January 2, 2007
Virginia is for Smokers. Does Anyone Care?
For the better part of 2006, District bar-goers furiously debated the idea of a smoking ban. It was freedom of choice versus the nanny state, healthy air and clean clothes versus a tradition that dates back centuries. But now the debate is over, the smoking ban has taken effect, and the arguments on both sides will finally be tested. First among these is whether or not District bars will lose customers to their more smokeful counterparts in Virginia. We think not.
Practically speaking, the Washington region is smoke-free. Pretty much every county surrounding the District to the north prohibits smoking in public places, bars included. The only exceptions are to be found in Virginia, where bars in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax and other localities still allow patrons to light up as they drink. The argument has long gone that smokers will flee the District, heading instead for a number of haunts in the more permissive Old Dominion. We're not so sure that this will happen, for the following reasons:
>> Access: Bars in the District are simply more concentrated in areas that are accesible by mass transit. Some smokers might decide that their right to smoke is worth a trip to Virginia, but they'll likely face fewer options and might even have to contend with driving to where they need to go. The most ardent of smokers will make this tradeoff; most everyone else won't.
>> The Scene: Bars are about more than smoking. Period. Any smoker can head to Arlington or Alexandria and enjoy a number of good options, but they'll be limiting their options when it comes to clientele, decor, entertainment, surrounding establishments and other factors that help define and shape the bar-going experience. Once again, only the hardest core of smokers will abandon a night out on U Street for a trip to the Four P's Courts in Courthouse or Whitlow's on Wilson in Clarendon, but most everyone else won't.
>> The Reverse Market: If there are smokers who will flee the District for Virginia, there are surely non-smoking Virginians who will want to come into the District more often now to flee their own state's smokers. We're guessing there are more of the latter than the former.
>> No One Really Cares: There may be some who are so wedded to their opposition of the smoking ban that they'll make the decision to boycott all District bars, but there just aren't enough of those to truly put a dent in the otherwise lucrative bar market in the District. This issue will lose its debatable appeal sometime in the next month, and within the next year a new generation of bar-goers will scoff at the idea that smoking was ever allowed in bars in the first place.
>> Experience: Try as they may, smoking advocates have yet to prove that any city, state, or country that imposed such a ban suffered from it in the long term.
Of course, we may be proven horribly wrong. But that's the beauty of democracy, isn't it? Should a public policy be proved to be irrefutably misguided, it can always be done away with. The smoking ban isn't written in stone, but neither do we believe that the worst of what its opponents claim will come true.
|
Minor snag, it's Four Courts in Courthouse - not 4P's :). Personally, I will be more inclined to go from VA to DC given the new ban. However I think that the bottom line is that people are just going to continue doing what they've always done regardless of the ban.
I'm pro-ban and doubt it'll hurt DC's bars overall, but...
1: Access. You're just wrong. In fact I'd say most of the popular bar districts in DC are NOT very accessible: Georgetown, Adams Morgan, U Street, the emerging H St. With the exception of the unreliable green line stop at U St., none of these places are easily accessible by Metro, whereas the whole Wilson Blvd corridor is very easily reached via Metro.
2: The Scene. First of all, it's the Four Courts, not the Four Ps, which isn't even called that anymore. And your insuation that Virginia can be summed up by one bar is just intentional ignorance.
Much as I hate the nanny state, I won't miss having some tipsy bimbo stick her Camel Light into my arm every time she stumbles back for another Stoli & cranberry.
Reid:
1) In terms of access, Adams Morgan, Georgetown, and U Street are all relatively simple to get to, and have plenty of bars to merit the trip. And since the Yellow Line started running up until Ft. Totten, U Street will no longer be an annoyance to get to.
2) I wasn't trying to sum up Virginia bars by pointing out the Four Courts or Whitlow's. But in terms of accesibility, D.C. has more diversity of options than Virginia.
I agree that we're more likely to see a VA-to-DC tide than a DC-to-VA surge. And what about closing times? VA bars turn the house lights on as early as 1:15am. DC peeps are going to make the schlep to VA for an hour less of drinking time? I think not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#The_effects_of_bans
I'm anti-nanny state as well, and I'm glad that jackass frenchie with the smelly cigars at Stoneys will have to stink up someone else's air. Either that, or switch to smoking something less smelly like menthols or dried turds.
Yeah, yeah...cry me a river. I used to smoke. And when I was at a non-smoking bar and wanted a cig, I would go outside.
THE HORROR!
It would be interesting to know whether the fact that smoking has been banned has an effect on the insurance rates at bars. A few of the city's great bars have been felled by cigarette fires. Not having that risk must be some consolance to bar owners.
YAY! smokefree.
smoking is so 20 years ago.
I tell ya, even if DC bars stopped serving alcohol, I'd still be hard pressed to make the trek out to VA. I don't think this smoking ban will have any measurable effect.
