The smoking ban approacheth - & i am very happy.

[maxsolomon]

i tried, i really tried, to go to the smoke-free club that super furry animals was playing at on friday night. but you know what? THERE WASN'T ONE.

they played at neumo's, and i hauled my 42 year old ass out into the smoke one last time. it was just as bad as ever, if not worse, since the hipsters are smoking in a looming-deadline panic. my sinuses immediately clogged. my coat has been hanging outside since i got home, and it still stinks as of monday a.m. but you know what, i'm going back out into the stink again this saturday, since i am a dinosaur who loves echo & the bunnymen. one last time to realize how much hipster chain smoking fucking sucks.

here's what's going to happen, addicts - the smoking will end on Dec. 8th, and a month later, everyone is going to be deliriously happy about it. then it will be challenged & overturned in the supreme court, and it will be a haze of carcinogens in the rock clubs again. but by that time, half of you will have quit or changed your minds.

[PowerToThePeople]

1. Nope, that's not how it will happen.

Your club won't exist for long after the smoking ban happens. That is, unless the law does get turned over by the courts-which would be the best thing. You will still find concerts, but bars will be going out of business fast and furious. Well not on Indian reservations or where I live, in Idaho.

[maxsolomon]

2. prove your contention, and use NYC's smoking ban as precedent

by all accounts from their experience, you are wrong. business is up in the bars, non-smokers are happy & returning, smokers are biting the bullet & putting up with it. predictions of doom & gloom are without basis in fact.

what are hipsters going to do, start staying home instead of rocking out? move to another city so they can keep smoking?

we shall see. in 2 weekends.

[AmyStrange]

3. Why NY?

First of all it's a diff law. It's the strictest law in the US.

Second, we have Indian Casinos nearby we can go samoke at.

Third, does NY have the 25 foot ban?

Does NY also include Private clubs like Washington's law does?

NY has a state income tax so they can make up the cigarette tax loss from that.

Hopefully, they will start an income tax here in Washington state to make up the loss. I'll vote for it if it comes up in an initiative. Why? Because, just out of spite so I can stick it to all those neo-nazi non-smokers who are no better than those who wrote up the Patriot act (it protects us from harm just like the supposed smoking ban does) and those who keep babbling about how pot is an evil and harmful drug and needs to be outlawed or those who want to ban abortion to stop women from killing babies for their own personal selfish reasons. Y'all are no better than any of these people - in my opinion.

The self-righteous self-centered a**holes who voted for this initiative don't realize the can of worms and slippery slope they started with this stupid and repressive law, and I will laugh my a** off when they get their rights taken away also or have to pay more in taxes to cover the cigarette taxes that will be lost.

AND, I DON'T SMOKE so this is not a smoker ranting, but a person who once believed that everyone should have the right to make their own choices about their health,

d

[rd_kent]

5. WOW, you are angry, and misguided

You lump so many of societies ills into one roll of the cigarette. How to address them all?

- the casinos are going to get more business only if they provide a better and more fun place to go, smoke free or not. Folks are not going to skip their neighborhood bar wher they meet and greet and go to a casino just to be able to smoke inside. Just not gonna happen, period.
- Supporting a state income tax just to thumb your nose? infantile and idiotic.

- Comparing the Patriot Act and its unconstitionality with a smoking ban? Emotional and uninformed.

- Legalizing drugs a another matter alltogether. Duh!

- Outlawing abortion on the same order as banning smoking? Are you insane?

Yes, we SHOULD ba able to make our own choices about our own health, and when a smoke lights up in public, the smoker has just made the choice for everyone around, whether that is what they want or not.

[AmyStrange]

6. Who cares...

they are all rights that have been taken away or are about to be taken away. Just like people's right to smoke in one limited place. Duh!!!?

You come into where other people smoke. That's your choice not theirs. Tell your sob story to all those babies killed by mothers making "health" choices.

Why should I support other people's rights when they self-righteously and self-centeredly and selfishly take away other people's rights like a neo-nazi fascist.

