Pet Worth: This Month's Highly Adoptable Animals
New Whole Foods to Open Up Exactly Where it is Needed Least
The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Jack Evans Hops Aboard a SmartBike at Bike Lane Unveiling
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
The D.C. Council is taking up a bill this session that would expand parts of the existing citywide smoking ban, including a provision that would allow property owners to legally prohibit smoking within 25 feet of any building entrance, even if that area includes public areas like sidewalks, Michael Neibauer reports today in the Examiner. The idea is to cut down on the number of times city residents are forced to walk through a gauntlet of smokers standing outside office building doors, an experience that's admittedly unpleasant for plenty of folks. But the question then becomes: if every business follows through on such a ban, where are smokers supposed to go? Not to mention: who would be responsible for enforcing this rule? Could individuals end up being ticketed by police for smoking on the sidewalk? There's going to be a lot of details to iron out on this one.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
I smoke.
I pay taxes.
I smoke where I want to.
I don't smoke
I pay taxes
I like breathing breathable air
So, let me see if I get this right...
If I pay taxes...
I can do whatever I want...
Wherever I want...
Sorry. I'm not a fan of the legislation, as I think it's ridiculous for property owners to control anything outside their property lines (which it seems that 25 feet could include). But the "I pay taxes" argument is nonsense. (Or were you being sarcastic? In which case, egg on me.)
So, let me see if I get this right...
If I pay taxes...
I can do whatever I want...
Wherever I want...
Correct, anything else is SOCIALISM and FASCISM and COMMUNISM and OMABAISM!!!!!!!!
I was just being "pushy". I am as considerate a smoker as they come. I make sure I stand as far away from foot traffic as I can and never drop my butts on the ground. What irks me is those of us who want to smoke are made in to second class citizens. I agree others should not be affected by my smoking, but unless they open the roof up to smokers we have to try to balance.
Am I supposed to drop a quarter in a parking meter and stand there to smoke?
Am I supposed to drop a quarter in a parking meter and stand there to smoke?
Do you really want to be giving the City Council any ideas?
That was dumb wasn't it?
actually, thats not a half-bad idea. install largeish phone booths (bonus points if they're red like in london) on every third or fourth corner and charge smokers $1.00 to use it. ban smoking everywhere else. use the revenue to fund anti-smoking education. never clean the windows, so they quickly realize how much air pollution they're producing.
Compared to what? Cars, Cows, Fires? I doubt SHS makes that much air pollution especially compared to standing right next to a gas powered car's tailpipe. I don't smoke, but I do know that SHS has little chance of killing me compared to other air toxins.
Uhh, second hand smoke kills thousands of people each year and harms the health of even more. It's definitely an air toxin. The distinction here is whether it's being emitted in an enclosed space or outside. There is TONS of evidence that SHS inside (ie four walls and a ceiling) is dangerous. There isn't nearly as much evidence showing that SHS is dangerous outside in the open air to all people. We do definitely know it can be dangerous to people with asthma or other breathing issues, even if it's being emitted outside.
Okay, end lecture.
Replace "phone booth" with "automatic self-cleaning public toilet/walk-in humidor" and you're killing two birds with one turd.
And when the time comes, they can easily be retrofitted to become Futurama-style suicide booths.
On a side note...we could kill two birds with one stone and put the "booths" near metro stations.
Only if we label the "booths" "FREE WI-FI INSIDE!"
Ya'll are gonna' miss me when I die of lung cancer in 10-20 years. So as long as smoking is legal in the United States (and yes, I'm over 18) let me slowly kill myself while puffing away on my Salem Lights.
p.s. walking by a smoker does NOT give you cancer.
Get back in the artificial lung, Liz.
Thanks for caring, Newy!
smell like Graham is in the air! cant wait for that bastard to be outta office!
More worthwhile legislation, courtesy the Friend of the Little Man, Phil Mendelson. All this will result in is smokers moving to smokeless chewing tobacco and the streets will be plastered with foul-smelling resinous spittle and everyone will get jaw cancer. Why does Phil Mendelson want to give everyone jaw cancer? He needs to be inpeached.
Personally I think they should go one step further and legally require that smoking be banned on sidewalks where there are eating establishments. Nothing ruins my lunch like sitting next to Debby Marlborro and her boyfriend John Menthol as they shave years of my life with their amazingly tastey second-hand smoke!
Then again, I think people who smoke around others without asking are just being rude in general. If you want to slowly kill yourself with a cig in hand, fine! But you shouldn't be allowed to do it in such a way that others are forced to suffer the same fate because you just have to have your cig fix right this instant while I'm eating 5 feet away. Let's require all smokers be allowed to smoke only in designated huts which will completely isolate their destructive addication and shield the rest of us from it.
Who watches the Secondhand Smoke Watchmen?
You know...if you're actually so worried about the "years" being shaved off your life by the occasional wisp of sidewalk smoke as you eat outside, you could always just eat inside the restaurant instead...
