This smoking ban is ridiculous. I have noticed a huge drop in sales already this week. While I recognize that it is the week after new years, I expect this trend to continue. I just don't understand why people can not be responsible for their own actions. If you don't like smoke, don't bitch because others choose to, so long as they are not blowing it in your face. Yes, second hand smoke can kill you, but so can the alcohol you consume in the same bar. No one is ordering red headed veggie shot! If you don't want to go to a place where others enjoy smoking then do not go there. I understand that there are health implications for employees, although a large majority of bartenders and wait staff tend to smoke themselves. Here are my proposals to make everyone happy:

A) Allow bars to apply for a smoking permit so long as it is only allowed in certain portions of the bar and it is well ventilated.

B) For bars that choose not to apply for the permit, give them a tax break as an incentive.

C) If you are truly concerned about the health of bar staff...TIP THEM BETTER!!!

D) For all of those people who feel that they are better than me for wanting to smoke in a bar, if you need fresh air there is plenty of it outside!

While I recognize that it is the week after new years, I expect this trend to continue.

As an anonymous, random Internet poster who also drinks alcohol, I concur with your expert opinion. I'm particularly in concordance with article "C" of your paper. Perhaps they can open a health savings account with the money from the tip jar to treat any symptoms that arise from long-term exposure to second-hand smoke.

If I choose to drink, it's my choice and my recognition concerning what it will do to my body. If you smoke, you take that choice away from me.

Not really, you made a choice to go into a place where people smoke. If you don't want to breathe second-hand smoke, go to Halo.

Martin and IBC, you've brought up something that's really irked me and I've never seen adequately explained- an assumption that second hand smoke, in the amount an average bar patron will inhale, due to their patronizing bars, will cause health consequences. All of the second hand smoking studies I've read have dealt with the effects of second hand smoke in either the workplace or the home- both places that I hope you spend a lot more time at than your local watering hole. The average person is going to work 40+ hours a week and spend say, another 40+ waking hours in the evening and weekends with their significant other. If you're constantly exposed to second hand smoke during during those times for say, 20 years, then I dont think there's any controversy that it will have health consequences (although I will say there's controversy as to the kind and extent of those consequences.)

But most people are in a bar for what, 3 or 4 hours, once or twice a week? Even if you take the high end of 10 hours a week, I don't know many people that are going to keep that up for more than a few years. And quite frankly, if they do, I'm not sure that second hand smoke is going to be on the top of their list of worries.

Yes, I know I'm leaving out a different discussion about people who work in bars, but for the moment, I'd like to see one peer reviewed (or even mainstream accepted, legit journaled) paper that finds some measurable health consequence on bar patrons due to second hand smoke.

Brody,

I see it the opposite way. You may spend more time at home, but you may only have one other person there that smokes, and not necessarily around you. When in a bar, you're surrounded by many people smoking at once -- in a confined space. I can't imagine that that amount of smoke -- even if for just a few hours a week -- doesn't have some sort of impact. I don't know if any papers have been published on this due the difficulty of finding and controlling your subjects, but I'm a firm believer that if second-hand smoke can affect you in the home, it can affect you at a bar.

I think we have a nominee for most obnoxious post of the day.

Bar Patron,

Some of those alternatives were debated but not adopted. Simply stated, a smoking ban is in force in D.C. Given this happening in many other places around the U.S. and the world, few of the alternatives held water.

As for alcohol ban argument, again, it's foolish. Alcohol consumption is a personal choice. I choose to drink and kill brain cells, and I don't walk around spitting my drink down your throat. And as for many of the externalities of alcohol consumption -- drunk driving, public urination, disorderly conduct, etc. -- those are regulated by the state. The same should go for smoking, which, unlike drinking, produces an immediate externality that is harmful to others.

Martin- That completely dodged my question, other than to say that you don't have any proof for something that you "feel." I'm not hostile to the idea that there is some marginal impact from second hand smoke in bars, but personally, before I result to the extreme position of prohibiting otherwise lawful conduct, I'd like to know what that impact is. If the concern is the concentration of smoke or the enclosed space, why not require ventilation or other abatement measures?

As for the contention that short periods of high(er) exposure are more harmful than continuous lower level exposure- once again, I'd have to ask if that's something that can be demonstrated, or just something you believe. You're putting a lot of stock in the cost of externalities, but there's a noticeable lack of measurement of these costs. It's not just you, but every proponent of the ban that I've discussed this with- some vague feeling that golly gee, it's just GOT to be bad for you, without any inquiry as to HOW bad, or why.

Disclosures before the flameswars break out again: I'm not a smoker, I don't work in the restaurant biz, I'm a registered Democrat, I'm not a statistician or sociologist, I'm in law school. That cover everybody's bases? I'm mostly opposed to the smoking ban because I see it as an absolutely meaningless waste of time, effort, money, and political capital for something with negligible or non-measurable benefit, especially in the face of declining smoking rates and rapidly decreasing social acceptance of smoking. In 20 years there will be an extremely small number of remaining smokers that won't even think of lighting up in a bar the same way you wouldn't think of lighting up in a movie theater now (common behavior even 40 years ago). Lots of energy and resources being wasted on a non-issue.

All I know is that Nanny O'Brien's somehow smells WORSE now that the smoking ban has taken effect. The smoke covered up the fact that Nanny's smells basically like a poorly run pet store. No wonder it's rumored to be closing.

All I know is that Nanny O'Brien's somehow smells WORSE now that the smoking ban has taken effect. The smoke covered up the fact that Nanny's smells basically like a poorly cleaned pet store. No wonder it's rumored to be closing.

