January 4, 2006
Smokers Snuffed Out
Well, it's done -- the D.C. Council endorsed for a second and final time a ban on smoking in area bars and restaurants on an 11-1 vote, all but assuring that D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams cannot successfully veto the legislation. The ban will take force next January, but will exempt hotel rooms, medical research facilities, cigar and hookah bars, and tobacco stores.
According to ban opponents, the legislation all but assures the death of the District's thriving bar and restaurant scene and the eventual and inevitable imposition of any number of other restrictions on having fun. Ban supporters are no doubt cheering, ecstatic that they can now go drink themselves silly and wake up in a pool of their own vomit without having to wash the smoke out of their clothes.
|
woo-hoo!
Ah, now I see why TypeKey was discarded TODAY. Martin wants to see a gigantic flame war erupt over the smoking ban just like the last few times this topic has come up on DCist.
Not today, Martin. I'm on to you!
I smoke when I'm out drinking, and I found my experiences in New York and Boston - both with smoking bans - the ban is a good thing. Your clothes don't smell, you end up not smoking as much, your non-smoking guests aren't repulsed, etc. If you couldn't see this ban coming from a mile away, you must have had blinders on.
With the restaurant and bar industry thriving in New York City and Los Angeles despite a smoking ban, I think smokers will still be waking up in their own pool of vomit with the best of them.
So does anybody really think that it's going to kill the bar scene? In NYC people still go to bars, and then they meet outside for a smoke. It makes it easier to hook up outside without the loud music. Plus you already know if the potential target is down with ashtray mouth.
What happened to the hookah bax exception?
I'm not a smoker, and I really don't enjoy coming home reeking of cigarettes every time I go out to the DC bars....however, I still don't like the ban. I guess it's simply a principled thing - I don't think the government should be getting into this business of further regulating something that is already legal. I know, they regulate drunk driving, but drunk drivers hurt and kill innocent people, whereas people who go to (or work in) bars with second-hand smoke are well aware of what it's going to be like, and accept any of the harms associated with it.
I've never been one to say it, but let the market do the work - I imagine if a couple of DC bars go smoke-free on their own, they might get a lot of business...I know I'd push to go there, and I know many of people who also would (including smoker friends). The supporters of the ban should have just gotten behind lobbying individual establishments to change on their own, instead of forcring their views on everyone.
While I doubt this ban will kill the DC nightlife, I still don't like it. So there.
I've been against the ban all along, but I think it really will impact DC nightlife very much more that it has NYC and Boston for a couple (well, really one and a half) reasons: DC's much smaller, and also a huge proportion of DC bargoers are from the burbs. They'll probably come in from Monty County just the same, but many fewer Arlington/Alexandria folks will come.
Not that I'll be sad to see the NoVa******s gone, but they keep the bars profitable.
That and I feel like the ban is a violation of my god-given rights to smell like smoke, rot my teeth, and get cancer.
Hi Jay. Do people who go to work in mines accept the risk that the roof will fall in on them? You might want to rethink this aspect of your argument.
Wierd as it may be, I sort of feel similar about this as I do about the great church parking debate of aught-five.
As much as I think they were disingenuous with the workplace safety angle, the ban people had all the legal and rhetorical reasoning on their side. From a technical standpoint, they were correct.
But to me, it all just amounts to persistent, well-organized bitching and whining. If comments on this site have been any indication, the real sentiment giving the ban proponents so much tenacity was a loathing of smoking and smokers (the smell, etc.). They were just sophisticated enough to find a more politically palatable mantle.
Bars have always been smoke-filled. Churchgoers have always double-parked. Liquor stores sell 40 oz bottles of malt liquor in paper bags. Does there have to be an outraged crusade about everything that a vocal minority finds unsavory? Where does it stop? Why can't some people just accept some of the petty inconveniences of urban living?
it's about time DC caught up with other major cities. i think the smoking ban is a great idea, an dthe idea that it will hurt DC is silly.
yay! smoke free!!
There are many "petty inconveniences of urban living" that people accept, even find charming. However, any argument based on the idea that "that's how it has always been done" fails in a modern society. There are numerous reasons for the smoking ban, what you saw here was a lot of bitching and moaning, but that is not why it passed.
Anyone know more specifics of the timing (phase-in) and exceptions in the bill?
Frankly, I find myself smoking a ton less when I'm in Cali or NYC. It's sort of nice. I was against the ban, but I agree that the "this is the way it has always been" argument is flawed. The "market choice" argument I can see and do, technically, agree with -- but this was gonna happen. Oh well. Looks like I'll become a Soussi regular.