I DON'T SMOKE just someone who believes people should make their own "health" choices - or atleast I used to think that,

d

[rd_kent]

16. Perhaps you should rethink your view

that smoking is a right. I would consider it a priveledge. Our basic rights as per the constitution (as I see it) are that one is free to do what one wants as long as it does not impeede on the freedom of another. Interpretation: You have the right to smoke all you want as long as is does not interfere with right of a non smoker to breath clear air.
Here is where it gets tricky...... A public place has been defined as a place where the public has access to. Smoking in public is trumped by the rights of the non-smoker. You want to smoke, do it in private(your private property).
But comparing the loss of smoking in public to the loss of abortion choice is ludicris!

[AmyStrange]

22. What about the right...

of a baby to live?

You don't want to smoke fine, don't go to places where people smoke. Simple as that.

Driving is a privilege also and can be banned just as easily, and causes just as many (if not more) health problems (in my opinion) than cigarettes do, but since the majority drive they don't want to lose their privilege, but are more than happy in their neo-nazi fascist and self-righteous and self-centeredly way to force their selfish opinion on others that they have the right to take away other folks privileges and not even think about taking their own privileges away because they are hypocrites,

d

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AmyStrange]

28. Typical...

call another person a lunatic when you are losing an argument.

Good day also,

d

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. And yet you refer to non smokers as NAZIS??

And claim that a smoking ban voted for by 3/4 of the citizens of this state equals the fascist patriot act that NONE of us voted for???

Yes, I would say "lunatic" fits anyone who makes those claims.

Or "paid tobacco company lobbyist".

So which of the two are you?

[mrbassman03]

9. Oh, yeah it will...

I know many people who do not go out to small venues like this because it is full of smoke. Despite the fact that the entire building smells like shit, it doesn't mean everyone inside is smoking. Do you expect there to be such a huge drop in attendance that these clubs won't stay open? That's pretty ridiculous.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. California has had a complete smoking ban for years

The ban was passed amid many squawks about how the sky will fall. In the end, it didn't happen, and there are just as many bars and clubs throughout the state as there ever was before the ban. In many cities, business actually increased.

[progressivebydesign]

39. BS. Your assertions have zero truth to them. Zero.

If you did some research, you'd find that business actually IMPROVES for bars and restaurants in cities with bans. AND... if you think about it... do you REALLY think that drinkers (87% of alcoholics smoke) are going to risk driving to a casino and forego their local bar? The bar ownsers in Pierce County said that their smoking regulars first stayed away for a few days.. then came back and accepted it.

[rd_kent]

4. I have $1000 for any of you nay-sayers

if the allegations of economic ruin prove to be true. Having lived through the CA ban in 2000 and reading about the many other states who have enacted bans, you claims just wont pan out.
I agree, it is a very restrictive ban, but like all laws, its in the enforcement. Police will not be going around with a tape measure to see if youre 25 ft from the door, they wont even be going in to see if there is smoking going on. They will probably do like all other states and act on complaints. Most mainstream bars will comply and there will be very little transition, but there will be some hold outs where the staff and patrons will refuse. These will be the one that make the news, for better or worse, but in the end about a year from now, we will all be used to the new rules and life will go on.

[AmyStrange]

7. Keep your $1,000...

and fill your tank up to the brim with gas and help support the Bush cabal reap in untold billions in profits from both selling gas and waging war on those who have it,

d

[mrbassman03]

10. what???

So because I am against smoking in public places, I not only drive an SUV, but also support the war? Explain.

[AmyStrange]

11. I'll bet...

most of the people who supported 901, also don't take public trasportation and have cars and thus buy gas which helps support the bush cabal and the billions they make in profit selling gas and also off wars that are waged against countries that supply gas - not to mention supporting countries like Saudia Arabia that have a history of not supporting human rights especially women's rights.

Besides I was being general not specific as in picking on you specifically,

d

[maxsolomon]

12. so young, so angry! damn that rap music!

have you ever heard this quote: "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"? replace "fist" with "carcinogenic fumes", & this is the kernel of the issue, and why your assertions are absurd.

901 has nothing to do with women's rights in SA or having a car. you don't have one? you are in an EXTREME minority. i have 3, including an SUV, and i voted no!