My sense is that most of the justifications for smoking bans came from the occupational end of things. Reducing exposure to your run of the mill bar patron is usually also thrown in there, but as a few have pointed out, most of the studies on secondhand smoke were on home or workplace exposure. I think there were legal implications for the occupational angle, as well, if memory serves. JAMA published a study in the mid 1990s, linking occupational exposure to substantial health risk.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/12/956

The page also includes links to other, more recent studies, including one that examines how the CA smoking ban affected bar/restaurant patronage.

I've never understood why the burden of finding a different venue has to be on non-smokers instead of smokers. Smokers knowingly chose to become addicted to a dangerous, life-threatening substance. I fail to understand why their poor choice should result in me not being able to go out without coming home smelling horrible and suffering through hacking myself to sleep because the smoke exacerbated my asthma.

Oh, but wait, my inability to breathe is MY fault, because I was so inconsiderate as to encroach on a smoker's territory. How could I be so selfish?

Tonight, I'll be going out for the first time since the ban--the first time in months, actually, because there will be no smoke to make me sick and smelly.

Viva la ban!

DCist Matt- I'm not an "Altria flack" if it's me you're talking about. Though I guess in the name of full, complete, and excessive disclosure I should state that I worked in a law firm as a case assistant helping to satisfy the requirements of the DOJ settlement with the tobacco industries lobbying arm. So in an extremely roundabout way, the computer I'm writing on was partially paid for by RJR, American, and Brown. But I'd be happy to meet you at a (now smokefree) bar so you can see my student ID, if that'll prove that I'm not some astroturfer to you.

There should be an outpouring of stories from bartenders, waitresses, et. al. stating how their medical problems have cleared up since the ban has been in effect (obviously I'm talking about places where it's been around for a while), but I have yet to hear it.

You're not looking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health

Two taxpaying individuals both want to enjoy city life - the bars, the restaurants, the socializing, the human contact. The presence of one - the nonsmoker- in a bar or restaurant is harmless. Their presence doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't unnecessarily offend others, it doesn't make others clothes and skin reek. The presence of the other - the smoker- in and of itself is roughly the same. But the smoker introduces a habit that by definition is filty, causes cancer, causes lung and respiratory problems, makes all those around smell terrible.

Who has the greater social obligation to do the right thing and be decent and civilized, so the bonuses of urban life can be enjoyed by all?

Why should the nonsmoker have to go home to enjoy a smoke-free time?

Why can't the smoker simply step outside from time to time? That'd seem to be FAR less intrusive than what they have been demanding of nonsmokers for decades.

Simply put, it's astonishingly rude and boorish behavior to intentionally smoke on others, ruining their night out.

It's no less rude than spitting or urinating on others. And at least spitting and urinating on others doesn't cause cancer.

Mojo - I'll tell you why you can't open your own nonsmoking bars absent a ban. Because it's very hard to run or open a bar in DC. The city makes it difficult. Neighborhood associations and busybodies make it difficult, both for good and bad bars. And real estate for bars is astonishingly expensive. Simply put, if the bar down the street offers smoking all of your smoking patrons will go there and you'll go out of business. The only effective way to end it was to ban it. Yes, there are isolated exceptions to this, but by and large that's the economics of the bar and restaurant business.

And, incidentally, it is NOT a total smoking ban. You can smoke at home, in your car, on a public street. You can even just get up from your barstool and walk outside and smoke.

And, frankly, why should we continue making exceptions for smokers? Smoking on someone else is a personal assault, pure and simple. Why should we continue to allow it in public places?

Back to the 5 percent loss of sales issue. I agree this number is far too low. Bar revenues go up and down for many reasons. You could easily have a five or ten percent revenue loss in any given year for any number of reasons. To suggest that it's only because of the smoking ban, absent actual proof of that (which would admittedly be hard to get), is just stupidity. If a bar can't exist without damning it's patrons to cancer and health risks then it doesn't need to be in business. And I wouldn't put it past MANY bar owners to dummy up the books for a year just to apply for a smoking exemption. After all, the less income they report, the less taxes they pay. So lying about it would be a win-win for them.

Hillman- Great round up of anecdotal evidence. Would you like to address my concern that *actual* costs aren't being discussed? I'll put the same question to you that I did to Martin- if it's so obviously bad for everyone who comes within 20 feet of a cigarette, there ought to be some study out there that actually quantifies harm to bar patrons from second hand smoke.

If the larger issue is that you don't like being around people who smoke, and that you find the habit "nasty... by definition filthy... smells terrible... etc" well- then make that the centerpiece of your argument. I just bristle every time I hear how "obvious" it is that bar patrons suffer horribly from the evils of second hand smoke, without any actual evidence being offered. Cigarette smoke isn't a health shake, but surely you'll recognize that there's a difference between actually smoking a pack a day yourself, and being in the same room as someone who smokes 5-10 hours a week. If the health impacts are indeed different, then regulations ought to take that into account. Unfortunately, the arguments I've seen in favor of smoking bans take studies done for mainstream smoke, or long term, long duration second hand smoke (smoke in the workplace or by a significant other) and extrapolate them to bar patrons, without any evidence to support the conclusion that conclusion.

In the end, it's just one more thing that's been outlawed because it's unpopular. Which I guess is OK, but lets please not pretend otherwise. Again, not denying that second hand smoke causes health consequences, but unless there's some idea as to what the extent of those consequences are, then it's difficult for me to justify an outright prohibition.

