is not something I feel towards them or toward any person who just lights up a cigarette. If your statement about hatred were true, then I'd hate my own brother.
Not every supporter of the ban is anti-smoker or a hater of smokers. I like the smoke-free laws because they force people to smoke outside, rather than in the bars, clubs, etc., where not everyone wants to inhale the fumes. Under the smoke-free laws, smokers will still be able to smoke; they'll just be the ones who are inconvenienced, rather than the non-smokers. For me, and I would guess a lot of other people, it's not about hate.
I don't think non-smokers hate smokers, but I also don't think most supporters of the ban really care deeply about workers being subjected to second-hand smoke. They simply don't like being around cigarette smoke. As non-smokers become a bigger and bigger majority these bans are going to spread everywhere. It just a numbers game, and they have the numbers. It's just easier to justify a law based on health concerns than to say "the smoke bothers me".
They should just give out "smoking licenses" the same way they give out liquor licenses to different restaurants/bars/clubs. Whatever business chooses to let their patrons smoke should clearly state so, and those who choose to not have smoking in their businesses should be free to do so. I do not think this is an issue government (at any level) should get into. I dont smoke, but no one is FORCING me to go to a place that allows smoking. No one is FORCING me to work in a place that allows smoking.
As for worker safety, gimme a break. Any one who has ever worked at ANY level in a restaurant or bar knows that in most cases chefs/bartenders/waiters are probably the least "health conscious" individuals on the face of the earth.
Vic, you're right, "no one is FORCING [you] to go to a place that allows smoking." But, there are a lot of people who want to enjoy live music, the best DJs or the best bar food and they're forced to tolerate cigarette smoke in order to get it. The point is not that non-smokers know what they're getting into when they step into a smokey bar, but that they'd like to be able to enjoy the unique atmosphere of these places without the cigarette smoke.
this opinionist feature is pure garbage. you need to get back to what you do best as a website.
I think you're spot on when you poke a hole in the "workplace safety" balloon. Servers are subject to numerous injuries and health problems that impact their lives more than smoking, and, once the ban is enacted, I guarantee that nary a one of these so-called workplace crusaders will spend one second working on behalf of restaurant workers ever again.
But in all honesty, you'll find equally pigheaded people in the anti-ban ranks. I think life as we know it will largely go on once this matter is settled (and I wouldn't be surprised if the jerks on Capitol Hill exert their influence before it's over)--and I hope that one of the benefits of this matter concluding is simply cooler heads and friendly faces in bars and restaurants, be they smokers or no.
I'll admit to feeling sad sometimes when I see young people buying cigarettes at my local 7-11. Just sad, never angry. The majority of smokers will grow to hate the habit, feel guilty about it, worry about the health damage to themselves and others and have a tough time quitting.
But adult smoking also directly directly influences children. If adults all stopped smoking, that powerful influence would disappear. It's a selfless reason for giving it up.
Charles Gray, you're very stupid. "As a waiter, I can say that the smoking ban has little to do with worker safety." At least you're an expert. If people cared more about waiters they would tip more? You carry food, I've done (for years), it's not hard. The fact that you make the money you do is a credit to people's generosity. How much do you think is enough for someone with no skills to make? Maybe some people don't tip the appropriate amount, fine, that sucks, I guess that means that people don't think the workplace safety standards that apply to everyone else should apply to you. Oh wait, I'm sorry that makes no sense.
At least you don't mean anyone harm. Neither do drunk drivers or polluting companies, they probably don't want to harm people. Still, they engage in actions knowing that the consequences could be harmful to others. I admit that second hand smoke is nowhere near as dangerous as drunk driving, but the difference is in magnitude not kind.
Smoke is a nuisance and a (pretty minor) health hazard. Lots of nuisances aren't allowed in different venues. Smoking is a nuisance that's been allowed for a long time because of its relative popularity. It's becoming less popular and the nuisance is being further restricted. People don't hate smokers, people just don't like smoke.
DCist Jason, you're arguing that we shouldn't prevent smoke in certain settings because the workers are exposed to "numerous injuries and health problems that impact their lives more than smoking"? So, I guess school bus drivers that stand to die from a crash should be able to smoke on the bus?
What idiotic logic, Jason. What idiotic logic.
Mike F: word. Anyone who has worked in a restaurant knows what you're talking about. Hello, it's called a tip for a reason. I know you're making $2.50/hr or something like that... but if you dont like it, get another job.
Since we care about waitstaff, we are enacting a smoking ban. I agree a big push is due to personal interest, but I think many of us think and tell ourselves
If we cared more about waitstaff, we would do away with the expectation that TIPS will bring total income up to a reasonable wage, and simply legislate that restuarants to pay a decent wage (or at least a minimum wage like every other occupation). Then, we would accept higher prices or expect restaurants to expect lower profits. The tipping system wasn't under discussion until the poster commented:
"If people actually cared about waiters and waitresses they would tip better -- and not view the term “server” along such feudal lines."
If that is so, then you could also say that if people cared about little kids who work in sweatshops in third world countries, they would vet every single product they buy.
I think that most people, at least in DC, do care about waitstaff and little kids in sweatshops, but that there is inertia and a sense of not being able to do anything. Those translate into forgetfulness and a belief there is no way to change institutional harms through personal actions.
