Oh, I'll bite. It's most probably BS. A 'study' whose authors obviously have a vested interest and can't give you even basic data sounds like BS. Throw in the fact that DC would be the very first major US city to have such an outcome, and it's safe to say that without further proof this just isn't credible.

I call BS. Yeah, I totally buy their self-reporting. I'd have to see the whole study, for sure.

A loss in business over what? Last month, last year at the same time? Was weather factored in? This was a crappy winter and I know I didn't go out as much because of that. if retailers can account for things like this then these guys should too. Let's see some real numbers. The actual survey is unavailable on their website (which has got to be the worst website I've seen in a while.)

DC smoker, I shall not flame, I shall merely point out that those observations are about as accurate as one would expect from an Adams Morgan bartender.

1) There is no way DC has a larger foreign born percentage of its socializing population than New York, LA, etc.
2) The average age of NYC is 34.2 (18.8% of its pop in their 20s), the average age of LA is 31.6 (15.6% of the pop in their 20s), and the average age of DC is 34.6 (18.3% of the pop in their 20s).
3) I don't have data on how officially-pastimey drinking in bars is here, but based on a simple observation, I don't think there is any reason to think DC is more of a lush town than any other city (my guess is that it's less so).
4) Again, no data on it, but simple observation tells me that there are way more bars with decks in DC than in NYC, plus there are more warm days here.
5) Just give it time, there won't be smoking in VA or MD much longer.

So people start off this thread by knocking the report for having little to back up its stats, and then Reid tries to refute a bartender (who should know these things better than a non-bartender) with words like "I don't have the data" and "no data on it." Or by saying "there is now way," and then not providing any data. Or by using stats that actually back up DC Smoker's assertion that there are a lot of 20-year-olds in DC.

Way to shoot your argument in the foot.

And no, New Yorkers can't go across the bridge to New Jersey, which has banned smoking in bars.

"Maybe the owner cuts some 'off the top'."

Well, Duh. It's a largely cash biz. That's one of the attractions for some owners and workers. Most reputable audit firms won't even touch restaurants or bars. Or they'll put in huge disclaimers. There's just too many problems with the books. It's an open secret.

The survey we did was of members and others to find out from them how the ban has affected them. RAMW has no interest in suggesting the ban has had a negative effect in the absence of any evidence. Granted, the survey was based on self reporting, but was not anonymous.

I fail to grasp why any business owner would falsely report a decline in revenues. I do not see why one should ignore the pain of real people (these are not chains) running real local businesses. Contrary to the tale spun by the surrogates of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (which is funded by the health care product manufacturer Johnson and Johnson), which spends millions on surveys and P.R., local businesses have been harmed in almost every jurisdiction where a ban has been adopted.

AJK

P.S. If you talk to any of my firm's clients, I think they will tell you we are a bargain!

Andrew:

Then why not release the data, like how may responded versus how many you sent inquiries to? And how did you determine who to send the inquiries to?

And how were the inquiries worded? Did you ask about other mitigating factors, like bad weather, etc.

As we all know, the devil is in the details, especially in the survey business.

You can't just release a figure like that but refuse to release supporting data. It makes you look like the survey is at best a joke.

As for your statement that local businesses have been harmed in every jurisdiction, that's misleading at best. Every study I've seen show that overall the bar and restaurant business is not significant disadvantage. Is there an occasional loss of business? I'm sure there is. But overall there isn't. And in fact NYC's bar and restaurant business has boomed since the ban. Can you explain that?

And I find it a bit silly that you could fail to grasp why a businessman would underreport revenues. It happens every day. And it would happen even more if the 'prize' for it were an exemption from the smoking ban.

Underreporting revenues wont get you an exemption prize in an association survey.

WTF? Any more details on the data collected? I have no inclination to believe a study from a group with a vested interest, especially given the fact that bars are notoriously bad records keepers and could easily make a case one way or another, without seeing the documentation (and an arbitrary numerical response to a phone/email survey is NOT good enough).

Having said that, even if it were demonstrably true that a bar lost revenue, that's too f*cking bad. This is a public health issue. Cigarette companies could make a lot more money if they were allowed to advertise to minors. But oh, that's right, it's a large, faceless, evil corporation, so we don't care about their financial status and ability to maintain profits. It's easier to worry about the well being of the local bar owner than it is the moms and pops who work at Phillip Morris who lose their jobs when revenues go down. Someone always wins and someone always loses in this game, and the trump card that has to override everything else is our health and well-being.

Let's get some shoes

Since the city gets 10% of those revenues from the restaurant tax, the figures are public information. (Not that many restaurants don't have 3 sets of books, but the amount they cheat will probably remain constant.) We'll get good figures from OTR in due time.

**: Anyone has more cred than someone who won't even sign their posts, Rob.

I'm still not seeing the reasoning to dismiss the fact that the bars and restaurants (and their associations) have a vested interest to under report revenues. If they can link underperformance with this law, then they get the sympathy they need to fight it. This is not about smoking, it's about wanting to maintain as many rights as possible to let business owners conduct their business as they see fit. And I would support that right in most cases, but this is the kind of issue that can't be left up to the individual business owner, in my opinion. If there were 300 places that didn't allow smoking before the ban, I'd be extremely surprised if 295 of those weren't restaurants. In my experience, there were very few bars that actually had such a ban, making the argument that patrons have the freedom of choice a very shaky one.