No, it's not a red herring. It's useful information to determine the proper response. Even brief exposure to a great number of things has those consequences- radon, asbestos, CO, CO2, sulfur, EtOH, transfats, cholesterol, and Red #40. The suggestion that any cost above zero is sufficient rationale for an outright ban is defective reasoning.

And I'm not demanding an exact figure. Hell, at this point I'll take a citation from TIME- but I don't think it unreasonable to have even an estimate of impact before supporting this sort of action.

I love you, Miles.

Did you know that going to a bar where loud music is being played can permanently damage your hearing? It's true. Loud music is one of the most common causes of hearing loss. Check out what the Mayo clinic has to say:

--Loud noises. Occupational noise, such as from construction or factory work, and recreational noise, such as from loud music, the engine of a snowmobile or motorcycle, or shooting firearms, can contribute to the damage inside your ear.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hearing-loss/DS00172/DSECTION=4

Anyway, as a bar patron who is both seriously concerned with my hearing and annoyed with people who don't care about my personal health, and tired of going to bars that callously and maliciously hurt my cochlea with their ear splitting, 100+ decibel bands and/or DJs, I really wish the DC Council could step in. If people want to listen to loud music, they should do it themselves: Put on an iPod and crank it up; stay home and turn the ol' speakers up to 11. Don't hurt me with your self destructive tendencies. I just want to enjoy a quiet night out on the town at the 9:30 Club. Quit ruining my hearing, dirty ears!

SB: Cute analogy, but it doesn't really stick. People go to the 930 Club specifically to hear the music. Everyone that pays to go theoretically gets a benefit out of what they paid to see and hear.

People don't go to bars and restaurants to get slimed with other people's nasty smoking habits. The 930 Club charges people for the privilege of hearing the band. And the only ones getting enjoyment out of the smoking is the smoker. Everyone else around him suffers without any benefit.

I have yet to see a club charge people for the privilege of having some selfish bastard slime them with their smoking habit.

Hillman,

Democracy refers to choices people have. If you don't want second hand smoke then you DON'T go to bars that allow smoking. This is what I was referring to. In the end, it really is supply and demand and the fact is that a demand for smoking bars has gone way done, which is why smoking bans are doing so well.

As far as the article is concerned, there always were studies that claimed second hand smoking kills. The decade old article though also refers to a time period where there were very few smoking bans in the workplace. The WHO has yet to find any evidence to repeal that information (as far as I'm concerned).

Personally, I could care less. Well ventilated places (and they do exist) that allow smoking still do not bother me and I hardly think the second hand smoke I am exposed to a few times a week will kill me! Frankly, I'm more concerned about the greenhouse gases that have brought 70 degree weather to NY in January!!

fascists

No, ventilation does not work. Certainly not the cheap, crappy third-rate ventilation systems that most bars in DC have. I'm glad you're not bothered, but many of the rest of us are.

And the old cliche 'your freedom stops at my nose' is quite literally true in this instance. You do not have the right to literally make me sick (and filthy) just because I have the audacity to actually think I get to share in the social contract that is the modern American city.

fascists

[48] Posted by: Steve | January 6, 2007 4:38 PM

For the record: Bwaa ha ha.

Anyone else up for smoking civil disobedience in the bars where the health nazis who pushed this ban congregate? I've got some really nasty cigars.

Good luck, Ms. Parks.

Guerilla smoke bar coming soon to DC!!

I guess Jerry Seinfeld compared difficult store clerks to genocidal maniacs too when he did the Soup Nazi. get a sense of humor, you politically correct dip shit.

I have yet to meet a bigger bunch of sactimonious twats than the pro-smoking ban crowd. You've won your little battle. Do shut up.

Oh, Steve, Seinfeld's Soup Nazi was obviously a comedic invention. It wasn't used toward a group of people that you dislike. Big difference.

And, yes, I'll admit that after decades of putting up with the severe and pissy attitudes of smokers I have little sense of humor left on this issue.

Actually, I'd argue that allowing smokers to slime others was the ultimate PC act. Talk about protecting the "rights" of a minority over the health and wishes of the rest of us....

Brody - you raise an interesting point. I too have already seen some tense moments between smokers congregating outside and nonsmokers trying to get inside. I'm fairly certain that there will be some altercations, and, since it is DC, some of those will probably end violently.

I have yet to meet a bigger bunch of sactimonious twats than the pro-smoking ban crowd. You've won your little battle. Do shut up.

Bob - I couldn't agree more.

The thing I don't get is that if so many people find smoking so very offensive, how come they didn't either a) open their own non-smoking establishments or b) lobby the management of their preferred establishments to ban smoking or c) stop going to these smokey bars?

I know many bar and restaurant owners, all of whom are very concerned with their bottom line. If they were faced with a customer base who would actually take some sort of action (like not going there and spending money) because of the smokey atmosphere, there's no doubt they would have banned smoking in their establisments a long time ago. The fact of the matter is that all of the whiners who complain about smoke would rather bitch and moan than actually do something.

From my vantage point on the universe, it seems that the pols who drafted and enacted this ban did so because it was easy way to score some political points not because they had a line of constituents out their door complaining about their smoked out clothes.

Just out of curiosity Hillman, would you also favor an outdoor smoking ban? Something tells me yes.