I think, however, that we are very willing to pass laws to get ourselves and those around us to do what is right and best for everyone.
You referenced four comments, presumably to illustrate the "hate" being perpetrated on smokers by non-smokers.
Are all the cruel comments mentioned in this article (Mr. Pink Lung, Eric, Ben and Reid) taken from replies to prior articles on the DCist?
Charles, do you think that this piece raises the level of debate? It seems to me that it's just taking the opportunity to insult ban supporters in a full-fledged article rather than a comment. The whole thing seems a bit trollish. And I say that as someone who thought a lot of the commenters on previous Opinionist pieces were ridiculously harsh.
I am a non-smoker, except for the occasional cigar, and I am against the ban in its current form (if it is not offering somewhat easy to obtain exemptions). I am for a mix of formats across the city (smoking/non-smoking/installing air cleaners in some cases, offering tax breaks for choosing to go smoke free, etc.) I believe Carol Schwartz has a smarter, more democratic approach to the problem and I believe the reason this ban is passing now, and the Carol Schwartz approaches are being brushed aside, is because people who are running for Mayor are completely pandering to vocal interests (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802038.html). I would be for a ban in restaurants, and then installing some mechanisms for promoting going smoke free in bars. I think this would promote a mix of formats across the city that would be an improvement to the stale, vanilla environments created by overarching governments in other cities. I also think this would allow a solution that forces all side to concede and compromise, instead of the 'my way or the highway' approach.
And let's not be mistaken, from the ads I have seen and the articles in the Post about the proponents of the ban, they would like no exemptions for anything at all. They would like it their way or the highway, no compromising necessary because they believe their interest are more important, period (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120702507.html). Reminds me of the religious pro-choice groups.
Although our City has been doing better in the past 5 years (apparently much to the chagrin of the anti-gentrifiers), we still cannot afford to put a number of businesses out of business in the short run. It is also completely unfair to the business owners (and their patrons) that will get hurt. And some WILL get hurt. Just because the overall economics of the city may do ok at the aggregate level over the long term does not mean some businesses will not get hurt. I believe some businesses have been hurt in every city that has enacted a strict ban. They have been hurt because the smoking ban proponents believe it is in their best interest. That isn't fair, nor is it democratic. When you are saying something like, 'Oh, you can prove 95% of your business came from smokers who aren't hanging out and spending the money they used to before the ban. Oh, and the non-smokers aren't rushing in and making up the gap, so you are going to be put out of business? Too bad, we were vocal and uncompromising enough during a pre-election campaign that we can now put you out of business without recourse. What? You put your life savings into trying to keep your place going until the non-smokers started to frequent your place. Sorry, we don't like it as much as the smokers did. You don't have the best DJ or the best of anything non-smokers have been waiting for. Yes, you are going out of business and no, we don't care. In fact we pat ourselves on the back for not compromising when we got the votes because we felt sad for the people who were smoking there in the first place. We've done a great thing by putting you out of business. You just don’t know how to appreciate it like you should.'
That just does not sound very democratic or progressive to me. I really believe that a number of the people who dig in deep in promoting things like this ban do start to get personal about it, just like the stadium. When that happens, compromising is very difficult because people take an attitude that they have to beat their opponent, not come to a compromise that takes multiple sides into account. Though I am a democrat, I praise Carol Schwartz for trying to be the voice of reason, just like Steven Pearlstein (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802038.html). Can’t we do better than a strict, all-out ban?
If we start tipping you more, will you start declaring your cash tips to the IRS so they actually count for your taxes?
And thanks for using my comment out of context without asking me first. You completely distorted my response to someone who attacked my position first. Your so-called journalism is pathetic. And anyone on DCist who even THINKS about that joke of a Pulitzer post the other day should be ashamed of themselves. DCist, you're heading downhill rather quickly. Get rid of this lame lame feature already.
By the way, I don't hate smokers. Plenty of my friends in college smoked, but they were considerate about it. I hate a lot of smokers' attitudes. Smoking poses a health risk to everyone involved. You smoke; you damage yourself. But at the same time, you smoke, you damage me. So if one person is smoking in a room of 10, the other 9 people are "enjoying" the bad side effects of smoking. That's just not fair. While private businesses ostensibly have the right to do what they want, under the commerce laws, smoking bans are perfectly legitimate. In a sociey that understands more and more about smoking and its effects, the people who smoke are being *forced* to smoke in situations where the harm they inflict is focused more and more on themselves instead of on the people around them. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you complain about food service safety issues, that's a different complaint. It's somewhat included in the smoking ban, but in reality, that's just an excuse politicians use to make it seem as though they are looking out for workers' rights. Plus, you, as a smoker/waiter are in a unique position. I'm sure plenty of waiters who don't smoke are quite happy that they won't be breathing in contaminated air.
So in the end, had you bothered to conduct some sort of reporting, as are the demands of journalism whether you write opinions pieces of news stories, you ought to ask people their thoughts instead of pulling comments blindly. Again, you didn't bother to put into context my quote. That's journalism on par with Bill O'Reilly's techniques of pulling out quotes while ignoring the overall picture. Do we really want DCist to sink that low?