I believe that when someone refers to the international crowd in DC, they mean all the young diplomats, interns, etc. who are here posted here.

Wrong, Andrew. Not Rob.

Will you share the methodology and internals? Or would that undermine your lobbying efforts?

"300 bars and restaurants banned smoking on their own, before the citywide ban, from what i understand."

If this is true, I'd be interested in seeing the revenue statistics for this group since the ban started . . . down, up, level?

I work at a club in the city and we were really worried about the ban and figured we would have pissed off customers either smoking all the time, or worse, leaving and never coming back. We actually have more business b/c people are forced to be outside in big groups -- this leads people to believe we are packed and they want to get in line to get in the club ASAP. If anything, our business has increased since the begining of the year. If people want to go out and drink, they'll do it. I've found that most people don't mind going out for the fresh air. I remember when it was in the teens out and plenty of people went out for their cigs. It's nice to go home not smelling like smoke.

I can believe that the smoking ban has hurt some places, but it won't hurt clubs. There are people that are really into clubs, and then those that are really into bars. There are no clubs in VA, so the clubbers are forced to chose DC no matter what.

I will give you, there's one bar that has a good claim. The Dewar's club at the Verizon Center used to be full during Caps intermissions, people drinking, smoking, carousing, etc. When the ban went into effect, empty. Everyone headed outside to smoke, leaving maybe 10 people in the bar to enjoy the clean air and a couple drinks...

I hate to say it, but strictly from a business perspective, these guys should get an exemption.

Your right to smoke in bars ends when it interferes with my right to breath in bars.

All you "healthists" who say that you want the right to "breathe" in a bar can go to a bar that was already smoke-free...which there were plenty in the city. Fact is, keg beer drinkers do not stay as long when they have to go outside, sober up, and have a smoke. No good ever comes out of the government robbing us of personal property rights and civil liberties. WE ARE NOT NEW YORK!!!

Blah Blah

Without the methodology and internals, that's all this is.

As the author of the post, I may as well say this: It's not that I don't want to believe the restaurant association, it's that their lack of methodology makes it very hard.

And on the issue of regulations, the smoking ban is no different than a host of other government regulations that we don't much protest. Any restaurant or bar owner probably knows how many regulations they have to follow to handle and sell food, and we don't often complain about those regulations are infringing on our rights to eat putrid foods, do we?

The simple fact of the matter is that a number of studies have found some link between secondhand smoke and certain diseases, and it's a matter of public health that the government act on that. It's the same rationale for food-related regulations. Sure, it's way cheaper for us to get unregulated foods from any producer, but in the long run, the social and medical costs far outweigh those immediate savings.

Smokers can still smoke. They just can't do it in places that force everyone else to deal with the obvious and nefarious side effects.

All I know, is that if a certain bar is exempt from the smoking ban ... I will not EVER go to that bar.

"Ask them what they're doing now to promote health in those workplaces. You'll get a lot of blank stares."

While I agree with your point, I don't think this makes sense. With smoking gone, what other health issues remain? Posture?

"While I agree with your point, I don't think this makes sense. With smoking gone, what other health issues remain? Posture?"

How about health insurance?

"With smoking gone, what other health issues remain? Posture?"

Well, many lack affordable health care in general, but typically, servers suffer long-term orthopaedic problems, especially a host of very painful foot maladies such as plantar faschiitis. Additionally, their mostly nocturnal employment is just generally not healthy. None of these may seem like a big deal to anyone outside the industry, but were you to ask a server (as I have) in the age prior to the smoking ban what their major health concerns, it's not likely that cigarette smoke would have been top-rated. If you were to ask one now, "Do you have any health concerns related to waiting tables?" I'd be surprised if you didn't get a response.

Anyway, you either care about workplace health and safety in toto, or you care just enough to get a completely different agenda promoted. I don't have any objections whatsoever to the ban being either framed or celebrated as meeting a public health need--indeed, I think it does promote general wellness--but I have nothing but disdain for the disingenuous arguments that propped it up.

That said, it's a mostly empty and semantic complaint on my part, as I'm quite sure that precisely zero restaurant industry employees think of the ban supporters as courageous fighters for their health and welfare.

Uhm, CS...let's...back...away...from the Caps lock key, shall we?

Of course the Council--and others--framed it that way. That doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, is required to participate in that pretense.

The ban was larded with employee health arguments because it made the argument more compelling, not because there was a sudden crazy run on being concerned about workplace safety. If your work involved the promotion of workplace health, and you thought the smoking ban was going to get you a host of new allies who'd be in for the long haul with you, you're likely to have been disappointed!

It didn't touch off a host of other reforms dedicated to employee health and safety, did it?
No. Twas just some temporary clothes to dress in while everyone was selling some public policy. No one's clad in those garments anymore, and everyone's basically gone back to being not really all that worked up about employee health in any substantive capacity.

DCist Jason:

If I'm wearing a newly pressed shirt and jacket for a couple of hours in a bar, then I'm not going to have it laundered again the next day.

So yes, clothing odor was an issue.

It may be no big deal with jeans and a t shirt. But dress clothes and a lot of other items are not inexpensive to have cleaned.