Hey Mark, yes, they accept certain risks when they take the job. However, they do trust the mines they're working in to be up to code, i.e. functioning legally. From what I've gathered from the mine collapse, that wasn't the case.
When I go into a bar where people are smoking around me, I accept the risks associated with second-hand smoke, just like when I drink, I accept the risks associated with alcohol. I make a choice to do so, as do all bar patrons. Same goes for the workers. When you apply to work in a bar that isn't smoke-free, you're not an idiot - I'm sure you know that you'll be working in a smoky environment. You weigh the risks of the job with the rewards of the job and decide if it's worth it to you. Individuals who work in mines take the same type of risks, but on a much different level. I'm positive all 12 of those miners were aware of the dangers associated with their job...however, I doubt they expected their job to be MORE dangerous because the company they were working for refused to keep the mine up to code and ignored warnings.
Mark: as to your statement "Do people who go to work in mines accept the risk that the roof will fall in on them? You might want to rethink this aspect of your argument." I think that people who work in mines DO accept the risk that the roof will fall in on them (or at least accept the possibility that it may happen). CNN had a story about how mine workers in WV are one of the highest "anyone-can-do-it" jobs in the state. There were many quotes from people quite aware of the danger, and quite able to make the decision as to whether the risk is worth it to them and their family.
As to the DC Smoking Ban, I agree with the free market person. Why ostracize any group? If people really care THAT MUCH to frequent places that are smokefree, then tell bar owners (busboys & poets got the message) and show them that it is profitable to offer the new smoking option, and that if people smoke, you won't go. Problem is, not many people care THAT MUCH, but they sure care enough to sign a petition and force their will on everyone else.
That said, I don't think the ban will measurely affect bar sales one way or the other. People go to the bar for booze, not for smokes.
rollins, Kanishka, my comments aren't really intended to weigh in on the public policy debate. The ban proponents win the argument - politically, legally, technically. I don't have a counter-argument; I understand that "it's always been this way" doesn't work.
I'm really just expressing my personal distaste with a kind of vague underlying trend that determines that these are the issues people are deciding to organize around and create change.
I know I'm just romanticizing things, and I'm by no means a libertarian or free-marketeer. I don't even smoke. I just think it kind of sucks. Imagining the dive bars we all know and love going smoke-free just kind of makes my heart sink a little, that's all.
cheers.
This is what I see happening:
Williams vetoes the measure, further delaying it. The Council then overrides his veto. The Republicans in Congress then block the measure from taking effect. If they can prevent the city from legalizing medicinal marijuana (which they have), they can block the smoking ban, and I think they will, unjustly or not.
I wonder if it's going to be a slap on the wrist for a violation like chicago, or a really serious one? And, to what degree is it really going to be enforced? Bring on the smoking speakeasies.
"Ban supporters are no doubt cheering, ecstatic that they can now go drink themselves silly and wake up in a pool of their own vomit without having to wash the smoke out of their clothes."
Amen! I for one intend to signifigantly increase my booze consumption now that I won't have to spread out my sweater and jacket every time I stop off for a drink on the way home from work. About 10 minutes after this ban goes into effect, we'll all wonder what all the fuss was about.
I feel sorry for the smokers (I used to smoke socially but don't anymore). Funny enough, I used to take pride in coming home after a long night of clubbing to and smelling my clothes in the morning (ahhh...badge of clubster).
Laters.
The smoking ban is the greatest thing to happen to DC since the MCI Center. Finally, I will be able to go out and not come home smelling like I was burned at the stake. Finally, when I am waiting for my train at Union Station, I will be able to cross the street and grab a pre-ride drink at the Dubliner and not board the train smelling like an ashtray.
Smokers are disgusting, self-righteous, ignorant people who have caused cancer for so many. No more will I have to sit at a bar next to some inconsiderate ***hole holding his cigarette in my face so that he and his friend won't have the smoke blow into their clothes.
Let the smokers eat their hearts out.
You anti-smokers have won the battle but my followers will win the war and I am not just blowing smoke!
To all the folks who say the ban will kill (or even hurt) the DC bar scene, let's make a deal:
Show up here in March 2007, 3 months after the ban goes into effect. If you're right we'll give you your due. You have until then to come up with an explanation as to why it did not hurt the DC bar business one significant bit.
It will be unfortunate if bars lose business because of the ban (can they become hookah bars?); but what I don't mind is the fact that the tobacco companies will lose of business.