By the way, I don't hate smokers. Plenty of my friends in college smoked, but they were considerate about it. I hate a lot of smokers' attitudes. Smoking poses a health risk to everyone involved. You smoke; you damage yourself. But at the same time, you smoke, you damage me. So if one person is smoking in a room of 10, the other 9 people are "enjoying" the bad side effects of smoking. That's just not fair. While private businesses ostensibly have the right to do what they want, under the commerce laws, smoking bans are perfectly legitimate. In a sociey that understands more and more about smoking and its effects, the people who smoke are being *forced* to smoke in situations where the harm they inflict is focused more and more on themselves instead of on the people around them. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you complain about food service safety issues, that's a different complaint. It's somewhat included in the smoking ban, but in reality, that's just an excuse politicians use to make it seem as though they are looking out for workers' rights. Plus, you, as a smoker/waiter are in a unique position. I'm sure plenty of waiters who don't smoke are quite happy that they won't be breathing in contaminated air.
So in the end, had you bothered to conduct some sort of reporting, as are the demands of journalism whether you write opinions pieces of news stories, you would have found out that my comment was directed to one rather mean and spiteful smoker and you would have found out more about why I support the smoking ban. Instead, you just feel that what I say is a blanket statement that covers everyone who smokes, including close friends. That's irresponsible writing on a blog that portends to adhere to some sort of standard, and sadly, it's becoming more commonplace with the advent of this Opinionist feature.
Oops. Didn't mean to post the first comment. It wasn't quite finished. Not that there's anything I regret saying but sorry for the double-posting in the comments section.
And anyone on DCist who even THINKS about that joke of a Pulitzer post the other day should be ashamed of themselves.
I think the operative word is "joke". Sheesh.
If we start tipping you more, will you start declaring your cash tips to the IRS so they actually count for your taxes?
Good to see you're maintaining a consistently bitter tone. Not that you're the only person in this town worried about tax evasion by people who earn $2.50/hr as base pay -- it's just that you guys usually dress these initiatives up in slightly more confusing language. Well, I guess appreciate the forthrightness. And while I'm at it: love what you guys've done with Iraq -- very minimalist-by-deconstructivist. Bold!
(For those unattuned to my oh-so-subtle innuendos: I'm trying to say that picking on waiters puts you in very, very bad company)
I'm trying to say that picking on waiters puts you in very, very bad company.
If that's your obstuse way of calling me a Republican, I'm sorry to disappoint you; I wouldn't be caught dead as a Republican. "You guys" however is a perfectly idiotic way to try to condescend to the other political party. It's attitudes like yours that keep the Democrats from making inroad into areas where they are so sorely behind in the polls.
"DCist Jason, you're arguing that we shouldn't prevent smoke in certain settings because the workers are exposed to 'numerous injuries and health problems that impact their lives more than smoking'?
Woah. Hold on. That's not at all what I'm saying. I think the smoking ban will promote wellness among restaurant/bar goers, and that wellness will certainly trickle down to the people that work there.
I'm simply saying that dressing the initiative up as a boon to workplace safety is a chimera. If you want to know a major workplace issue with servers, try plantar faschiitis. Try orthopedic injuries. Wrists, ankles, knees. And not every restaurant offers medical insurance, something even well-tipped waiters would be hard pressed to afford. That's a workplace safety issue that needs attention--will the pro-banners step up right now with their organizational muscle and lobby for waitstaff all the way? I doubt it. I think there are levels of workplace danger the pro-ban folks are willing to happily accept.
I'm actually pretty neutral on the issue; one way or the other, a decision will be made and I'll happily comply. I simply think that the "workplace safety" frame is fakey-fake-McPhony. This writer, a waiter, agrees. I can tell you of two others that second him on that regard (one of whom is in favor of the ban!). Personally, I'd like to hear from more of DC's servers and barstaff on the issue--I'd like to see how their perspective intersects with the pro and anti spokesmodels and where it doesn't.
I am all for work place safety, and I think the best reason for the ban is work place safety. I do not live in DC, however, and have only promoted the smoking ban through channels similar to this by explaining the reasons it is good.
Montgomery Co. already had a smoking ban, for which I am personally grateful. I probably won't join a group to push legislation for waitstaff wages, but I would vote for it or potentially vote for someone pushing it. I would also vote for a higher minimum wage and as possible a real living wage.
I think that most people had selfish reasons for pushing the smoking ban. And that is fine. But the people pushing for the ban had the benefit of have the real, and good, reasons on their side as they pushed. That is why the ban has happened here and so many other places.
"So when this is finally passed, I hope we can move on to other, more important things. Like how the fact that I grew up in Arlington makes me lame. Or how things are better in other cities. Or my personal favorite: how the people who have volunteered their time to write here are not entertaining you."
HA, glad to see the same boring debates occur on every DC-based bulletin board/blog. That would be my complaint; that washingtonians don't have better things to debate on a regular basis. ;) As a semi-smoker, I'll welcome the ban as it really does make for a more pleasant -- no, more bearable -- environment at places like the Black Cat, Cafe Saint Ex and the like.
I'm a non-smoker and I'm certainly for dignifying the service industry, but I'm more than a little bummed to see the ban getting this far. When I go to a bar, I expect to be blinded by smoke. When I go home from a bar, I expect to have to launder everything that had entered the bar with me before being able to wear it again for the stench of smoke.