[AmyStrange]

18. It's your choice...

not to go to bars where there is smoking allowed. If you go then your quote becomes meaningless. I'm not forcing you to go to non-smoking bars,

d

[maxsolomon]

31. you simply don't understand that BREATHING is not an option.

i MUST breathe. it is not smokers whose "rights" have been trampled on. it is non-smokers. smoking is an OPTIONAL BEHAVIOR. breathing is not.

but you have decided to link smoker's liberation to the struggle for women's rights in SA, you there pretty much is no reasoning with you.

in a month this will seem like a very stupid discussion to you, as the clean air & oxygen reviltalize your brain.

[AmyStrange]

36. How about those under 21 who can't hang out at bars...

How about their rights? What's next? Allowing everyone under 21 in bars, just because they can't make that choice now?

A women's choice is a "health" choice (the health of the unborn child) just like smoking or not smoking is a health choice. That's the connection. DUH!!!

In a little while the Supreme court will outlaw abortion because of the Bush cabal, and you know what? I won't even help put up a fight to prevent it like I did in the past. I was a staunch activist in the arena of letting people make their own "health" choices. If you want to argue taking away a person's right to smoke in the very few places they can is good, then why should I help women (who probably helped pass this stupid repressive law) keep their "health" choice.

Just too bad for them isn't it? See how they feel about having their "health" choice taken away,

d

[rd_kent]

17. Amy, you are strange....

In our debate in the other thread about the smoking ban, you do the same thing. Equating the ban on smoking in public to a ban on abortion is crazy! Equating support for 901 to supporting bush and the war is retarded.
Are you posting these ideas just to provoke debate or do you really believe this nonsense? If you believe it, you are in a radical minority who are hurting the cause.

[AmyStrange]

19. Each one is a right...

it is a smoker's right to chose to smoke and thus can be equated to a women's right to make a choice because they are both "health" choices.

Forcing smokers to not be able to go to a bar and smoke is the same as taking a way a women's choice.

Simple as that.

And don't throw that quote about my right to throw a fist ends blah blah blah, because if I swing my fist (a smoker's smoke) and you chose to step in the way of my fist (a smoker's smoke), then tough sh*t for you. It then stops being my choice, but your choice.

I fight for women's right to chose, but not anymore.

d

[rd_kent]

25. Your anger is very misguided

When a smoker "chooses" to smoke in public, the smoker has jsut taken away the choice not to smoke from the non smokers. I wont throw the fist reference out because you are right, if I choose to walk into it.... but smoke goes EVERYWHERE!!!! You want a choice when you smoke, you have one; GO OUTSIDE or dont smoke!!!!!
I'm done with you. Good day!

[AmyStrange]

29. Nope it's not misguided...

I don't believe a bar is technically a public place. It usually doesn't allow children or minors under the age of 21 unless it is a restaurant. They can't go in bars where music is playiong either. What's next allowing minors in bars so they can enjoy music and then shut down alcohol sales because not everyone can drink so they can enjoy the music also?

If smoke were the only cause of cancer it would make more sense, but I believe car exhaust goes everywhere and there is more of it then cigarette smoke, but since car owners are the majority they push their weight around and repress the minority and take away their choice, but are too hypocritical to repress their own enjoyment choices.

Smoke does NOT go everywhere. It has been banned from the workplace in 99.9% of the places in the United States and all smokers have had was .1% and most smokers were OK with it, but now they want to take it all away just like the neo-nazi fascist bullies (they pretend their not) would do.

Now their bitching about people smoking on film!!! Geeze what a bunch of marooons most non-smokers are,

d

[WAStateDem]

8. I say - Good

I'm tired of all this ranting from smokers about their rights to pollute our air and lungs. You don't have that right - that is NOT your right. You may smoke away from others, but when you're smoking in a public building or DIRECTLY outside entrances and exits of these buildings you are forcing everyone to breathe it in. Most all smokers will agree they would 'like' to quit, and admit smoking is bad for them so I don't see the logic in forcing non-smokers to breathe it along with them. Is it some kind of "If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me" mentality? My mother smokes and I'm trying desperately to get her to quit. My father and grandfather both smoked and quit. I feel very bad for those who are addicted and are trying to quit, but in my opinion making it easier and more convenient for people to smoke and become sucked into the smoking culture is not helping the situation at all.