This is also a gender issue. It's easy for us guys, compared to women, on the clothing issue. So many womens clothes are dry clean only. And they have to be dry cleaned at considerable expense after exposure to smoke.

Dakota: And the smoking folks included Burger King and McDonalds in their 'restaurants' that banned smoking before the ban. Hence their magical high numbers.

And think of the cleaning bills for drag queens.

Won't someone think of the drag queens?

Dakota: Bars are not private. They are public accomodations. It even says so on their business license. They are supported by the infrastructure that my city tax dollars provide.

As such, they have a responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment. And that safety includes freedom from known carcinogens.

Incidentally, truly private clubs are already exempt from the ban. That exemption pretty much destroys any argument that bars are by nature private and not public.

Hillman, I never said there weren't "a lot of people are actively fighting for universal health care." My point is: those that fight for those things on a full-time basis are for all intents and purposes DISTINCT from those who assumed that mantle on a temporary basis for the sake of leveraging the smoking ban, and who have subsequently, with that battle won, quit that field.

LincolnParker: I don't want to be your mommy. But I also don't want to breathe in your poison. Go smoke whatever you want in your own home (yes, it should all be legalized). But not in public. In this day and age, it is a matter of common courtesey. Heck, you shouldn't even do it outside--I can still breathe it in. And definitely don't do it in front of your kids. What kind of parents knowingly put their kids in harm's way like that? Addicts, I guess.

Smokers are like those who want to ban gay marriage in that they are clinging to a tradition or way of life that has long since been left behind by mainstream society.

A smoker is like a suicide bomber with a slow fuse. Sure, you can blow yourself up, but get the heck away from me.

You know this summer when everyone is on the sidewalks in Adams Morgan smoking and being loud and then Jim Graham will flip his lid and probably outlaw it outside!

I also can't wait until people get pissed about the patios being "too smoky" and not being able to enjoy the nice summer day, and I can tell them "go inside the dimly lit bar which you so wanted to be smoke-free"

Lockheed Martin:

I worked in government contracting and law downtown for 10 years. It was common practice for us to be expected to socialize in bars. Perhaps your experience was different. But I saw the requirement to socialize in bars as a routine matter of course.

It's true.

Absolutely NO ONE goes out on 18th St. anymore. And the last time I was at Wonderland on a Saturday night, there were only three people sitting in the back drinking bottled water.

Oh, wait - no.

Macie wrote:

"Heck, you shouldn't even do it outside--I can still breathe it in."

Well, Macie, do you hold your breath every time you go outside? Because the crap emitted from cars is probably as bad for you as secondhand smoke, and thousands of times more prevalent. You anti-smoking zealots sometimes say really moronic things, and really need to shut up. Congratulations, you got your ridiculous ban. Now please stop complaining about it as if no ban was in place.

Let the yuppies and their dry cleaning have their smoke-free bars. (What about the loss in dry cleaning revenue...), and let people who want smoking bars to have their smoking bars without some silly 10% revenue floor on tobacco. The cigar bar exception is blatantly classist--let's just go all the way. Get rid of the ban, lawyer bars shouldn't allow smoking, except for cigar bars, and bars that are meant for young people should allow smoking.

There, done, everyone's happy. Who cares (besides the IRS) if a bar is correctly reporting or underreportuing income? It is a side issue for nitpicking anti-smoking zealots.

Now to contradict myself, dance clubs maybe should be smoke free--I used to be a smoker but I never liked getting burnt by some drunk chick on the dance floor with a cigarette. It's a bad mix...dancing, drinking, and a 5000 degree cigarette ember.

But leave the damn Black Cat and the Fox and Hounds alone. I don't want to smell these bars. They need smoke. We're talking about bars here anyway, so drop all of your health arguments. With restaurants, those arguments hold weight, but not with bars. The alcohol is more dangerous than the smoke. Drunk driving, liver damage, drunk hookups with your intern, drunkenly telling a journalist your boss's dirt, original jumbo slice happening to your diet, etc. Why don't you bunch of yuppies outlaw drinking, dancing, music, puppies, and fun while you are at it?

What the smoking ban does is prevent that pain-in-the-butt annoying friend-of-a-friend in your group from nixing the idea of going to a bar because h/she "doesn't like all the smoke." So I can see how business won't necessarily suffer from the ban.

However, a bar is a den of vice and sin. I don't get where the idea came up that it was supposed to be some kind of family-friendly environment where we all take care of each other's health.

Someone please entertain me and elaborate a bit more on why DC is so much different from NY, and why our ban will be a disaster while it's boosted bar business there. I mean, yes, DC does have all the embassies, but NY has the UN and foreign missions from exactly the same countries. Plus, there are a lot of rich Europeans and others who work in NY in fashion, publishing, media, academia, etc. And don't forget all the foreign tourists and idle rich who promenade around NY - they're far more important to NY's economy than they are to DC, which is way more US-focused.

Somehow, I don't really think that the entire, six-person staff of the Embassy of Gabon or whatever is going to make or break the DC bar industry. But feel free to try to convince me for shits and giggles.

I'll tell you why DC is different:

1. a lot more people are transplants here (I know I know...NYC is an international city, blah blah blah...but you forget how much larger it is with Brooklyn, Queens, etc..)