Sorry, Evzilla, but if you were being serious (I honestly can't tell, as my irony detector's been wonky lately), then that just doesn't sound like a good time to me. Not being blinded by smoke when I go to bars and not having to launder everything I own afterward are two of the reasons I would love a smoking ban.
If Opinionist is discontinued, what will trolls like Ben eat?
If Opinionist is discontinued, what will trolls like Ben eat?
That's rich. Because my comments actually had substance and a point of view. Just because you disagree with me (or find my reasoning, well, unreasonable) doesn't mean there are any ground for banning. Thanks thought for contributing. It certainly enriched the conversation!
Have to admit, Katmere's point is well made. Sometimes it's all about what you're selling. Beyond right and wrong, most people simply buy what's easy.
OK Ben, don't flatter yourself. And here's a "thought:" why don't you just pull up your pants and exit these Opinionist threads if you think they're so lame?
My comment was also taken a bit out of context. People were arguing that the smoking ban was a violation of their liberty. I was arguing that for a variety of reasons that's not true. I was merely pointing out that whether or not to ban smoking is purely a policy choice. And the council is free to set a popular policy if it wants. That's it. I felt no need to make someone else agree with my desire for a ban. I want it, and that's enough for me. If anti-ban people can get more to not want it, then they win. It's that simple.
The fact is that smokers are bitter that they find themselves in this situation. I'd probably be for a limited number of smoking licenses for loud bars I don't go to much. But really, I don't care if that doesn't happen. I think that's up to the anti-ban crowd to formulate.
Smokers have had a monopoly on bars for a long time, now they're losing it and are angry. Any apoplectic statements they make are simply the last long drags on a stale cigarette.
you're an ass.
I agree...it's not the smokers, it's the smoke. I love to go to clubs and concerts, but have asthma and each time I go, I feel horrible the next day. Additionally, I support the ban not because I hate smokers, but because I care about them. Most of my friends smoke and most have tried to quit and would rather not smoke. A few of my friends have moved to smokefree cities and have managed to quit and have been really happy about it, but have started once they move back to a city without a ban. I hate seeing my friends go through this, especially when many of them who have parents who smoked and have had heart attacks, lung cancer, or have already passed away. It is horrible to see my friends in this conflicted state where they want to quit because they have already lost someone, but because nicotine is so addictive, the have such a hard time quitting. The smoking ban supports them; therefore, I support it.
People who write fro DCist need to get over themselves. If this site wants to take itself seriously as a news outlet (which obviously it does, as the Pultizer post suggests), it needs to quit jumping down people's throats when they disagree. You don't see Post reporters doing that, do you? People are always going to criticize your work and your positions. Take it like an adult and shut up already. You've said your piece.
To be fair, Anne, you don't see Post reporters' responding to criticism in the comments section, because, for most of their columns, they don't have comments sections.
We have opened all our non-interview content to reader opinions, right there on the site, in front of everyone, below the piece. I think it's reasonable to expect our writers to respond to comments on their work in such a context.
This has got to be the most poorly argued blog post I've ever seen. Don't make yourself out to be a victim, Opinionist. People don't hate you. They hate your smoke, and now they hate your weak arguments.
DCist, your blog will be a LOT better if you don't let writers like this post. He's bringing you down.
By the way, I lived in California when the smoking ban passed and loved it. I was living in New York when its smoking ban was passed, and I think the city's nightlife is MUCH better with the ban in place. I cannot imagine going back to a smoking state.
Yes, but Ryan, I think some of the DCist writers tend to respond not to critiques of their piece. Rather, they attack the people critiquing them. From a personal view point, that hasn't happened to me even though some of what I've written has been heat-of-the-moment reaction instead of well-developed comments. But I've seen it happen in a few threads where one or two commenters disagree with a conclusion and the writer attacks the commenters instead of rebutting their arguments. That's not good reader service, so to speak.
I think that it should be noted that I don't write for DCist. If you want to use a newspaper analogy, this is more of a letter to the editor than anything else.
One of the things I find strangest is the complaint that "smokers think they have the right to smoke wherever they want." They don't. They think they have a right to smoke when they're visiting a place whose owner has decided to permit his or her visitors to smoke. If anything, it seems to be the non-smokers who think they have a right to visit any place they please on their own terms, dictating the rules to the owner of the place they're visiting. Nobody is quite so rude when they're visiting a private home, of course, but for some reason folk seem to think that "but I like this bar" or "but I want to see this band" gives them license to bully bar owners.
I don't smoke, but it helps keep the population low. Think of it like abortion, but just 60 years down the road.
You people are continuing to confuse public and private space. Yes, the DC Council cannot prevent people from allowing guests to smoke in their home (without some really strong evidence that it was a fire hazzard), but these are COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. The local governmental authority always has the right to regulate the manner in which restaurants operate. It's the same reason that there are maximum occupancy limitations or food inspections. It's why you can't buy liquor at a gocery store. It's why bars have to close at 2 AM. There is no question whether the DC Council CAN do this. It needs no other justification beyond the fact that people consider smoking in a bar to be a nuisance and want something done about it.