I agree with the bimbo-phobe who posted earlier, I opposed this ban because of general anti-Nanny-state principle, but now that it's in place, I won't miss the smoky air much, or the thoughtful folks who do things like hold cigs sticking straight out on tightly-packed dance floors.
I will miss smoking at the bar, but not enough to schlep out to VA. When the ban started in California when I was on vacation, it did not have any effect on my desire to head out for a night of bar hopping in LA. What I think it might do for some smokers like myself is make hopping from place to place with a smoke in between more likely. I miss having a smoke on an 8 hour flight to Europe or in a theater – those were the days... :-)
Congratulations smoking ban advocates your pet law passed. Now will you please go annoy some other state or city where they actually can smoke in bars?
First no smoking, than no drinking, than no talking, than bars are libraries with pub food. (:
I don't like nanny states, but I also don't like smelling like other people's smoke when I come home from a night out. I think the ban is a good idea. I don't think it will affect DC's bars as much as people believe. I definitely don't think people will schlep out to VA just to smoke inside a bar. I don't think it's a powerful enough motivator. It's much easier to stay in the district and complain outside the bar with your fellow smokers. I know a lot of DCers who are hesitant to even date VA residents. Yes, smoking is addictive, but if you won't jump the river for sex, or lower sales tax, then forget smoking indoors.
Gay DC has had a smoke-free bar for a few years now -- even before the ban was discussed, Halo was strictly smoke-free. Anyone who wanted to smoke just took it outside, and then returned when finished. A little inconvenient, yes, but you relish the difference the next morning when your clothes don't stink.
"smoking advocates"?
If you're gonna rip off Eddie Izzard, at least get it right.
"No, no smoking in bars now, and soon no drinking and no talking... In the future, everyone's going to say, 'Come down to the library, we'll have a wild time, shall we? Don't know where that fucking book is, mate, it could be anywhere! There's a lot of 'em about!'"
The "nanny state" comments always confuse me. It's not the smokers who are being protected from themselves, but those around them. I remember when this got started Councilmember Schwartz either threatened to or actually did introduce legislation to ban drinking, trying to make a "nanny state" point.
But the fact is, if *you* smoke, *I* am affected. (We don't let people bring packets of radioactive isotopes into bars!)
At any rate, I, for one, am THRILLED. As the days ticked down, I grew more and more impatient with and disgusted by smoke-filled bars. I think the *real* question will be how compliant the bars are and how strict the enforcement is.
Greg, your point on Halo is exactly why this ban is ridiculous. If a bar wanted to be smoke-free it had every right to do so. Halo certainly carved itself a nice niche market by going smoke-free. The owners of Halo have said that a smoking ban is a bad idea. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44741-2004Sep23.html)
Also, I would hate to be one of the people in charge of cleaning up 18th Street every Saturday morning. It's going to be a disaster out there.
The reality isn't that people are going to flee the DC nightlife in droves to go to VA. However since a large portion of DC partiers live in VA, instead of heading to DC three or four times a week they might just come two or three. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but over the course of a year it adds up to lot fewer visits.
Where is all the money that backed the smoking ban coming from? Some of the Metrobuses were papered over with ads trumpeting the ban in the months before it went into effect.
It's a "nanny state" because while it may not be your choice to sit next to someone who is smoking, it has always been your choice to frequent establishments that allow smoking. If you didn't do that, there would be more bars around that voluntarily ban it on their own. The only legitimate case i can see for the ban is protection of the people who work in such places, and therefore have, to some degree, less choice.
You could have named the smokefree establishments before the ban on one hand. No one is going to turn away customers unless they have to, or unless their patrons give them a good enough reason to, which is impossible without a ban because there is no forum in which to voice your preference. People don't like to be in smoky bars, but it's not enough of a disincentive to go, particularly when very few nonsmoking options exist elsewhere.
does this mean that you can't smoke hookah anymore???!!!???!??!??!?
There's a hookah bar exemption, and an exemption for any business that can show that it gets 10 percent or more of its annual revenue from tobacco sales, excluding cigarette machines.
sweet.
We don't allow strangers in bars to urinate on us, or spit on us. Yet no one says we are a 'nanny state' when we ban those things. So why would it be ok for someone to smoke on us? At least pissing on me or spitting on me, while not nice, doesn't give me cancer.
The short answer, of course, is that it used to be acceptable to smoke on others. And the whole idea was promoted heavily by the cigarette industry.
Now, more and more people find it repulsive, and as such started seeing it as boorish, rude, self-centered behavior that it actually always was.
For those that say non-smokers should just not go to smoking bars, I'd say why should we have to literally remain locked in our homes, unable to go to restaurants and bars, because of someone else's arrogance and selfishness?
Let's compare the difficulty factor. Smokers can simply go outside to get their fix in order to do the decent thing and allow others a healthy, non-disgusting environment.
Nonsmokers would have to give up going out nearly entirely, all because someone else was to self-centered to stop smoking on them.