As for Brody's point, I don't think the smoking ban people took those things into consideration when they forced this one-size-fits-all ban on the city. I was recently at the Black Cat, a place full of hardcore smokers, and there must have been 150 people out on the sidewalk smoking. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the "neighbors" then start to complain about the noise. These same "neighbors" will oppose the plans of any bar to build a roof deck or patio to accomodate smokers and get them off the sidewalk. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. And just for the record, I'm not a smoker.

Well, since my respiratory condition is a life long thing, that would pretty much confine me to never going to any bar or restaurant, wouldn't it?

And even if it doesn't exacerbate a cold or other present condition, it just makes me and many others feel like crap, with burning eyes, raspy throats, etc.

And

Just saying' - maybe you hang out with a more prosperous crowd than I, but I know very few people who have the means to open a new bar just so it'll be non-smoking.

And of the bar owners that I do know casually, all say they'd like to be non-smoking but the economics of it, absent a ban, just aren't supportable.

As for nonsmokers staying home, there's no real quantitative way for a bar owner to measure that lost business, so that's not really an effective means of change either.

And, again, why should we have to go to all these extraordinary measures simply because others are arrogant and selfish enough to make the simple acto of going out for a drink a major health and stinkiness experience? Why is our responsibility, not theirs?

Personally, I'm much more perplexed by the trans-fat ban in restaurants than the smoking ban. To me, that is taking advantage of the smoking ban 'culture' which now finds it ok to ban whatever they want in the name of the public good. The only reason that this is not getting more opposition is because these fats are not addictive the way nicotine is. But it's not up to society to make one's addiction easier to satisfy, it is to prevent dangerous behavior from adversely harming others. I'd like to hear what the anti-smoking-ban crowd thinks about this other ban.

I think in the coming weeks we'll see fewer and fewer smokers hanging around outside of clubs. They'll realize that having to step outside every 15 minutes is causing them to miss all the action indoors. The fact that the "hardcore smokers" who were outside the Black Cat can no longer smoke inside might cause many of them to quit or at least cut down their habit. Is that really a BAD thing?

And of the bar owners that I do know casually, all say they'd like to be non-smoking but the economics of it, absent a ban, just aren't supportable.

I don't buy that. I happen to be acquainted with Todd Thrasher, one of the principles at Restaurant Eve in Old Town. I asked him about the decision to make Eve a non-smoking establishment and he told me that it was too expensive to put in the kind of ventilation system they needed to make the bar there a smoking area so they said, "Fuck it" and made the whole place non-smoking. Anyone who had ever tried to get a reservation at Eve on short notice will tell you that the decision to make their establishment non-smoking has not hurt their business at all. In fact, it may be just the opposite; being a non-smoking establishment may be part of their appeal.

I will concede that the economics of a fine dining restaurant are different from a place like the Irish Times; but even so, the idea that a non-smoking establishment isn't economically viable is bunk.

Hillman: Thanks, I thought it was a cute analogy as well. I agree, people go to the 930 Club specifically to hear the music. I love going to the 930 Club to hear music. I, in fact, love music. But I hate how my ears ring for 3 days afterward. All they'd have to do is turn down the amps a little bit to make my experience more pleasurable (and take away the risk of permanent hearing loss).

Now, maybe the 930 Club (and the Black Cat and the Verizon Center and wherever else) would get a dispensation from the excessive sound ban I'm proposing (like, say, a cigar bar, JR Cigar, etc. get from the smoking ban), but what about your average bar that has a DJ playing, or a guest live act, or just a really loud jukebox/clientele that make it so I have to shout above the din just to be heard?

IBC and Mel: Earplugs are one solution, yes, but that only works at a concert venue. What about the average bar that my friends drag me to that has a DJ? I mean, I could just refuse to go there, or take them to a quieter spot, but instead of doing that, I'd prefer for the city council to pass an ordinance forcing businesses to comply with my wishes so I can go to any bar that I please without having to worry about a sonic assault.

(Am I being sarcastic with this modest proposal? Only slightly, in all honesty. The anti-smoking puritans have opened my eyes to the fact that I can get anything I find annoying and can deem to be 'bad for my health' (and, for the record, I'd say the odds of damaging your hearing, which is permanent, are far, far better than contracting lung cancer from second hand smoke at a bar, though I have no stats whatsoever to back this up. Just a hunch) banned. Which is awesome. And by awesome, I mean a travesty.)

Just Saying' - the example you give is atypical. This was a new restaurant, and fairly upscale. The cost of the new exhaust system being contemplated was a major factor. The vast majority of bars in DC have an existing exhaust system, albeit crappy and underpowered.

And, of course, Restaurant Eve is a nice restaurant. Not a bar. Big difference in the economics. People now expect no smoking in restaurants, particularly nice ones. The expectation of no smoking in bars is not in place.

I was at Tryst one night this weekend, and I was absolutely shocked by how clean the air was. I'm usually very sensitive to cigarette smoke, but I always felt that place had a pretty good ventilation system because I didn't really notice the smoke unless I stepped close to the bar.

When I was there this weekend, the place was just as crowded as usual, but I was amazed that it was easier to see, and it just smelled so much cleaner. And that was in a place that wasn't even a real smokers' haven.

Shut up all you smoking pussies and get a life. My chain-smoking cousin died of lung cancer - the tumors grow so big that they divert all the nutrients from your body so you end up dying of starvation. If that sounds like a good time to you, then do it in the privacy of your own home like the junkies you are.

The expectation of no smoking in bars is not in place.

If that's the case then why are you so upset when you go to a bar and people are (wait for it) SMOKING?