Before I get corrected, I should not say the government has "always had the right" but rather "has had a long standing and virtually unquestionable perogative".
Reid, I know your comment about low population was made in jest (I think) so I won't harp too much. But actually smoking seems to do very little to keep the population low. It may keep the geriatric population low, but I bet it actually raises the overall societal cost of medicinal care for that age cohort, so there seems to be very little "benefit" there.
Pretty much the only wide-scale societal impact of smoking that is really of any note (other than what you might want to say about the tax revenues and tobacco company profits and their uses) is that it does have medical harms, which we pay for in many ways, whether it's we treat the smokers or we have to treat those who are around high levels of second hand smoke.
Things are funnier if there is a bit of truth as opposed to a miscalculation. But it seems you meant well, sort of.
Ok, that comment should be addressed to good night, but I would swear it said it was from reid when I posted it. Sorry.
Uhhh, I didn't say anything about population levels, that was "Goodnight".
This is going to kill the restaurant/bar business in DC. Look at Bethesda. That place sucks. Seriously.
I don't think The Opinionista is attacking YOU people per se, but the people who represented you in putting the ban in place. (We don't need to do the whole DC, "But I'm a nice fascist!" thing.) I personally like the ABC liquor/smoke license idea. Just one more bribe to make, you know? However, you've got to admit, those people who led the ban campaign are crazy. I've had run-ins with several of them in my neighborhood while I was smoking and they not only gave the stink eye, but then, when I flicked my cigarette in their yard, they yelled at me. The nerve!
And from what I understand, having someone die at 60 from lung cancer is much less of a burden on the health care market than someone living until 85 and dying from a much slower acting cause (versus most other cancers, I believe lung cancer is deadlier and faster to boot). But I really think that's neither here nor there as to whether we should have a smoking ban in bars.
Julian, am I bullying motorists when I support the city council's enforcement of red lights and parking restrictions? Your point about the "I have a right to" perspective is well taken, but this language about "bullying" starts us down the pointless libretarian slope that inevitably ends "at gunpoint!"
As I've stated before, I personally think it's a bit of gov't overreaching (tho' I'd admittedly enjoy the benefits of that overreaching) and that the decision should be left to the owners. That said, I think the vast majority of those opposing the ban appear to base their argument on the (mis) conception that they have a right to do as they please, consequences to others be damned. This argument is weak, and generally leads to the sort of pitiful debate you see here (I'll also credit the "but smoking is bad for you!" folks with adding to the pitiable nature, too).
Vote with your wallets and patronage to these establishments. Imo, restaurants/bars and clubs are not PUBLIC property. I'm all for smoking bans in public places and in the workplace, where we all have to go (or most of us). But these are PRIVATE businesses. The essence of capitalism, if they think they can make more $ by having smokers go to their businesses, they should be free to do just that. If they choose to ban smoking on their premises, they should feel free to do that as well.
Finally, c'mon, if the governemnt was really that worried about smoking, they would ban it, but the industry is so heavily taxed that policymakers can not have all that tax money dissapear.
What's next, prohibition all over again, 'cos sure as hell you can see the statistics on the corelation between drinking and riving, alcoholism and domestic violence, crime, etc.
Hey Vic, the question isn't whether this is public "property" but whether they are public places. The same arguments against the ban were used to fight the application of the Civil Rights Act to restaurants. (I'm not saying that anti-ban people are equivilant to those fighting civil rights in restaurants. I want that to be clear.) But what I'm saying is that for the same reason that the laws against discrimination towards blacks in restaurants were upheld the law banning smoking in a public establishment will also be upheld. (actually the constitutional basis for local laws prohibiting smoking is a lot stronger than the basis for Congress regulating a diner 50 miles from the interstate, yet the federal law was upheld).
So as long as anti-ban people keep saying "the Council has no right", "this is an abbaration of the law", "where do the pro-ban people get off..", etc., they will not have a viable argument.
The only argument that can be made against the ban is to convince people that they would not like a city with a ban.
The old slippery slope argument is especially weak. "The next thing you know we'll ban alchohol". Well...no. No large numbers want to do that. Maybe someday there would be, but guess what, if in the future there are numbers to support prohibition, whether or not we ban smoking now will be of no consequence. They'll ban it then regardless of what we do now, and there's nothing that a vocal minority could do about it except vote on that basis.
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/18/437d7bfc82108?in_archive=1
Our school newspaper harped on this since PG County enacted a similar law and I came to the same conclusion as the Opinionist this week. It's a matter of changing culture and values. We enact laws in response to value change, it is how we work as a society. Maybe some people are a little rough on smokers. Eh, there are always people who hate you for what you do. Don't be a pansy, people say lots of stuff on Blog comments they wouldn't say in real life.
Point well taken Reid, but what constitutes a "public place?" In a public place everyone has the right to go regardless of their race, SES, age, sex, etc. Bars/clubs have age restrictions, in many cases a dress code, sometimes you pay cover, etc. In order to go to a restaurant, you are expected to consume something, you just can't sit there all day w/o buying anything. Malls are private places as well.