And without a ban there would be virtually no non-smoking bars. Can anyone name more than about four in the entireity of DC before it became clear that the ban would eventually become real? Common business sense dictates that unless all competition went smoke free very few individual bar owners would be able to lose the business that would go down the street by banning smoking all on their own.
Great points, Hillman! Pathetic how these smokers (a habit that's only seems "cool" when 13-year-olds pick it up) try so hard to make it seem like this will be a disaster for DC nightlife. It hasn't hurt NYC one bit, and no, there aren't mountains of cigarette butts outside of every bar and restaurant doorway in Manhattan. And "a disaster" is what the pit of the Adams Morgan bar district is most mornings. A few discarded butts aren't going to be noticed. A lot of smokers will give up the habit once they can't fall back on it when they're bored or anxious in a bar setting.
Wake up, smokers, and realize that your dirty habit is an addiction that makes you think you're oh so cool and attractive when in fact you look like a fool and you're putting years on your face sucking on the cancer sticks.
jesus christ, trish.
Eddie Izzard. Life’s subtle influences. (:
Yeah, Trish, rabid much? Maybe you should stoke up a Marlboro Light and chill out for a bit.
Malboro Light? How about a joint dipped in embalming fluid
I agree that this won't really affect the business of DC bars, but how will will it affect the attendant socialization? Smoking is nasty, blah blah, but it is commonly used as an easy socialization tool--(e.g., the cheezy guys like me asking if they can bum one.) Will more people go out and smoke on the street? Will this turn into some sort of mini-scene? THIS, my friends, is the main question that will affect us all...
Being considered cool by Trish just made my 2007 resolutions list.
I'm a non-smoker who enjoys going to bars to hear music and have a drink, but I raise one point that has been raised before in such forums--that those who are moralizing about smokers affecting the health of nonsmokers should refer to the statistics on drunk-driving fatalities and remember that we are discussing bars now. (I'm fine with banning smoke in restaurants, and that ban has already been in effect.)
Cigarette smoke is likely far less of a threat to your health than alcohol, thus moralizing about the horrors of second hand smoke affecting your health while you are drinking does not carry any weight.
The smoke makes my clothes/hair stink argument? Take a shower and wash your clothes after you wear them! Who are these hygiene challenged people? If you can't be bothered to take a shower once a day like the proponents of the ban, either 1) change out of your work clothes before going out so that they don't stink later (aesthetically it makes sense too), 2). invest in some fabreze, or 3). invest in a smoking jacket. Why not complain about the handstamp the clubs give you instead? Try hiding that double black cat stamp at the office the next day--it just screams out that you're a lush to your coworkers.
The whole ban is hypocritical--why not ban high sound pressure levels in rock clubs that are permanently damaging people's hearing? Oh wait, never mind. Live music, karaoke, and dancing are banned by "voluntary agreements" in Mount Pleasant.
http://app.abra.dc.gov/services/agreements.asp
One point that is raised by the multi-jurisdictional aspect of this--smoking is now banned in DC and surrounding areas except for Virginia. For those people who do prefer to be able to drink and smoke, and there are some, will they be driving from DC to VA, taking the metro, or riding in cabs? Are you anti-smoking "public health" types putting more drunk drivers on the road? Are we putting more drunk people on metro? I'm fine with drunk people in cabs, but I'm not cool with having more people falling over drunk or puking on the metro.
On a more positive note I should point out that Arlington has some cool places besides the generic post-frat bars mentioned in the initial post. The Galaxy Hut is a fun place in Arlington that is smoker friendly (except brunch) and that they have rock shows too. Iota has some decent shows as well, a non smoking dining section (where you can watch or at least hear the shows without paying a cover), and they have a great patio. Rock, beer, and chain smoking through crappy opening bands all go together. Viva la Cigarette.
I am curious as to how the dynamic will work in DC though. I don't smoke but my girlfriend does. If we go out to a bar together, I'm not going to make her go out by herself and stand in the cold getting hit on by random dudes while she has a smoke. I'm going to go out too, because I'm oldskool and feel that I'm the only one who gets to hit on my girlfriend. And after a while I know I am going to get sick of that and will either drink at home or will commute to Virginia to drink and smoke in peace.
When I was hanging out in Boston (Where they've had a ban for a while) it was common for an entire table to rise up en masse and go out into the freezing January air. Or half a table if you don't want your table taken from you or your things stolen. The sidewalks are crowded with freezing drunk people slipping on ice (not a boon to either public health or bar owners' liability) and freezing pissed off less-drunk people trying to get in. Bars and clubs aren't usually set up to handle people coming and going that much. Places that were at capacity and have a line of people waiting to get in get unruly when people come out, smoke, and then go back in. The whole thing is awkward.
I'm a non-smoker who enjoys going to bars to hear music and have a drink...
Excellent advice from someone who doesn't understand the difference between "drinking" and "drunk driving." Thanks!