2. our fashion sucks (I know this doesn't relate)

3. way more liberals who love the idea of a nanny state are in NYC

4. we as the nation's seat of government, should set the trend of being America and not take away civil liberities and freedoms and personal property rights

5. we drink a lot more here (per person) as the above poster said...."district of consumption anyone?" law firms can be hell....

6.. there are still a lot of "underground" smoking bars there (if no one tells, you can't get in trouble!)we have people in DC who love to rat each other out

but, as a lot of people will say, that is my own misinformed judgement

One difference between DC and New York seems to be how strictly the ban is enforced. I've seen plenty of smoking in New York bars, and if you ever glance at the VIP section in New York clubs you'll see a haze of smoke. And Philly has a number of what they're calling "smoke easies."

But I'll give you Boston. People seem to obey the rules there.

Dakota:

I'll make you a deal. You can go back to smoking on me in public gathering spots the very day that it's ok for me to urinate on you or spit on you in return.

At least my urine probably wouldn't cause you cancer.

What? No deal?

Christine--"Wait a minute...It's the restaurant/bar owner's business, so they can do whatever they want, huh? So they could provide alcohol to minors if they wanted? Serve absynthe if they wanted? Sell pot if the wanted?"

As far as I am concerned yes. But that belongs in a different conversation. Don't try to reframe with more "absurd" questions. It's intellectually lazy.

But your example brings up a good point. Who is the law breaker? The person breaking the law is the person smoking. Who has to enforce that?

Also its not about "surviving" its about intrusive legislation picking the pocket of people who actually make a buck and contribute to society. Even if its not your preference.

"I'll make you a deal. You can go back to smoking on me in public gathering spots the very day that it's ok for me to urinate on you or spit on you in return.

At least my urine probably wouldn't cause you cancer.

What? No deal?"

A better analogy would be you peeing and me running into your pee stream. Then me running to daddy government and trying to ban you peeing.

Personally if I don't like getting pissed on I avoid being around people pissing. But in this case you and your band of jack boots decided to piss on my property rights anyway.

You didn't really answer the analogy.

Why is it acceptable for you to smoke on me but I can't piss or spit on you?

It may sound extreme, but it's a real question.

If you can't answer this question, you have no argument.

"4. we as the nation's seat of government, should set the trend of being America and not take away civil liberities and freedoms and personal property rights"

I guess that's why we're able to vote for out Representative and two Senators huh? Let's work on that first and then we can worry about the right to smoke in bars.

"5. we drink a lot more here (per person) as the above poster said...."district of consumption anyone?" law firms can be hell...."

According to Forbes study we're only 20th out of 35 cities in alcohol consumption. So I don't think that that argument has any validity.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/22/nightlife-cities-drunk_cx_de_nightlife06_0822intro.html

"Who said I smoke? I don't. I own a business. I want to be able to let people do as they choose. You don't get to tell me I can't let them."

Actually, yes I can (or, by extension, the government can), once a determination is made that such actions cause harm to others.

Or are you claiming an unlimited right, regardless of harm to others? Like the right to, say, grind broken glass in the faces of fellow bar patrons? Or spray them in the face with perfume, repeatedly? Or, to keep it simple, just reach over and slug someone else at the bar? Or how about holding them down and taking their money? All because they had the audacity to think they had the right to go out and have a drink in a public social gathering spot.

Are those personal choice rights?

No?

Why not?

Of course, my old favorites are still pissing and spitting.

If you can smoke on me while I'm at the bar, I can piss and spit on you. Sounds fair to me.

Ok, I'll bite. What do wood burning pizza ovens have to do with this conversation? Surely you aren't comparing the wood burning pizza oven to smoking, are you?

And what do ventilation and mitigation have to do with the steak tartare example that you brought up and I responded to?

Still waiting for an answer about the acceptability of my urinating and spitting on you....

But, then, I'll be waiting a long time. No one has ever been able to answer that one. Because they are indefensible assaults on another human being.

Just like smoking in a confined space is.

** You raise a good point.

Moncrief: That would be a fine compromise, but for it to be truly even there would have to be one of me in every bar in DC, except maybe one or two 'non pissing' bars. Or, actually, at least several of me. True, I am a bit of a drunk, but I can't be in every bar.

Then smokers could see how it actually feels to have nearly every social outlet taken up by selfish people spewing their personal habits into public space.

The shame of it is that eventually I'd run out of piss. Spit, too.

Maybe I could bring store some up in plastic bags....

Bob:

My job? Irrelevant. Perhaps I'm independently wealthy, after being the guy that dreamed up the scheme to export cigarettes to poorly educated rural Chinese people to make sure there's another few generations of addicts.

I'll admit to being abrasive on this issue.

I had a bit of empathy for the smokers on this issue years ago. Many didn't actually realize how strongly others felt, and how much of an effect their smoke has on the rest of us. But they've had years to educate themselves on this, and they continue to think their behavior is ok apparently because, hey, they aren't the ones that are bothered.

It's funny, though, how often some in the pro smoking crowd feels the need to attack me personally in lieu of an actual supportable argument.