Hillman,

a bar, by nature, is a place where people go to drink and smoke. that is why non-smokers should have the burden of staying home if they don't like it. it's like going to a strip club and then complaining about nudity.

having said that; I would have supported some kind of limited ban on smoking in bars. perhaps something that would have required an establishment to pay a fee for a license to allow smoking if they wanted it, something similar to applying for a liquor license. an across the board ban is what I oppose. there are many bars in the city whose clientele and culture are centered around smoking: the dc eagle, the black cat. places like that should not have to alter their business because some people don't like the smell.

personally, I think your car is doing a lot more damage to my lungs than someone's cigarette ever will. I have to breath in that exhaust everyday.

Steve,

Because bars have historically permitted smoking and it has become a ritual, does not mean that smoking is equal in purpose to drinking when patronizing a bar. Once I see a bar with walls of smoking paraphenalia and a cigarette list right next to the drink list, I'll buy it in that specific instance, which is why I support licensing for places that depend on it, such as cigar lounges or hookah bars. Cigars are sometimes a special case because of the culture and historical status of cigar smoking, but most bars don't allow cigar smoking anyway. Cigarettes are the bar afterthought, obtained through a vending machine tucked away in the corner, or not at all.

No, a bar is a place where people go to drink and socialize. ONLY smokers go to a bar to smoke.

There's already an exemption for cigar bars, hookah bars, etc.

As for the DC Eagle, I'll admit that cigar smoking is part of the culture specific to the Eagle, but cigarette smoking is not. And I don't believe the Eagle actually sells cigars, so it's not part of their profit margin.

To coin a phrase, the DC Eagle sells sleaze, but on the way to get my sleaze I shouldn't have to be sludged.

Yes, I know, annoyingly cute. But at least I'm trying to regain the sense of humor so many of you have told me I've lost...

Your characterization that someone is "smoking on you" is narcissistic in the extreme; a person's choice to smoke or not smoke has nothing to do with your whiny ass.

From my experience, the reason bars sell cigs is because they know they can rip off the addicts at $7 a pack, not because it was their primary business purpose.

as opposed to ripping them off for a $10 drink, Politburo?

Here's something I'd like to see if you all agree with. a while back I somewhat facetiously used the word "fascists." However, a pro smoking ban website that I can across (http://no-smoking.org/march01/03-05-01-2.html) advocates these positions:
It's the Law, There's NO RIGHT TO SMOKE

HOME — A municipality may refuse to hire persons who smoke, even in their own homes: "Clearly the 'right to smoke' is not included within the penumbra of fundamental rights [constitutionally] protected" . . . "the act of smoking a cigarette does not rise to the level of a fundamental right." {5}

OFF-THE-JOB — A governmental employer may fire an employee from smoking only one cigarette, even off the job. {6}

Do you agree that these positions are extreme or would you support such measures? When you progress from banning smoking in bars to wanting the ability to fire someone from a job for smoking(a legal bahavior), that does in my opinion constitute fascism.

The worst thing about the Eagle experience is finding out only after you've been whipped by an old geezer in a leather kilt that the kilt was actually pleather.

Hillman sounds like the king of all douchebags.
Have you ever had fun doing anything?
I mean other than bitching.

I reckon I stepped in that one.. can't win em all.

Steve: In most jurisdictions, you can already be fired for being a smoker. Your thought experiment throws in "governmental employer", but you don't make this important distinction in your closing paragraph.

There's a lawn chemical company that did this and is currently being sued. Some companies even make you take a cig test. No change in law was necessary for these moves. It's a side-effect of "right to work" laws.

http://www.insidecounsel.com/issues/insidecounsel/15_240/news/790-1.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870458/

btw - a confined space is not a bar.

"Confined space" means a space that:

(1) Is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work; and

(2) Has limited or restricted means for entry or exit (for example, tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, hoppers, vaults, and pits are spaces that may have limited means of entry.); and

(3) Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.

The restaurant and tavern business is now solidly for the ban. They will continue to complain as a tactic to extract consideration. They serve the largest community they can, playing their music, serving their food and drinks and catering to their standards.

Sears wrote it right with "hey will continue to complain as a tactic to extract consideration"

I guess Halo's me-too roof deck is for the benefit of all their smoking patrons.

EAW - Thanks for noticing me. If you tell me that you read my incredibly lame blog too that would really make my day.

"In light of today's rant-a-thon; how hilarious is it that there's a picture of David Lynch smoking a butt at the top of DCist?"

Hill Rat-

While my primary motivation for choosing that photo of Lynch was just that I liked the photo, I will cop to the fact that this thread had at least a little bit to do with the choice. I'm glad somebody noticed. :-)

Actually, Please Shut Up, it's not my definition. Its the definition clearly supported by fact.

Am I taking crazy pills or was it already decided that a bar doesn't meet the definition of a "confined space"?

At this point I'm just enjoying tweaking you into more insane rants by bringing up red herring issues of language usage and clearly it's working.

As far as "smoking on people" goes, it's acceptable because those who are so very offended by smoking have chosen to enter an environment where (from a historical perspective) smoking is an acceptable behavior. There are plenty of places where smoking isn't acceptable behavior and you know what, people don't smoke there. You can have a smoke free day at any hospital in the Metro area; I've yet to meet a smoker who complains that they can't light up in the ICU.

If you don't like cigarette smoke, then don't go to bars where people smoke. If you have such a problem with someone smoking, politely ask them to stop. I doubt that will get you very far with drunken Sarah Jessica Parker wannabes swilling cosmos at the Front Page, but hope springs eternal.

