January 27, 2006

Williams Hashes Over Smoking Ban

bar-smoking.smThough many of us have firmly sided in one camp or the other on whether D.C. should ban smoking in restaurants and bars, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams seems stymied by the pressure to decide. Poor Mayor Williams.

We’ll be thinking about him over the weekend, as he confers with aide Gregory McCarthy, debating the pros and cons of the smoking ban before he shares his decision as to whether to sign legislation on Monday.

DCist wonders how convinced he is by phone calls to support the ban from the likes of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- a guy so wealthy he can buy positive approval ratings -- and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, whose voters decided to ban smoking through Initiative 901. Neither of them had to worry much one way or another over blame for the ban.

And we’re not sure he'll be swayed by the fact that the Zagat people will like D.C. If anything persuades him, it's that he'll maintain the support of the District’s non-smokers and secondhand smoke-a-phobes.

We bet that his cons list far outweighs the pros, or at the very least, that people against the ban have the mayor’s ear. Aside from the argument that outlawing smoking will hurt area restaurants and bars, we would think that there are a couple of cons heavily influencing Williams. For one, Williams' wife -- a smoker -- might sway his decision as to whether to sign the ban legislation, though he claimed otherwise to WTOP yesterday.

We’re also wondering if Williams would align himself with the French who said no to theirs. "It is not by brutal bans" that smoking in restaurants will stop, noted one National Assembly leader. Mayor Williams may also want to be hospitable to the French Embassy -- and to every other embassy that represents people who are free to enjoy, at any bar in their home countries, Gauloises along with their cocktails.

Should Williams side against the smoking ban, we’d also guess that last week’s New York Times article, "Smoked and Fumed," might have swayed the Mayor. In it, Spanish novelist Javier Marias argues that other unhealthy habits such as eating poorly, getting drunk, and sunbathing aren’t outlawed, and therefore, smoking should not be, either. Of Spain’s smoking wars, he wrote, "And that is the worst thing about this antismoking law and others of the same ilk: they unfortunately prove that totalitarianism is no longer incompatible with the democratic systems that once guaranteed our freedoms."

Wow! That’s quite a statement, but perhaps too dramatic a reason for Williams to cite to the press. Instead, should he decide against signing legislation in support of the smoking ban, we would advise him to stick to the author’s less indicting talking point: that he, like Marias regarding Spain, does not wish for the District to become "definitely more boring."

It’s a tough choice. We wish the Mayor luck.


Email This Entry







Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!

Comments (14)

Bah. How lame to think that DC needs smoking in its bars/restaurants to be avoid being boring.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't his decision immaterial? Wasn't the vote veto-proof? Does he think that the veto will change all their minds? Is this just all about "legacy" building at this point?

 

DCist is just jealous that NYC has a mayor with too much money to practice corrupt politics. Please. Give me Bloomberg over this bow-tie wearing fool anyday.

 

I think Reid's right, right? Isn't this veto-proof? And as for legacy building (which, you're right, might be what Williams is thinking here), what kind of a legacy is it to NOT do make a change? The real legacy would be passing the ban.

 

while i can see both pro and cons to this ban (kind of), i dont understand the argument from the spanish guy. getting drunk, eating poorly and sunbathing isnt affecting the air the nondrinking nonsunbathing non eating poorly people are breathing. how is that relevant?

the point of the ban isnt to hurt the smokers, its to help the people that decided not to smoke and yet are breathing it in secondhand.

 

also, did anyone else see the news article about california declaring secondhand smoke as an air pollutant? interesting addition to this whole debate.

 

Clearly he must greatly favor the status quo. He's had ample opportunity during this long debate to consider his angle, and if there were any benefit for him in taking up the nonsmoking standard, he would have done so. I think the only choice he's weighing is whether he ought to speak up, given that his veto power on this issue (as I understand it) is soft at best.

 

Here's more of Marias' piece re. smoking. Sorry I can't link to it: Times Select.


Of course, nonsmokers should not be subjected to secondhand smoke nor obliged to suffer its effects, and in this vein, limits should be placed on smokers in enclosed, common-use spaces. But the government's argument that it is seeking to improve public health is hypocritical. The Spanish Treasury takes in colossal revenues, direct and indirect, thanks to this pernicious habit. Every time the government needs to find a way to finance some exceptional expense, a new cigarette tax is levied. The implicit message to Spanish citizens is this: "Smoke! Smoke more - so we can balance our budget."

Indeed, to escape the taint of hypocrisy, Spain would have to match its new antismoking measures with an array of others fighting everything else in the world that is at all harmful. Nowhere have I ever heard, for example, that cars are obliged to carry, just above the driver's-side door, a warning, like those on cigarette boxes, that "Driving a car may cause death, grisly amputations, quadriplegia and involuntary manslaughter."


And he goes on with the sunbathing/getting drunk argument. It's the paternalism that disturbs him, as he notes in the piece. If you don't want smoke, choose to hang out in a restaurant or a smoke free bar. And, if you smoke, quit without the goverment's help. etc.

 

Wow, what a relief . . . I thought we might go a whole week without a smoking ban post!

 

Well you know no one in Congress will want to side with the French, so they won't block it.

 

There really aren't any bars that are non-smoking in this city. Dude. Coffee bars and restaurants just shouldn't even count as a bar.

I live in Adams Morgan and I can go too, errr nothing? I can get all my friends to begrudgingly go to the Health Bar on U St., but that bar lacks so much character it's not even funny. I feel like I'm in a hotel lobby in there.




I don't need to be breathing your shit from your stupid nicotine addiction! Simple.

 

I believe 18th & U has gone smoke-free since the Council passed the ban. Waiting with anticipation for others to follow suit...

 

I will guess that Williams will veto The Ban, the council will override and then congressmen who come from tobacco states will put pressure on those overseeing the District to strike it down in the name of not losing tourists to their beloved federal tourist sites.

If this drags on until November and it could, we might be facing three strong conservatives running for the city council for at large, wards 3 and 5 who could jam any reconsideration if Congress rejects it or sends it back to council.

 

^^^^^

it would appear that a certain banned person posted the above. FYI, moderators.

 
Post a comment (Comment Policy)