DCist Melissa, it's almost a guarantee that smoking speakeasies will pop up almost immediately after this law goes into effect. The city is notorious for not enforcing the laws it passes (see: drinking age; cell phones while driving; rush-hour parking restrictions). I know my friendly neighborhood bartenders aren't going to be too strict about enforcing it, because they know the city won't enforce it, either because of outright corruption or because the measure will be severely underfunded.
I really hope that, along with this dumb law, the Council is drawing up plans to close 18th Street in Adams Morgan (and, for that matter, M Street in Georgetown) to vehicular traffic on Friday and Saturday nights when the ban goes into effect. Even now--pre-ban--people have given up on walking on the sidewalks and have taken to walking in the streets. Now picture it with all the smokers clogging the sidewalks. It's not going to be pretty.
Smoking and bars go together like Mom and apple pie. Granted smoking will kill you, but so will too much tofu.
This is another reason to live in Northern
VA. And it should be the theme of at least a dozen essays at whyihatedc.blogspot.com this week.
TC
"This is another reason to live in Northern VA"
So you can die of boredom faster than lung cancer?
The idea that this will kill off bars is absurd. What percentage of the population smokes? 25%? Maybe 30%? 70%-75% of the population is essentially unaffected by this, and will continue to go out to bars and clubs. Do you think the smokers will sit at home and smoke, or go out with the rest of us?
Hooray for the opportunity to step into a bar for an hour and NOT have to wash every article of clothing I happen to be wearing. (a load of laundry costs 3 bucks in my building - are you gonna reimburse me for that so you have the "right" to douse me in smoke for the sin of leaving my house?) No, I don't get wasted and collapse in a pool of vomit...ever...I'm 29 years old. Many people go to bars to have a drink or two, to hang out with friends, to listen to music. I guess most of the pro-smoking DCist commenters are fresh out of college and still think that all there is to life are puking fratboy bars, but someday you too will grow up and experience new things, I promise! Ask your mom and dad if you don't believe me.
I can't wait to be able to go out for an evening and not have to shampoo my hair 3 times the next morning to get the stench out. I don't care if smokers think this is frivolous or stupid; I think their whining and bitching about having to stand outside to smoke is frivolous and stupid. I used to be more tolerant of smoking, but last weekend I was sitting in a bar across from a friend who chain smoked Marlboro reds in my face the entire night, and I just decided I had had it. Couldn't get one decent breath the entire night. Screw that. Fact is, society has changed. A majority of people no longer smoke, smoking is no longer seen as oh-so-rebellious and cool, and it has fallen out of favor. So, in a democracy, things that fall out of favor with the majority often get regulated. Sorry. I hear the Nicorette gum works pretty well.
I think you all are missing the whole enabling factor of smoking in bars. There is a whole segment of people who, like me, don't buy a pack of smokes before they go out, but when they're partying on the weekend don't see a problem with bumming from friends, bartenders, or that cutie in the short skirt over there... There is probably a small minority of hard-core smokers in the bar, and the rest of the people creating the haze are amateurs like me taking advantage of the convenient smokes. That's why you get the illusion of "everyone here smokes," and yet so many people seem to shrug when they hear about the ban. The ban will probably make me healthier, and will force me to use a better line than "Hey, can I bum one of those, please?"
hooray, do you only wash your clothes when you get smoke on them?
this debate has long since become tiresome and repetitive (obviously). someone should go back and count how many times someone on this board has said "I can't wait to go out and not have to do laundry/dry-clean/wash hair/febreeze/ etc." that should be beside the point anyway, since this is about workplace safety, right?
People act as though it's impossible go out and avoid smoke-choked air, but it's really not the case. there are plenty of bars that don't have a lot of smokers, or have good ventilation, etc. Don't go to the Raven or the Brickskellar if you don't like smoke.
Lot's of people say that it's going to kill the bar scene etc., and while it's my personal opintion that it won't, I wonder what the *actual* effect of the smoking ban was in Montgomery County. Does anyone know? Have busnisses closed down? Is revenue down?
I just don't think that smokers are going to become homebodies and not go to a bar simply becuase there's a ban. I think they'll go and smoke outsite. And now that there's a smoking ban in PG county too, the only other local option is NOVA, and that can be quite a trek.
"The enabling factor of smoking in bars." How about taking a little responsibility for your own actions?
I smoke about a pack a day, but on weekends I go through about four packs, mostly because DC is FILLED with closet smokers-- closet smokers who will probably be generally happy with the ban while the smokers they've been bumming from for years are sold down the river. I can't light up on a Friday night without at least three shiny-toothed moochers sheepishly asking me for a cigarette. Would most of these people walk up to a random person and ask for some change? I doubt it. Have some pride and buy your own smokes!