It's a ludicrous premise to claim that bar owners should be allowed to let their patrons to behave in any manner they choose, even if it directly harms others. As the owner, you have a legal responsibility for those inside your walls to the degree required by law. Bars are licensed to serve alcohol. If we need another licensing process to allow smoking because that is the business service that they would like to offer, so be it. Just because historically drinking and smoking have become linked, does not mean that we are infringing on the core business of these establishments. And if it does, get an exemption and shut up about it. Under the current system, there will be establishments that allow drinking and smoking, and those that just allow drinking. And regardless you can always walk outside, a choice that we never had because it is illegal to drink in public spaces. You however are now free to choose.

This is merely the latest in a long chain of laws that are designed to constrict the rights of business owners for the benefit of everyone. You are not permitted to sell alcohol to minors. You are not permitted to refill bottles of alcohol. You are not permitted to serve rancid food. You are not permitted to handle garbage a certain way. You are not permitted to discriminate who you do and do not serve... You have always had to deal with a system of rules and regulations and now you have one more to worry about. Deal with it.

I think the government should outlaw unprotected sex between bar patrons and make bar owners responsible for any violation. Unprotected sex is, like smoking, a very dangerous activity. Bar owners foster an atmosphere where people can meet for the purpose of engaging in unprotected sex and should bear the responsibility of ensuring patron's health.

Tom: I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.

CD: I have yet to see an analogy the smokers make that makes any sense. Almost always they seem to miss the basic point - nonsmokers are the unwilling injured parties when others smoke. They constantly throw up analogies that involve willing parties or no actual injury - like the *next you'll ban my steak tartare* argument.

zzzzzzzzzzz

Esmerelda:

No one is forcing you to read my posts. If you dislike them, simply scan to the next one by someone you like.

Yes, I obviously have a lot of free time on my hands. But so what? What's the harm?

And this isn't a public speaking forum, where I'm taking someone else's time. Others are free to post as much as they want.

And the discussion is always open to anyone that wants to join.

As for being spam, that's not really a valid statement..... my posts do have substance, although I will admit I do tend to restate the same ideas, in large part because others repeatedly bring up the same lame ideas and responses, time after time.

But I will agree that we've probably beat this dead horse long enough.

"Personally, I do not even understand why anyone is even bothering to pretend that a business could possibly provide sufficient metrics to qualify for the exemption."

That's because you misunderstand. It's not about the metrics, it's about the uncertain creating a safety mechanism (for themselves) in the event of political pressure.

It is in line with a well documented pattern of selective enforcement on any number of fronts.

"Some people think the Government has a right to interfere in our lives this way, and tell us what's good for us. I don't. "

The Government (funny you should capitalize that) isn't telling *you* not to smoke, ML. It leaves *your* option to slomo kill *yourself* in *your* hands- just where *you* seem to want it.

The Government (I love how you capitalize that) is just saying you don't have the right to kill *others*.

Your argument amounts to telling those who value their health to stay away from you and the places you frequent. No worries there. You've kept the black helicopters at bay.

DC Smoker:

You called my pissing and spitting argument iditiotic but I see you failed to actually address the argument.

Why is that?

Of course, Dakota didn't answer either.

"I actually meant that the Government was interfering with the rights of business,"

Actually, the real point is about the public health environment in public accommodations. You and others are welcome found and/or patronize private clubs.

Who knows. Perhaps the businesses you profess to care so much about will decide it is more profitable to convert to that form of venue. That would lend weight to their claim of hardship.

You claimed that a Big Mac ban was next. But when asked you won't provide proof of that claim. Why not?

And you still didn't answer my piss and spit question.

Again, why not?

As for Dakota's response (not the same as an actual answer), it was lame and nonresponsive.

My question was whether or not decent people would piss or spit on someone on purpose against their will. And how that was any different from a decency standpoint than smoking on others.

Dakota's differentiation about 'running into the pee stream' was colorful but meaningless. Obviously I was comparing the act of pissing or spitting on people at random in bars. By definition that'd include me just walking up to you in a bar and letting it fly.

Dakota never answered. Neither did you.

Hillman, since you only seem to *listen* to yourself - have fun *talking* to yourself from here on out as well. I'm sure you're completely right about everything. (Hey, just like it is in your own mind!)

Peace out, y'all.

No one is forcing smokers to go to a bar where people are enjoying themselves without having to breathe smoke. If you want to smoke- just stay home- thats your choice.

or step outside to smoke. Its the polite thing to do anyway.

Smokers finally got whats been coming to them ever since the proof about secondhand smoke became common knowledge.
Say what you want about "the Nanny State" - its really the Grown Up state- the rest of us moved on and decided to care about ourselves, not put up with the perpetual adolescence that is smoking and we demanded that you take your silly self destructive habit and keep it to yourselves.
Its riduculous for people to argue the right to fuck people over because they are addicts.
I smoke pot and used to smoke cigarettes- but never in a million years would I try to make the argument that either of those habits or their effect should take precedence over someone elses right to stay sober or not breathe my bad air.
at least when you pee on someone all they have to do is 'wash their clothes' as one smoking advocate on this list said.
Yall hate hillman because he makes sense and all you can do is attack him personally- he or she is right- you got nothing insofar as logic is concerned -so you have to call names.
you lost- you will continue to lose because the rest of the world that loves life has had enough.
Virginia and Maryland are next- thanks to all the activists who refused to be bullied by a bunch of cancer loving tyrants.