This is the cornerstone of my argument, that restaurants, bars, clubs, are not public places. A park is. I can go sit on a bench and stay all day if I want, a bus, a building, etc. If I go to a club, I am agreeing to abide to a certian code of conduct in accordance to the policies set forth by that club. If I dont like it, I'll have to go somewhere else. I pay cover, abide by the dress code, and if the bouncer doesnt like the way I look that night, I'm not getting in. Its not the same as going to the DMV where I can show up in sandals, shorts and a wife beater.
I dont smoke, and I hate coming back home from a club smelling like smoke, but again, vote with your wallets.
The Councl has the right to impose a ban, that is why we have local laws, local elected officials that act based on the interest of the majority. I just don't think that their rationale for decison making is based on sound research. It takes over 35 years of occupational exposure to second hand smoke for it to cause any significant damage. In part that is why I still think that all these establishments should be free to make the appropriate choice that best fits their business model. If they feel they can make more $ by allowing smoking in their premises, by all means they should feel free to do so. If its the opposite, they should feel free to do so as well.
Anyone know what is legaly considered "public place?"
Vic,
I don't understand your argument. Do you concede that the DC Council can impose this ban or not? Either you agree that they can impose the ban and you provide a reason why the Council should decide not to, or you state that they cannot pass the ban (and you'd be wrong, see California, New York, Mont. County., etc.)
What if a waitress gets pregnant and works in the smoke filled recesses of a bar? Will her baby suffer from birth defects? Will she get medicaid (if she doesn't report her tips)? Will that affect our health premiums and taxes? Think about that.
Quite honestly, I have absolutely no sympathy for smokers. I have always been sensitive to smoke of all kinds, including tobacco smoke. It causes my nose to plug up and ache, after which I get a headache. If it were possible for me to get used to smoke, I would be used to it because my mother smoked. Until I left home, I suffered from chronic headaches.
At one time, I was considered to be unreasonable and rude for prohibiting smoking in my home. Fortunately, that is no longer true. I also suffered from second-hand smoke at work until companies banned smoking in the work place. As the result of all this, I favor banning smoking in all places except in hermetically sealed smoking closets.
Moreover, tobacco should be sold only by registered tobacconists, of which there should be few to make buying tobacco inconvenient, and tobacco should be sold only to registered addicts and the list of addicts should be public and available on the Internet.
Tobacco addiction can be overcome by anyone who is determined to overcome it. Thus, smoking is a VOLUNTARY act and should be treated as such.
I simply think that the "workplace safety" frame is fakey-fake-McPhony. This writer, a waiter, agrees.
DCist Jason, this editor of cancer research disagrees. Secondhand smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS to Uncle Sam's statisticians) is considered to be a major predictor of bad, bad business. Whether ban supporters are intimately familiar with the data or are arguing the workplace health angle in bad faith doesn't change the facts: serum cotinine levels among nonsmoking waiters is about four times the national nonsmoking mean, IIRC.
I think ban opponents are more likely to be fed-up nonsmokers than libertarians, and ban supporters more likely to be smokers than true blue friends of the worker. But if anybody's curious, the health data fall wholly on the side of the ban. I don't see that the government has an interest in protecting a right to lower drycleaning bills, but it has an interest, if not an obligation, to try to stamp out preventable environmental carcinogens.
So ban opponents say that ban supporters don't honestly care about workers. Really, that's a pretty subjective stake and mostly serves to undermine an effective argument. Better ground: You gotta fight/ For your right. . . .
Fair enough, G-Policeman. I respect yr skills. I am just trying to say that in my own talks with area servers, I've yet to have one place second-hand smoke on the top of their workplace safety wishlist. Most are concerned primarily about what could go wrong with their feet.
Reid, like I mentioned they can impose the ban. The same way MoCo decided to do it, CA, NYC, its a local issue. Like people who are in favor of it, there are people who are opposed to it - that is not the question. There are local laws regarding a bunch of issues throughout the country whether you agree with them or not. The question for me is, that their rationale for wanting to impose this ban is dubious at best for the reasons I previously stated. Private vs. public place, etc.
I think ecah establishment should be free to choose if they want to impose it or not based on what is convinient for them.
I'm supporting a smoking ban because smoking and second hand cigarette smoke makes me cough. You might say too bad for you, go to another bar that doesn't allow smoke. Tough Titty. Only problem with that is my friends are at the smoke filled bar and as far as I know, bar wise, there's only one health bar on U St. that is non-smoking.
Why that is? I'll assume supply and demand, or some kind of bars go to the lowest denominator philosophy. Plain and simple, I should have to blow blackened, cigarette tinged snot balls from my nose after having drinks at a bar.
Yeah to Kriston. Always good to have the research (and researchers) on your side.
All the smoking peeps should just go to VA. Possibilities of a ban ever getting imposed in a tobacco growing state are probably close to nil.
Most are concerned primarily about what could go wrong with their feet.
Hey, I believe it. I mean, I'm a "victim" of first-hand smoke, so know that I'm crying over Camels when I'm reading about the horrible early end I'm looking forward to, but I'm not crying too hard or I'd quit.
The science isn't the end-all and be-all of the debate. It really hinges on whether bartenders have a fluid job market. The government regulates drycleaners, for example, because no one can work in drycleaning and not be exposed to carcinogens like Perc—carcinogens, apparently, make your synthetic fibers crips and clean—so the govermnet requires all sorts of mandatory ventilation, minimum equipment standards, and whatever.