I look forward to more of your unhinged rantings . . . seriously. It's pretty damn funny to see you come utterly unglued over an issue where your side has already won.

Actually, my insane rant is pretty much just a reiteration of the same basic point, which is that it's astonishing rude for people to smoke on others. To date, no one, yourself included, has provided a rational and reasoned defense of that practice.

And you must hang out with a nicer bunch of smokers than I've seen. I've seen smokers in hospitals complain about not being able to smoke. I've seen them complain about not being able to smoke on Metro and other places as well.

And, no, for at least a decade now it has not been acceptable to smoke in bars and restaurants. 30 years ago, maybe. Quite a few people have repeatedly voiced their objections for at least the last decade.

And some smokers are polite about it, but many are not. And, of course, the residual effects of previous smokers are there long past when the smoker actually puts out the cigarette.

So, please, go ahead and tell me in detail why smoking on others against their will is the decent, friendly thing to do.

I'll be waiting for your detailed response, absent red herrings, if that's possible.

So, please, go ahead and tell me in detail why smoking on others against their will is the decent, friendly thing to do.

You're kidding with this right? Neither I, nor anyone else ever said anything like this. You asked me to explain why "smoking on people" was acceptable and I answered your question. Now you come up with a totally ridiculous, hyperbolic statement that I didn't make and you now expect me to defend it?

You win, smokers are worse than Hitler to the Al Queda power using base 666 math. Happy now?

Steve:

Automobile exhausts are already monitored and controlled. Catalytic converters and other devices are mandated by law.

Incidentally, there's a study out there saying three cigarettes in a bar setting put out more harmful particulates than a car exhaust.

Most harmful activities are mitigated to some extent by government.

Also, Steve, whether we like it or not our economy would crumble to a halt without the automobile.

All that happens when we limit smoking in bars is people's health gets better, bar revenues go up, and a whole bunch of people that didn't used to enjoy urban nightlife now can.

Quite a big difference in end results there.

Steve:

You still haven't answered my question. Do nice people smoke on others against their will? It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it? Is it because if you admit that it's boorish and selfish behavior your entire argument crumbles on basic moral grounds?

The government 'infringes' on property rights all the time. Should business owners be able to sell chicken and produce without prior refrigeration? Should they be able to have salad bars without sneeze guards? Should they be able to have establishments without fire safety exits?

The concept of government setting basic health and safety regulations is well established. I am truly sorry that you don't like it or that it inconveniences you, but quite often government regulation is the ONLY way that public health and well being are protected.

And, yet again, this isn't action on the part of the bar owner. It's action on the part of the rude and obnoxious patrons.

It's nice that Steve is your new idol. But neither one of you has yet answered my basic question.

Are you ever going to? It sucks for you that it destroys the very moral basis for your argument, but that's sortof what happens when you don't have a supportable argument.

So, any answers? I've asked repeatedly now. Should I just assume at this point you can't answer, since your honest answer would make your position look like the selfish arrogance that it is?

Hillman,

I don't really care if it's friendly or not, that's a stupid question. The world isn't always a friendly place. So no, I'm not trying to be friendly or courteous to you at all by smoking.
It's your job, however, to be an adult and make a conscientious decision to not go to a place that allows smoking if you don't like it.

Honestly, I think you're just a big kvetch and you want to model the world according to your own grievances because you obviously feel that you know whats best for everyone. Let's take all the soda out of vending machines and replace it with pommegranate juice and green tea. Let's turn down all the loud music in clubs because it can damage your hearing, maybe we shold just be listening to Mozart anyway. Let's have kids meditate in school too. Then the world would be perfect because you wouldnt be exposed to any carcinogens and nothing would ever offend you, your health or your bourgeois ideals.

And on the 8th day, god created Hillman...

As for that study that said cigarette smoke is more dangerous than car exhaust, I'll glady sit in a garage with 3 smokers while you sit in there with the exhaust running. Let's see who dies first. Deal?

They say more people are killed every year by cigarettes than handguns, but I'd rather be pelted with a whole *pack* of cigarettes than a hail of gunfire. Suck on my turgid logic, thinky guy!!!!

Aris, You're a little late to the party with your appeals for calm. Everyone's gone home from this thread (except the idiots who don't know when to quit)...

Having said that, I agree with you that hopefully a rapprochement can be arrived at between the health nazis and the stinky dirtballs.

I'm pretty agnostic on this issue. Outside isn't a ridiculous distance to walk to enjoy a smoke, and now all the niggling twats on both sides of this issue can STFU and leave me in peace.

But there are some positives to consider:

--the next generation of bars that open in DC will face this issue head on, and will likely create nice exterior spaces for smokers to congregate. Chances are they'll be heated and covered, too. So, nightlife will likely evolve to this point: interiors will be smoke-free and comfortable for everyone, and smokers won't experience pariahdom.

--I promise you, in some remote lab in Richmond, the tobacco industry is working very hard at developing some sort of inexpensive nicotine delivery system. Someday, nicotine packed tubes will be back in bars in force, only they'll be smokeless.

--And, anyway, I'd bet you can still smoke at the Raven.

DCist Jason, that brings up another point. Once these outside spaces are created for smokers (especially if they are outside bars/beer gardens/roof decks), that's where EVERYONE will want to congregate. It's pretty much guaranteed that the non-smokers will bitch that they can't enjoy the roofdeck bar because it's filled with smokers.

Maybe so EAW. But that'll come to a head this summer as smokers relax in outdoor seating, won't it?