Hillman, Marty's on 8th street was smoke-free prior to the ban. Isn't that in your neighborhood?

Suffice it to say, y'all, I think everything's gonna be okay. Even though the law is straight sausage--and that's the aspect of it I like to critique...everything will be fine. Let's not get all: "Then, they came for my Big Macs..."

The vast majority of smokers probably do not look at stepping outside to smoke as a crazy hardship. So, when you see 'em, do the right thing and don't grit on them.

There are STILL a number of venues where smoking is still permitted (I believe one is Ozio--so, get to know that place, militants...or learn to enjoy hookah!). If there is a market for smoking venues, adaptation will come. Hell, the big cig companies have branded clubs in Chicago, I believe. And in SF, bar owners are working around the employee protection angle by doing away with employees entirely and restructuring their businesses to give everyone an ownership stake.

Plus...my God, people. Rooftops, patios! This is why I don't get all the pro-smoker agita! Your time of year is right around the corner. Smokers returning to the front stoop of Fox and Hounds is the new swallows returning to San Capistrano. Everything is going to be all right, excepting those weird few who, as reported here, don't like to wash their clothes.

Politboro, you should actually read the "surgeon general's report". The headlines said the complete opposite of what the report contained. It was trashed by even members of the anti-smoking group itself. Yes I read the entire 790 pages of what amounted to 7 pounds of toilet paper statistics. Statistics are NOT science! Carmona, who was immediatly fired and is now a massage therapist in Arizona, only re-published their weak propaganda. It ignored a valid 30 year study by Enstrum and Kabat, funded by the American Cancer Society, that found no evidence that second hand smoke causes lung cancer.
Altra goes along with this fraud because their profits are soaring by overcharging those who choose to smoke...look at their stock price. I am not a pro-smoker...I am pro-choice.

Statistics are the essence of science in that it is concerned with repeatability and probability- scientific cornerstones that underpin physics, organic and biochem, ecology, medicine- everything, really. To claim otherwise is just ignorant.

The whole attempt to tie the "land of lincoln" with buses, little black girls, and civil rights is just ham-handed and obnoxious in its race-baiting intent. And then there's the part about smoking opponents engaging in "junk science". That's laughably both for its cynical intent, and its pathetic execution. Everyone (EVERYONE!) knows the tobacco industry literally wrote the book on junk science.

Do yourself a favor and get a copy editor with a clue. Maybe your boss. Ask if s/he thinks you left yourself open for the above critique and the below pot-shots:

"Blah Blah Blah...And watch how anarchy and un-Americanism escalate when the next generation begins to question the right of smoke policemen to fine them for smoking on the beach!"

Because, like, the world is their ass- er- butt-tray!

"Blah Blah Blah...a legal product which is funding a major share of the cost of general government in our society today?"

A legal product that is also responsible for an even more major share of those costs...

EAW:

You are correct. Martys was smoke free. I've spoken about it with the owner of Martys. Martys is relatively new, and the owner told me he knew it was only a matter of time before the ban took place, so he got a jump on it by opening from scratch as smoke free.

Martys is primarily a restaurant, not a bar.

And without the ban, it probably wouldn't have turned smoke free.

"Whenever a government imposes itself in mandatory controls on business or an economic venture there is a 100% chance of catastrophic results. "

Really? Then I suppose the legal requirements that you not overserve alcohol to the point of drunkenness ruined the bar industry? 100% chance of catastrophic results? Wow. So any control on business ruins business? Then by definition America would be business-free, as I don't know a single business that isn't subject to government regulation.

And nearly every study to date in major US cities shows that the smoking ban has no significant effect on business. In fact, bar and restaurant business has gone up in NYC and other areas with smoking bans. I'm not suggesting a causal relationship - I'm just saying your doom and gloom assessment isn't born out by recent history.

Hillman,

I smoke (there is no reason not to) and I get one cold every 3 years whether I want one or not. Doctors are reimbursed by RWJF for their support of the anti-smoking hysteria. After all Robert Wood Johnson paid $100 million to the American Medical Association to cement that support. Besides the docs would much rather have you looking towards smokers and 400,000 imaginary deaths without a single toe tag than looking at them with medical errors causing 150,000+ deaths with real toe tags rolling out the back doors of hospitals. There exists no scientific evidence that smoking, active or second hand, causes respiratory problems. Next time you see the ol'doc ask him to show you the scientific evidence. That means non-statistical medical research that has been independently verified by others(the scientific method). Statistics are neither verifiable nor reproduceable by others.

The economic problems of bars in smoking ban areas are covered up using a standard trick. Normally bar and restaurant receipts are tracked separate from fast food and package store receipts. When smokers boycott bars and restaurants they go to take out business and go home....take out business goes way up and bars go way down. To cover up and fool the fools of this fact the anti smokers just COMBINE bar and restaurant receipts with take out business receipts and what do you know...it shows no change. They don't have to tell you the truth, their job is to lie to you. This fraud is duplicated where ever the ban exists and they always headline it on the one year date of the ban.

By the way, the other famous respiratory lie from them is "Smoking and Second Hand Smoke causes asthma".....there are no allergens on cigarette smoke. You need an allergen to cause an allergic reaction. They know they lie..all they have to do is fool you. DC Smoke Free is a public relations firm, not a scientific firm. It's marketing.