I don't think that it's realistic that every pregnant bartender or quitted smoker can just take a job at the totally viable, similarly demographically situated bar with a decent jukebox across the street. A couple notables aside, nonsmoking bars suck hard, and nonsmokers will mostly choose bars that cater to the demands of their smoking friends because that's seen as the polite thing to do. The market completely favors smoking bars. (That's why smoking ban opponents reach for places like Cosi or Firehook Bakeries when they're pleading that there are hundreds of cool, nonsmoking hangouts so-please-shut-the-eff-up-nonsmokers. In fact, no. There aren't.)
That said, the one pregnant bartender I actually knew (who worked at Velvet Lounge)—one being a small number given the thousands of pregnant bartenders cited in the debate—didn't quit, but said, Listen up, you fucks, I'm pregnant, so go outside to smoke for the next 9 months. And it was fine—so there are nongovernment solutions to the problem. It's tricky. I think incentives like licenses are the proper way to balance the market to ensure lots of rights and interests.
But whatever science, ethics, and your mother says about smoking in bars—you must smoke in pool halls. Research shows that it's not actually possible to sink a ball without a Marlboro dangling from your mouth. Also: bowling. Something about Newtonian physics, IIRC.
Whoa, that's one long, stern comment after another. Um. Would it help if I said that I have no sympathy because 411 j00 n00bz 423 teh suX0rs?
Hey! I remember that bartender from the Velvet, Kriston! I also recall that her patrons were only too happy to oblige.
Kriston, thanks for sharing the story about the Velvet Lounge bartender. That was very cool of her patrons to take their smoking outside. What about pregnant woman who don't work at bars, but who just want to go out for live music and who are suddenly limited on where they can go to hear it? Obviously many pregnant women are probably not going to be going anywhere they might end up in a mosh pit, but there are lots of them (like my wife) who want to catch a tame show somewhere. A pregnant woman can go to the movies or a play, but can't see a band in most venues around town because of the smoke. We were in smoke-free Boston recently and got to catch some live music together for the first time since we found out we were expecting. I wish we could do the same thing here in D.C.
For writing such a pathetic article, you DESERVE all the negative comments you have received! Thank you for admitting that you are a brain-damaged smoker. Now, I fully understand how you could have written such a ludicrous diatribe. Everyone has a long-standing RIGHT to smoke-free air. Toxic tobacco smoke should rightfully be BANNED EVERYWHERE - indoors and out!
Proof that there will always be toxic things in the environment...
Hemal,
Reading that piece was the best laugh I've had today. Looking forward to more of your writing.
Wouldn't letting the free market decide make more sense? If non-smokers (the vast majority of the popluation) hated smelling like smoke so much, wouldn't a smoke-free bar make tons of money, since all of the non-smokers would flock there. You would think with the option of smoke-free bars and smoking allowed bars and with the vast majority of people do not like smoke, that the smoke-free bars would do ok. Or are the numbers skewed that the vast majority who go to bars indeed smoke?
No, anon, the "free market" deciding would not make more sense. The free market is notoriously (reliably?) unable to account for all of the externalities that truly go into the cost of a given product.
"One of the reasons I selected the January 1 [2007] deadline [for a smoking ban implementation at restaurant bars, bars, and nightclubs], the first and foremost, was to give employees a chance to make some financial accommodations, either change careers or at least have a good head start on saving some money so that once this is implemented . . . for them to be able to sustain themselves."
-- D.C. Councilmember David A. Catania (I - At Large) statement at the D.C. Council session on December 6, 2005, successfully enlisting a majority Council vote preliminarily approving his mandatory smoking ban legislation
"I've always felt that we should not impose a blanket ban . . . To do so puts the District at a competitive disadvantage with nearby jurisdictions. My goal was to create a 100 percent ban on restaurant dining areas, while still providing opportunities for . . . establishments to permit smoking among bar patrons. I strongly encourage the Council to revisit this legislation before its next reading."
-- D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) statement on December 6, 2005
Transaction costs prevent the market from properly expressing the preferences of society. I'm unaware of what the numbers are for smokers v. nonsmokers, and of course there is no way for properly measuring individual preferences. However, presuming (perhaps wrongly) that the preferences of the nonsmokers to enjoy a smoke free environment outweighs the preferences of the smoker to be able to smoke, then the imposition of a ban would be an entirely appropriate manner to effect the preferences of a group who due to transaction costs cannot express their preferences effectively.
However, presuming (perhaps wrongly) that the preferences of the nonsmokers to enjoy a smoke free environment outweighs the preferences of the smoker to be able to smoke, then the imposition of a ban would be an entirely appropriate manner to effect the preferences of a group who due to transaction costs cannot express their preferences effectively.
Well, it's late, and I can't exactly make sense of that. But I'd like to note that Smokers and Non aren't creeds, and in mixed company, the unrestricted nonsmokers seem to bow to the wishes of the smokers. It's not any sort of ethical decision—it's just that when you're out with Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jane, and Harry and Jane smoke, you simply go to the place that allows Harry and Jane to smoke. Because they're your friends, and whatever. The reason the market selects for smoking bars is that enough people smoke that everybody's got a few friends in his urban tribe who smoke, and out of polite deference to those smokers, the group doesn't choose a bar from the few (heinous) nonsmoking joints in town.