Thank you. I don't get the whole eating outside thing. The heat, the bus fumes, the homeless. Come on people, we invented buildings for a reason.
I really don't see how they can enforce this one...should be interesting. I'm not a fan of smoking (save for the occasional drag on a fag while completely blitzed at bars in Adams Morgan), but I'm curious to know where smokers can actuallly smoke if this bill gets passed- which let's face it, this is DC, more than likely will.
Miami is a city that knows how to handle it's undesirables.
They only way the council is going to enforce this legislation is by equipping the Secondhand Smoke Police with expensive Nicotometers® that measure the amount of smoke in the designated smoking ban area. Such devices are prohibitively expensive ($1.5 million per device) and can only be obtained from me because I just made that shit up. I accept cash, Visa, or private "consultation time" with Jim Graham in the backseat of his doubleparked VW.
Sorry Monkey, you're not the first one to invent such a meter. They've been around for years, measuring the level of toxins in the air where second hand smoke is present. In fact, I just heard recently that there is a company that makes these things in the UK called UBLOW Lmtd. I would try to find a link, but I'm afraid of doing that google search at work...
Yeah, but my Nicotometer also measures the level of righteous indignation in the nonsmoker from "Mild" to "Bat$h!t-eating insane." It can also make pudding. Can yours do that?
I was in a bar smoking before the DC ban and got approached by this really annoying intern from the Cato Institute. She asked me to sign a petition against the restaurant ban. I declined because, having lived through it in NYC (and grumbling at first), I knew that it ends up being a net positive for business. I also told her I liked it because I smoked less.
She then says, "Oh, you are what they call a [SOME STUPID MADE UP NAME]. Those are people who express their rights but rely on the Government to keep them from excess."
I forget my response. But it wasn't pretty.
Sometimes I think the Heritage Foundation was invented to help divert attention from just how batshite crazy and marginal CATO really is.
This definitely is taking the secondhand smoke issue too far. While I didn't agree with the smoking ban in bars, I at least understood the argument because there was/is some health concern to speak of. But there is no chance of experiencing adverse health effects from passing a smoker on the sidewalk. If you're in favor of banning smoking near store entrances you might as well go live in a cave because it's no more risky to your health than motor vehicles, household cleaning products or the common cold.
Then let's go ahead and ban cars in the city too...
Let's ban people from having babies. Babies make noise, consume resources, and bother me. No 'second-hand' humans!
Hear that? It's the sound of Marion Barry rushing emergency legislation "The Protection of Fresh, Delicious Babies Act of 2009."
I also can't stand how every time I walk outside, I have to go through a gauntlet of people who are more attractive than me. No more attractive people in public, I say!
Poor thing. I'll let you be my 'ugly friend'.
You can yell 'they can't do that' or 'that will never pass' but I think it is more useful to look at precedent:
Chicago passed similar legislation a few years ago. The reasons are to protect public health, and not merely those who walk by. Smoke that accumulates near building entrances does not blow away from the building, it blows toward it (because of the physics of air pressure). It gets sucked into the mechanical system and distributed, being absorbed into carpet, wallcovering, acoustic tiles. These absorptive materials remain contaminated for the duration of their useful life and continue to release these toxins into the air occupants breathe.
Large buildings (like office buildings) are usually large enough they are able to designate an area that is in compliance with the law. Occasionally smaller buildings may not be able to but in Chicago they get around this by partnering with other businesses in the area to 'share' smoking areas. And of course you are free to smoke in your own home or a city park. I don't believe the Chicago legislation prevents people from walking and smoking, only from congregating.
Chicago's legislation enables police to enforce the law, but more importantly, it imposes hefty fines on businesses and property owners who do not comply or 'look the other way'. I believe the legislation is worded such that either a fire or building inspector or health/food safety official can issue the fine to a business caught in violation.
For all the huffing and puffing (no pun intended) of the legislation's opponents (including business owners), the legislation passed with huge support and went into effect with nary a whimper. Months into the ban, most skeptical bar and restaurant owners had been completely converted (according to reports anyway) after they discovered a substantial customer base that had previously stayed away because they didn't like the smoke.
I do believe reports indicated that the number of smokers went down around the same time as well, although it wasn't clear if that drop was due to the new smoking perimeter or if it was due to higher taxes that were imposed around the same time.
In my opinion, if Chicago's smokers can stand 25' from their office building entrance, in February's snow and sleet and wind, and enjoy their cigarette, DC's smokers can too.
well duh, smoking shouldn't be illegal, mechanical systems should be illegal! problem solved.
Why do the majority of smokers think it's okay to litter?
Can we somehow add cyclists vs cars vs pedestrians to this debate?
I think you just did.
Maryland is looking into legislation banning smoking in a vehicle with children present. Once people get used to that, they won't mind a ban on smoking in public with children present and eventually a total ban on all children. At that point, Baron Bomburst will send the Childcatcher out to round up the remaining children, and we can devote all our resources to capturing Caractacus Potts and his flying car. Then and only then can he go back to banging his smokin hot wife, the Baroness.