You explain away the numerous studies that show no significant economic effect of smoking bans by saying it's masked by some magical huge uptick in takeout?

That's odd, since many bars in most cities don't have takeout facilities, and the measure is per bar, not some magical combination with takeout joints. And in nearly all cities with a ban there is an exception for bars that can show a significant loss of revenue. Yet apparently relatively few file for such an exception.

And can you point me to the studies that use this 'trick'?

Even if on the stunningly unlikely chance that you are right and there is a minor negative economic impact, it doesn't really matter in terms of my argument. The heart of my argument is that smoking on others in confined public spaces is arrogant and selfish, analagous to my examples of pissing or spitting on others.

It's worth noting that I don't think there's a single example of a major city reversing it's smoking ban. If businesses were crumbling as you suggest you'd think the citizenry in at least a few cities would see this and reverse the bans.

Hillman;
"Studies" (statistics) are not research.
Please cite the name of the oncological scientific research project from a valid research lab that firmly established the cause of any cancer.

Please cite the oncological scientific reasearch project from a valid research lab that firmly established a direct link between smoking or second hand smoke and cancer.

Failing that, Please cite the medically scientific research project that firmly found a direct link between smoking or second hand smoke and any disease.

Hint: "studies" are derived from questionaires of dubious validity and "phone interviews" neither of which are verifiable. I just conducted a (unquestionable)poll (telephone) that (clearly) shows 100% of my co-workers like me. This happily indicates (remarkable and massive) support for me. (the results are astounding proof!) This is how your headline reads. The fact that I only called the person in the next office does not change the results. If I also called my ex-wife it would probably be 50%-50%...throw in my dog and you get 66% yeah! and 33% blah! Throw in my girlfriend and it is 75% in favor and 25% nay. This is exactly how the anti-smokers pull off the headline "75% of state residents support BostonRay (smoking ban) in statewide poll conducted" All their polls indicate 73-75% support and they are conducted in the exact same way mine was.

The rest of their "studies" headlined "are not available at this time - real response from American Cancer Society PR rep when asked for a copy of their cited "study".

Hillman their "studies" exist but none reach the Relative Risk requirement of above 3.0 in order even to be published. An RR of less than 3.0 is proof of nothing. By the way RR 1.0 = 0. Once again statistics are not science.

I can't wait until a bar gets an exemption. If there's one city that can royally fuck up a smoking ban, it's gotta be D.C.

Perhaps then Hillman would be insulted enough that he'd move, doing everyone in D.C. a favor.

Boston: I have no desire to debate whether or not second hand smoke is dangerous or not. Nearly every major medical group says it is, at least to some extent, and the vast majority of individual medical professionals agree. That's good enough for me.

Cleveland: Why the snarkiness? If you don't like my posts, don't read them. But I agree that if there is one city that can fuck up the ban it would be DC.

Hill Rat: I agree, this subject has been beaten to death. But every time I think I'm out someone either insults me personally (usually in lieu of an actual argument) or brings up something stunning like saying second hand smoke poses no danger, while ignoring the primary parts of my argument.

ABDUL MOBILE PHONE DEALER
A registered and Approved company
Date of Establishment: 09/05/2000
Shipment method: UPS/FedEx/EMS
Contact us via E-mail:
abdul_mobiledealer@yahoo.com
abdul_mobiledealer@consultant.com

If you are interested, forward your questions and enquires to us via email with your order and shipping details. we give 1 year warranty for every product sold out to our costumers, our product are company class 1 tested and approved by global standard organization of wireless industries, Brand new merchandise with complete accessories, extra charger and battery.

NEW Sidekick
New D-Wade Limited Edition Sidekick 3---$200usd
New Diane von Furstenberg - Gizmodo sidekick 3-----$200
New LRG sidekick 3 special Edition-----$160usd
New Sidekick 3-----$140usd
New Sidekick 2-----$120usd
New Pink couture sidekick 2-----$135usd
New Mr. Cartoon sidekick-----$130usd

NEW Nokia
New Nokia N95 ---$350usd
New Nokia N77---$330usd
New Nokia E90---$300usd
New Nokia N76---$260usd
New Nokia E65---$230usd
New Nokia E61i---$220usd
New Nokia N75 ---$240usd
New Nokia N93i---$250usd
New Nokia 5300--- $200usd
New Nokia 7373--- $200usd
New Nokia 7390 ---$280usd
New Nokia n93 ---$220usd
New Nokia n92 ---$180usd
New Nokia n91--- $170usd
New Nokia n90--- $150usd
New Nokia n72 ---$150usd
New Nokia n73 ---$160usd
New nokia n83 ---$170usd
New Nokia E61 ---$150usd
New Nokia 8800 ---$220usd
New Nokia 8800 Sirocco---$230usd
New Nokia 6110 Navigator---$180usd