Brody:

You are overstating things a bit. The Halo situation isn't comparable to that at Cobalt or The Black Cat. To start with an obvious point, one of Halo's main attractions has always been that it is smoke-free. Their claim of hardship therefor appears cynical.

Moreover, if Halo feels they must take the opportunity to cash in on the pretext of accommodating a non-existent clientele, in order to do so they would need to put their roofdeck directly under people's windows. These windows are, what, like 15 feet from Halo's roof? It'd be like your next-door neighbor decided to hold an outdoor house-party under your bedroom window every single night...

I doubt very much that Logan wants to be in the position of protesting Halo, but I can understand why they feel they must.

It will be interesting to watch how many places that are not known for smoking go for some competitive hardship argument that looks like this: Yeah, well, we at restaurant/tavern/bar X never really catered to a lot of smokers, but since our neighbors who were got a roofdeck/patio/courtyard, we need one too in order to compete. I predict a lot of this. The opposition to the smoking ban wasn't nearly as strong as it might have been. Halo's just the first.

Hey actually,

You're right, I shouldn't have mentioned Halo in the same breath as Black Cat. It was just my train of thought at the time (ANCs, roof decks, bars I frequent, etc).

The only thing I will say about that is that I'm not sure there would be a huge noise issue with a roof deck at Halo, since it's sandwiched between newer buildings and I presume that they're soundproofed pretty well. But even conceding that I may be wrong on this one, what do you think of the opposition to the Black Cat rooftop deck?

Curious,
-Aris

I haven't followed that issue at all, so I don't know what the protest issues are. But it's very hard for me to imagine that something can't be worked out. The details, not the yes/no big picture, are what 99% of protests are actually about.

Third Attempted Post on this. Sorry for any duplicates.

I've not followed the Black Cat issue, so I don't know what Logan is concerned about. I'll note that 99% of all protests are not about the big yes/no question of whether an ABC establishment gets what they want. They are about terms and conditions under which they will get what they want.

I'll also say that, as an uninformed observer, it's hard to imagine Black Cat can't have some sort of roof deck.

actually,

Everything seems to be up in the air at this time
Everything seems to be up in the air at this time
One day soon, it'll all settle down
Everything seems to be up in the air at this time
All across the nation, people are gettin' together
From many ideas they form a single goal
Some people are gonna benefit
And others gotta sacrifice
But everything seems to seems to be up in the air at this time

Annetta: You raise a very valid point about spittoons, which I'll raise to the obvious next level.

Would we allow those that chew to spit their spent chew on fellow bar patrons?

If not, why not? Isn't it their 'right' to do so?

Can't those that don't like getting tobacco spit on them 'just go to other bars, or stay home'?

No?

This, in essence, is the smokers argument.

At least spent chew spit on fellow bar patrons doesn't cause respiratory problems, smokers cough, or cancer.

I had to live through this sanctimonious moralizing before, in New York. I hope everyone has had a chance to go out to a packed bar now and you realize how nasty people smell without cigarette smoke to cover it up.

You know, some people suggested that, instead of a ban, you who detest 'boorish,' 'slimy,' etc. smoking simply go to a bar without smoking, and then with demand there will be more of these cheery, sterile, kid-friendly, Mormon-beer-serving establishments opening up.

Unfortunately, the sad truth is as you suspected when you were 14. Smokers are just cooler, and without them you will be left to wallow with other candy-ass yuppies who share your sense of entitlement. The only way to force smokers to hang out with your sorry ass is to ban one of their few pleasures in this city full of people like you.

Gimme a Break: If you despise DC residents that much, I'm sure they'd welcome you and your cancer in Virginia bars.

Or, you can be a decent human being and continue going to DC bars absent the cancer and respiratory hell that your cigarettes cause those around you.

Your suggestion that nonsmokers simply go to another bar doesn't really work.

First, it's not fair. Why should we leave when we aren't the problem. We can get along in a bar with smokers just fine, as long as they make the minor sacrifice of going outside to smoke. Their cigarettes are the problem. Why should those that are not causing the problem be the ones to leave?

Second, you are assuming all bars are interchangeable. Nonsmokers may be in a particular bar because they are there to see a particular band, it's the only bar within an easy walk of their house, it's the only gay bar in the neighborhood, it's the only bar that serves a particular type of beer, it's where their girlfriend works, whatever. Your suggestion that they simply go to another bar doesn't really work.

Last, that 'just leave' solution doesn't work for the bar employees at all. Unless, of course, you think your nasty habit being practiced in public without even basic compromise is more important than their job and ability to feed their kids.

I think there's been some misunderstanding. I wasn't using some rhetorical technique to make a suggestion. I've noticed a dozen people make that suggestion and your dozen-odd replies. So it's a little off-putting to read you inadvertently reiterating what I did say. Which is that we can't have a choice because nags like you preferred the smoking bars. It's true -- better music, better beer, better people. Therefore, the only "fair" thing is to make everybody play by your rules, rather than let the people decide with their wallets. That's a real injustice to your lifestyle, finally put right.

You know what I think would be "fair"? Being able to open up a stinky, icky bar just for nasty, revolting, disgusting, cancer-causing, and whatever-other-Jack D. Ripper-type-adjective-you-can-come-up-with people like myself to get together and have a drink without having to wrestle with the moral conundrum of Nancy Nosey and her paranoia about her precious bodily fluids.

But I would never suggest that as a plausible solution, because I know that the legal-vice squad will discover, in no time, that interesting people are having fun, and will demand not just to gain access but to reshape it in their vision. I will leave it to the Green Line philosophers to make the connection with gentrification.