I like the idea of phone booths, although if you charge for their use, they'll never use them. How about air-tight bubble helmets? That would limit the amount of time they can be used until all of the oxygen is gone. That would encourage quitting, which would be great.
And I'm all for banning the cars, too. But lets start with the activity that has no redeeming value (like transportation, in the case of cars) and get those bubble helmets. Sounds like "Over the River" might need an extra large.
I've always thought bubble helmets would be a fascinating experiment: give the smokers that much more junk to inhale AND keep the butts off the sidewalk!
BSSB: Obese people don't affect my breathing - and if they ruin my appetite, all the better.
"Obese people don't affect my breathing."
Obviously, you have been fortunate enough to have never traveled on a common-carrier airplane.
I think we should ban obese people from restaurants. I'm 100 percent serious.
Can we just ban public smoking? Because I just love walking on a sidewalk through a cloud of freshly exhaled cigarette smoke. And I love enjoying my meal outside next to someone who's smoking like a chimney. Blech, I seriously will never understand people who smoke. And people who have sex. And people who have children. And people who live in huge ugly empty house. God, can we just ban people? I'm not even being facetious.
"Papa" John Phillips was a lifelong smoker and he had consensual incest with his daughter. Now, I'm not saying all smokers have sex with their children. I am saying that Papa John's Pizza should burn in hell. Serious, worst pizza ever. It's like waking up with your dad's penis in your mouth.
I'd have to disagree and say Domino's Pizza is the shittiest of them all.
I'm sorry about your dad, I feel for you, man. So, um, is there any chance I can get his number?
i love liberal fascism almost as much as i like the regular right wing kind.
Wrong thread - this is the one about the government protecting the health of its citizens - not fascism of any sort.
Which forces the question: how far can the government go to protect the health of its citizens? If they were really concerned, they'd ban smoking outright, along with fatty food, and institute mandatory pilates for those on public assistance. It really frosts my Kelvinator when I see some morbidly obese f**k rolls up to the grocery checkout in their motorized buttwagon with a 10lb package of pork chops, a carton of Kool 100s, and five bags of Lil Romeo BBQ-in Wit My Honey Rap Snacks. And they're buying that $h!t with my tax dollars!
hahah. thats a good idea! there should be a law forcing us to ask that question.
we'll teach em.
libtards
Okay people, deep breath (no pun intended). The legislation would not ban smoking within 25 feet of entrances - it would simply allow businesses to choose whether or not to ban it. I find this interesting. Are businesses not currently able to establish no-smoking zones on their property? I know my office building in Arlington (you know, VIRGINIA) periodically sends around emails reminding smokers not to light up near entrances - smoking areas are provided on the roof, in the loading dock, and in the parking garage.
And hasn't New York State banned smoking within 25 feet of entrances ever since their indoor smoking ban was enacted? Not that I see much enforcement of the rule, but I'm pretty sure it exists.
There's plenty of room for debate about whether the government should ban smoking on sidewalks in certain parts of the city or within 25 feet of the entrance of a business (or even entirely), but there's no justification for giving the owners of private property the right to dictate what happens on public property.
well, here's what i think:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
i mean, if that doesn't make my position clear, i don't know how else i can spell it out for you.
Oh good. While we're on the subject of regulating public air, what about the noise pollution produced by the Beacon Sky-Bar on Sunday afternoons?!
And leaf blowers.
Happy autumn!
Screw banning smoking. We need to ban smokestacks.
All these so-called "restaurants" that you guys enjoy employ a highly hazardous process known as "combustion." Coal, wood, gas, all sorts of things get burned to prepare food for you selfish "eaters."
So while you self-righteous bastards want to eat your wood fired pizza or your rotisserie grilled chicken without smelling smoke, all us smokers must inhale the unhealthy carbon combustion by-products of your snooty "food" while we're just trying to get our drunk on at the bar next door.
Screw you all.
Banning smoking on public space - Not a violation of people's rights
Passing sensible anti-loitering laws - Totally a violation of people's rights
Thanks Phil Mendelson!
Dude, first thing I thought. Smoking as a back-door way to get at loitering. I think Phil is a tool, but this may be brilliant.
The "health of the public" canard is indeed an excellent way of targeting negative behavior while skirting the issue of constitutionality. Most thugariffic loiterers do indeed smoke, as well as use cellphones and stink. Mendelson's legislation clearly needs to address the latter. Since most people seem incapable of paying attention to traffic while talking on a cell, for their own safety, such activity should be regulated. A "Protection of Pedestrians from Being Hit by Cars While Walking and Cellphoning Act of 2009" is called for here. There's also increased statistical likelihood of brain cancers being caused by cellphone use, but what about "second hand cancer" caused by walking past people who use cellphones? The scientific community has yet to rule on this, but should we really wait until it's too late? And what about "second hand funk?" Why must I have to run a smelly gauntlet of B.O., Axe Body Spray, and pina colada blunts every time I walk down Euclid? Bold, pre-emptive legislation is needed here.