Kriston, I'd say that's correct. More generally though, I'd say that non-smokers' demand for a smoke-free bar is more flexible than smokers' demand for a smoking-bar. Therefore a bar has a choice between appealing to the majority and alienating the minority OR appealing to the minority and still getting most of the majority to come. It's not a question of non-smokers choosing non-smoking bars, it's their willingness to go to smoking-bars that creates the market failure. Perhaps they are accompanying a smoker whose demand for a smoking-bar outweighs his demand for a non-smoking bar (because his demand is more flexible). Or perhaps they want to go to the new hot bar that allows smoking. Because most non-smokers will still go grudgingly to a smoking-bar, then bars have no incentive to alienate the minority who will NOT go to a non-smoking bar.
So basically, non-smokers have been accomodating their smoking bretheren for a long time, but now they won't have to anymore.
Well, that's not exactly true. It's just the new accomodation non-smokers will make when they go out with smoking friends is that they'll be going to bars with outdoor seating and service, patios, and accomodations made to smokers under the law.
I suppose that's somewhat true, except that in the summer, such patios are already quite full, and in the winter, I don't think non-smoking friends will be joining their smoking friends on any patio.
I suppose a possible ramification of this will make patios more smokey as smokers converge there. That doesn't much bother me, but I guess it's a likely byproduct nonetheless.
I cannot wait until the ban takes effect and I can go out and enjoy myself! I quit smoking 15 years ago becuase I have severe asthma and it was one of the best things I've ever done. I used to work in bars and I'll tell you, coming home wheezing and smelling like an ashtray is the pits. I can't go out to most DC bars and clubs due to the smoke haze, unless I want to wind up sick and not breathing. I was in Bethesda last week for a conference and went out afterwards for drinks in a SMOKE FREE restaurant - which was packed on a Thursday - and what a wonderful experience. I've also been in NYC and San Diego, which are two of the many many smoke-free cities in the US. There is no way a smoking ban is going to harm DC businesses. People are still going to go out, albeit grumbling that they can't have their smoke inside. And for those of you who say us non-smokers hate the smokers, I disagree at least for myself- I just feel sorry for smokers that they can't pull it together enough to quit because if I can do it, anyone can. however, i do hate people like my ex-roomate for hotboxing it in the car with the windows up while her kids rides with her. That's not because people like these are smokers, but because they are stupid and lazy and selfish. You can still be a nice person and (unfortunately) smoke.
Obviously this is a very charged debate with a lot of emotions tied up in it, but let's look at the simple legal argument here--this is about a law, after all. Our legal system works on the Enlightenment principle that people have a right to do pretty much what they want up to the point where it harms others. When people smoke, it infringes on the right of those around them to breath clean air. At a more specific level, the government can write regulations that provide for the "health, safety, and welfare" of the citizens. Given that, as Kriston has pointed out, smoking is proven to cause serious health problems in waiters and others, the state has a right to regulate it. The government pays millions in medical fees for smoking-related illnesses in uninsured people (note that many waiters unfortunately fall into this category), so it has a right to ban smoking in the work place.
Frankly, if it weren't for the economics of it, the government would probably ban cigarettes altogether--unlike alocohol, it will harm you even when used as directed.
hey, take it down a notch, klingle. personal attacks are uncalled for and against comment policy.
wow. i move for klingle's comment to be deleted. comments wishing for the death of a post's author really kind of go beyond being "against comment policy" into the realm of psychosis.
We received the following comment from Angela Bradbery of Smokefree DC.
I feel compelled to response to Charles Gray's 12/11 posting, in which he asserts that the smokefree workplace legislation that Smokefree DC has been pushing for "seems born more out of malice than anything else."
I can assure Charles and other DCist readers that as one of the two people who started Smokefree DC, this movement was by no means born of malice but from a genuine concern about the public health risks posed by secondhand smoke. We don't hate smokers - we dislike the smoke and what it does to innocent bystanders. This is not a ban -- we are not telling people they cannot smoke. We merely ask them to step outside to protect the health of those around them.
The hostile comments about smokers that Charles cites reflect the personal feelings of those non-smokers quoted, not the feelings of Smokefree DC.
Angela Bradbery
Co-founder, Smokefree DC
angela@smokefreedc.org
"I know that the effects of second-hand smoke are real and serious. But at least those who smoke don’t want to harm those who don’t."
Hey honey, I know that keeping my loaded gun under our six year old's bed was going to cause a real and serious problem. But at least I did't WANT to harm him
By smoking in enclosed spaces, non-smokers are being completely selfish. Sure, you don't want to affect us with your second-hand smoke, but you don't seem to care very much when you do because it wasn't your intention. You're blameless! It's your selfish actions that make non-smokers so angry. Wouldn't you, too, be resentful of someone who did something dangerous around you with no regard for your health or preferences?
Angela's not asking anyone to do anything. She's telling them, and she's backing it up with the threat of force.
The very least she could do is be honest about what an indoor smoking ban is: it's a ban on indoor smoking, not an invitation to step outside.
That's a pretty sweet talking point, though.