By the way, a couple of you have mentioned the poor employees the law was passed to protect. The reason nobody is talking about them is that it was never in doubt that they were a pretense. Most of my friends work in bars, and let me tell you, not only was there no groundswell of complaint, no noble grassroots organizing, but bar workers almost unanimously opposed the fiat ban. As is patently clear to all but the most disingenuous of observers, the law was imposed from above thanks to a tiny, vocal group of single-issue activists, a larger minority of people like you who are overjoyed to be denying others their pleasures for the sake of their own psycho-corporeal comfort zone, apathy on the part of the majority, and the moralizing instincts of limo liberals on the council.

Gimme: Actually, the smoking ban has widespread general populace support. Why do you think the DC Council jumped on the bandwagon? For the morality of it?

And you can open up a smoking bar all you want. It just has to be a private club.

And are you really suggesting the simplistic argument that you must smoke to have a good time in a bar or restaurant? Really? That would seem to me to suggest that without your cigarette in hand there's really not much to you. All smoke and no meat, so to speak.

But, then, I don't have the gall to suggest that of all smokers. Only those that think they have a God-given right to make all those around them miserable, then go on to make the fairly silly claim that they are somehow more fun and better people than ALL nonsmokers.

Simplistic, elitist, and, well, silly.

And I see you have yet to address my arguments substantively.

Suggesting that smokers are cool and nonsmokers are not is not really a substantive argument.

"If you're coining words like 'hipseoisie'...you might be a hipster!"

Gimme a break:

Buck up, it's not the end of the world! You could take up urinating on people.

I hear the Reef will be opening it's roof-deck year-round soon.

Are you sure about private clubs? I'd heard they were exempt if they made special application.

i was going to move to dc...now i won't. dc can suck my dick. no income tax revenue. no sales tax. no residuals on the purchases i would have made. blow me. instead of doing nights out in dc, i'll be in arlington, alexandria, or baltimore. this law is ludricrous and fascist at best. if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in their bar, then why not require them to say clearly on the door:

Do not enter unless you are fine in the presence of smoke. Do not apply here if you have a problem with smoke.

after that, there will be no problems. no one "having someone else's smoke crammed up their ass". no more deaths due to 2nd hand smoke (when we all know that the REAL source of carcinogens in the air is auto exhaust and smog that is allowed to pump UNREGULATED from big industry). this smoking ban is a joke. we want to make city's residents more safe? how about hiring more (and better) police officers? how about enforcing a goddamn emissions law for autos? i'm talking to you to Maryland!!

whatever. i hope half of georgetown is forced to close. i know adams-morgan is going to wilt away too.

C-YA DC...its been great...i'm TRULY sad and disgusted....at least i'll have some memories to take with me.

slogg = Gimme a break = 38-year-old, angry, single man with receding gums and hairline, living in his mom's basement in Montgomery County.

i was going to move to dc...now i won't.

Good night, sweet prince, And hoots of derision sing thee to Franconia!

firstly, if you don't want to be around second-hand smoke, then GO TO A NON-SMOKING VENUE. vote with your dollar. no one is forcing you to go to a smoking establishment. however, the option to smoke for those who choose to do so is removed. this is not about smoking. this is about the oppression of individual rights and increased control over PRIVATELY OWNED businesses by the gov't.

individual choice and freedom should always be the most important value, as long as it is not exercising force against another being.

if you believe that letting the goverment decide what is best for YOU is OK, can you tell me why? what's next, abortion? alcohol? books? see where i'm going with this?

you may think you're vying for basic "human rights" whereas i am concerned with oppression and loss of freedom (which imo is the greatest "human right"). there are pros and cons on both sides, it just comes down to priorities and ours are different. i'd rather to be able to do what i want, and funnily enough i think so do you--but to you, it doesn't matter that the club is smoke-free due to governmental strong-arming, it just pleases you that it IS because that's what you prefer. to me, freedom is the ultimate gift: individual thought, exercising choice. THAT is living. clean air is nice, but not when it comes at such a price.

you have a right to clean air. so stay in it. you have a right to listen to music/dance/drink/eat in clean air--then go to those places! there will always be differing opinions, different lifestyles, different practices of living and perceptions of life quality. i think the option of non-smoking establishments is the best answer, yet i'm surprised how few of them there are. you'll notice most restaurants are, or at least many more than in, say, the '70s, non-smoking environments. there is nothing good about smoking cigarettes--that's the truth, but regardless, it's a person's choice to smoke just like it's a persons choice to patron a smoking environment.

and re: the whole "it's for the employees." seriously. if you're worried about second-hand smoke, then maybe you should have thought twice about being a bartender/cocktail waitress/dj.

Apple - Hillman is coming for you, you filthy, filthy smoker.

Good Lord, I've drug myself into this. It's like an addiction with me.....

"individual choice and freedom should always be the most important value, as long as it is not exercising force against another being."

Apple, that's your quote. And I couldn't agree more. Very noble sentiment.

The obvious flaw with your argument is that your smoking on me is by defintion excercising force against another being. That is, your habit is directly interfering with, quite literally, my ability to breathe.

How on earth do you think this is not invading someone else's space unreasonably? You are literally forcing your filthy carcinogen up someone else's nose. How is that not an assault?

As for your other arguments (particularly the one about smokers can just go elsewhere), please feel free to go back and read the numerous posts on this subject pointing out how unsupportable your suggestions and positions are.

^^^^[ding, ding]

Round 12!!!!