NEW Motorola
New Motorola ROKR E6---$230usd
New Motorola Razr v3xx--- $250USD
New Motorola RAZR maxx V6---$230usd
New Motorola K1 ---$180usd
New Motorola a1200--- $200usd
New Motorola a1010 ---$180usd
New Motorola Mpx 300 ---$150usd
New Motorola Mpx 220 ---$140usd
New Motorola L7 ---$165usd
New Motorola RIZR Z8---$350usd
New Motorola KRZR K3---$270usd
New Motorola SLVR L9---$195usd
New Motorola Q q9---$250usd
New Motorola Q---$230usd
New Motorola RIZR Z6---$220usd
New Motorola SLVR L7e---$225usd
New Motorola RIZR Z3---$190usd
New Motorola MOTOFONE F3---$200usd

NEW Sony Ericsson
New Sony Ericsson W880--- $300usd
New Sony Ericsson K810--- $280usd
New Sony Ericsson W610--- $200usd
New Sony Ericsson K550--- $165usd
New Sony Ericsson K220--- $150usd
New Sony Ericsson K200--- $145usd
New Sony Ericsson J120--- $170usd
New Sony Ericsson J110--- $150usd
New Sony Ericsson K550im--- $200usd
New Sony Ericsson W888--- $350usd
New Sony Ericsson W830--- $220usd
New Sony Ericsson W850--- $250usd
New Sony Ericsson W710--- $225usd
New Sony Ericsson Z710--- $260usd
New Sony Ericsson W710i--- $190usd
New Sony Ericsson Z710i ---$200usd
New Sony Ericsson k790A--- $230usd

NEW Samsungs
New Samsung BlackJack SGH-i607---$200usd
New Samsung X830 ---$250USD
New Samsung P310 ---$255USD
New Samsung P900--- $220usd
New Samsung D900 ---$300usd
New Samsung M500--- $280usd
New Samsung Q1 -----$200usd
New Samsung U700 -----$300usd
New Samsung U600 -----$280usd
New Samsung U300 -----$250usd
New Samsung U100 -----$200usd
New Samsung i710 -----$200usd
New Samsung i520 -----$170usd
New Samsung P110 -----$170usd
New Samsung E840 -----$230usd
New Samsung E830 -----$220usd
New Samsung E740 -----$210usd
New Samsung E590 -----$180usd
New Samsung F700 -----$190usd
New Samsung P940 -----$250usd
New Samsung P930 -----$240usd
New Samsung E790 -----$225usd

NEW i-mate
i-mate Ultimate 9150-----$350usd
i-mate Ultimate 8150-----$340usd
i-mate Ultimate 7150-----$300usd
i-mate Ultimate 6150-----$280usd
i-mate Ultimate 5150-----$230usd
i-mate JAQ4-----$200usd
i-mate PDAL-----$200usd
i-mate JAQ3-----$200usd
i-mate SPL-----$190usd
i-mate JAQ-----$230usd
i-mate JASJAM-----$230usd
i-mate SPJAS-----$250usd
i-mate Smartflip-----$200usd
i-mate JAMin-----$250usd
i-mate JASJAR-----$250usd
i-mate K-JAM-----$270usd
i-mate JAM Black-----$270usd

NEW E-ten
Eten glofiish M700-----$300
Eten glofiish X500-----$250
Eten M550-----$230
Eten G500+-----$220
Eten M600+-----$200
Eten G500-----$180
Eten M600-----$200
Eten M500-----$160

Brand new Video Game
New Nintendo WII-----$250
New Xbox 360-----$250
New Playstation 3 30GB-----$230
New Playstation 3 60GB-----$300

NEW Apple Ipod
New Apple Ipod 80GB-----$180usd
New Apple iPod nano 4GB-----$120usd
New Apple iPod nano 2GB-----$110usd
New Apple 30 GB Video iPod-----$130usd
New Apple 60 GB Video iPod-----$140.00usd
New Apple 20 GB iPod-----$126usd
New Apple 4 GB iPod Mini-----$105usd
New Apple 6 GB iPod Mini-----$114usd
New Apple 40 GB iPod photo-----$110usd
New Apple 60 GB iPod photo-----$130usd
New Apple 30 GB iPod Photo-----$116usd

Thanks
The Sales Manager.
E-mail: abdul_mobiledealer@consultant.com
E-mail: abdul_mobiledealer@yahoo.com

Hilman wrote, "It's most probably BS. A 'study' whose authors obviously have a vested interest and can't give you even basic data sounds like BS. Throw in the fact that DC would be the very first major US city to have such an outcome, and it's safe to say that without further proof this just isn't credible."

The "vested interest" is the interest of the Restaurant Association whose revenue is affected by the smoking ban. How much more HONEST of an interest could there possibly be? Should we believe studies by the antismoking or tobacco industry lobbies instead???

As far as DC being "the very first major US city" to be hurt by a ban, I'd suggest that anyone who believes this visit

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html

For a study based upon completely open and verifiable public data that clearly shows otherwise, at least at the state level (which, according to antismoking mantra, should be more reliable since it eliminates any "unlevel playing field" claims). When the actual numbers are analyzed it appears that California may have lost on the order of one hundred billion dollars of revenue in the years since their bans started seriously kicking in. Read the study yourself: it's not technical, it's short, and it's verifiable. The bottom of that page lists a dozen or more other supportive studies as well.

As far as health arguments go, visit my web page below and scroll down to the first box under the red-headlined essays. Download the short booklet there and read the examinations of the antismoking lobby's favorite studies. You'll be surprised... and maybe angry.

Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. They deserve to be ignored.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antsmokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com