Can we please put a stop to smokers and anti-banners complaining about "rights" and "liberties" when it comes to DC going smoke free?
I think people are missing the point - restuarants and bars are commercial establishments. The smoking ban does not include private homes or clubs. Nobody is saying you can't smoke at all. You just can't smoke in a public enclosed place (there are obviously some exceptions) and I think we can all agree that this policy decision is based on public health concerns.
Everyone gives up personal freedoms when people interact with society and engage in public commerce. It's one of the sacrifices we make in exchange for living in a relatively free, open and orderly society.
One of the primary jobs of any form of democratic government is to protect its citizens. Therefore, the government has an inherent right and responsibility to regulate the manner in which bars and restuarants are run, whether that be via food preparation regulations, hours of operation, fire code regulations, etc. The negative impact of smoking is well documented and a combination of interest groups, private citizens and health officials have successfully moved DC's government to do something to protect the health of people engaging in public commerce.
Naturally, other interest groups, the restuarant lobby, the tobacco lobby, small business groups and private citizens oppose this ban for a variety of social and economic reasons. The final resolution made some concessions to the smoker supporters, but in the end, the new resolution maintains the overall public health interests as a priority. This is how governments operate.
Pro-smokers/anti-ban folks out there say it's the bar owner's right to allow smoking or not. This is simply not true. There's no "right" for a bar owner to allow smoking, just as there is no "right" for a bar owner to allow other potentially harmful and unreasonable, although not necessarily illegal, activities. There is also no absolute "right" for a person to light up in an enclosed place, although that behavior has been allowed by society and the law in the past.
Ever since the 1930's the courts have consistently ruled that regulation on commercial activity needs only to have a rational explanation, i.e. in this case, the rational explanation is that smoking threatens public health. There is no right to operate a business "as bar owners see fit" so long as the government decides there's a rational reason to regulate your behavior. So drop the "liberty" or "rights" talk.
This is simply a government policy decision. The government has made a decision after gathering information from competing interests, and has produced a solution that attempts to do good for a greater amount of people.
And while we are at it, can we stop with the "if the government can stop me smoking in a bar, what are they going to take away from me next" argument. This statement is a total slippery-slope fallacy and a convenient, albeit flailing argument offered by folks who are against the smoking ban.
I wish I could say you're wrong, Chris, but you're exactly right. I'm afraid us closet smokers will probably sit idly by as the ban goes into effect. However, if you don't want to go through 4 packs a weekend, you could "take responsibility for your own actions" as you put it, and say "sorry, these are for me." I suggest you "have some pride" and learn to say no. Us moochers will never buy our own as long as we can get it for free. How do you think our teeth stay so nice and "shiny"?
" 'This is another reason to live in Northern VA'
So you can die of boredom faster than lung cancer? "
Or perhaps of obesity? Or poor taste? Can one die of poor taste and a lack of culture?
I find the argument about "accepting risks" pretty ridiculous. There aren't a lot of choices in the service industry when it comes to smoking. So a waitress or bartender HAS to accept the risks if they want to make a paycheck--and when it comes to making a living, I am sure most service industry employees don't give "possible death from lung cancer" a lot of weight. Whether smokers like it or not, most of our taxes go to health care, so the government has a vested interest in public health, and smoking is a public health crisis whether you like it or not.
Smoke all you want, you just can't do it in enclosed public areas anymore.
Wake up people! It's not about a smoking ban. It's about freedom. Fat non-smokers you're next. When you order fries the waitress will politely tell you "I'm sorry, you're too overweight. I cannot serve you." Wake up to what's really going on here. How did Nazism begin? Read your history books. Government is creating a hostile environment - intentionally. There are too many facts to dispute the "junk science" of second-hand smoke.
There is a place for smokers and non-smokers to co-exist peaceably. Isn't that what FREEDOM is all about?
Stop totaltarianism in its tracks. Don't defend bans that are clearly unconstitutional. If you do support smoking bans - guess what? You too will one day be raped of your constitutional rights to freedom.
Yes! Smoking bans are a slippery slope to other forms of state control. I think some form of "fat" control could be next. I am totally against this ban.
I used to be open 5am to midnight and employ 10 staff. Now I work alone and open 6 to 6. Our smoking band came in in the year 2000. Both bingo halls and the bowling alley and some restaurants and bars and coffee shops have closed, gone bankrupt or are on the verge. The one thing 100% sure is JOB LOSS. Diana Reid. Guelph ontario canada