This law isn't anything remotely close to being like the patriot act. The Washington State constitution does not guarantee your right to burn toxic chemicals in or around public buildings and force employees to work in that environment. If you have that right, then I have the right to burn a stack of tires in my backyard, or dump my used motor oil in the sewer.

The fact of the matter is that this has taken a convenience away from smokers and they are the ones voicing the loudest complaints. The second loudest group are the business owners who are going to loose customers. Well, my question is: Do you go to a bar to smoke or to drink? If bars stopped serving food, or took away all indoor pool - would your customers stop showing up? I doubt it. They are there for the alcohol first and foremost.

[AmyStrange]

41. I'm not a smoker and I'm complaining louder than anyone...

also, the Washington state constitution doesn't give anyone the right to force me to breathe in car exhaust either and there are a whole lot more cars then smokers and yet no one is trying to force car owners to quit driving. Why? Because, smokers are a minority and everyone knows how easy it is to strong arm and bully the minority.

We should ban cars also just because of the poluting effect and car acci8dents and drunk drives out there. Not to mention the obesity problem which I think is directly related to lazy people driving cars everywhere rather than walking.

And last but not least, all the money car owners spends on gas helps the bush cabal continue their hurtful ways.

Give me a freakin' break,

d

[merwin]

50. If you think cars should be banned, start a petition. The people will

vote on it, and it will either pass or not pass.

A ban on cars that hasn't even been proposed to be put on the ballot has no relevance to a ban on indoor smoking that has passed by a super-majority, does it?

[Biased Liberal Media]

13. And this is where the "progressives" or Dems lose me

It's hypocritical to force this on smokers. If anything, perhaps they should have set up some sort of law that requires bars to have a smoking patio or a designated smoking area. Not banning it completely.

Stupid move.

Do you not care about the revenues of the small rural towns who are going to be hit hard by the loss of business due to this law?? Do you not even see that??

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. How is it not hypocritical to force 200+ known toxins on everyone else?

Just asking. Why should I be forced to breath poison if I wish to go out for the evening?

[AmyStrange]

20. Because the minority are the one's who are targeted...

the minority being smokers while the majority who own cars are left alone because they are the majority.

I don't want to breathe car exhaust, but I have to because there is almost no where I can go where there are no cars. Car exhaust - in my opinion - is just as bad as cigarette smoke.

Smokers pay an outrageous amount of taxes for the privilege of smoking and then are slapped around as though they were the only health risk in town.

The health department has enough problems on it's hands (do you know how many e'coli deaths there are anually) without having to police a 25 foot ban and make sure they respond to all complaints about smoking in bars and outside bars. I know there will be a lot of calls because I know a lot of people who smoke who will call in on themselves when they are outside bars they don't like.

And don't tell me the police won't use this ban to target bars they don't like.

d

[Biased Liberal Media]

23. How hard is it for you to go to a non-smoking place?

really?

They really go hand in hand. common sense, really.

[TechBear_Seattle]

35. Very hard. Believe me, I've tried.

I don't merely have a dislike for tobacco smoke: I have respiratory allergies and have difficulty breathing in situations with lots of smoke. There are many restaurants I can not go in to, because their idea of a "non-smoking section" is a total joke. I don't bother trying to go to a bar or night club any more, as I'm tired of paying a cover and then being forced to leave after 20 minutes.

Once this ban goes in to effect, I will actually be able to go out. I will be able to eat in a restaurant without having to keep my inhaler at hand. I will be able to go dancing with friends, or stop for a drink after work. In short, I have been let out of jail.

[AmyStrange]

21. I agree...

everyone always points to New York City as an example of how this ban works, but you never hear about the small town bars or taverns and what happens to them.

Chances are this ban will be overturned (I hope) because of the small print provisio that bans it even in private clubs.

A private club is only one small leap away from a private home. And if anyone says that a private home is not a private business... what about hotels and motels that rent by the week or month? How will that be affected?

I hope smokers get together and form private smoking clubs where they meet at a private home (each member takes a turn) to watch sports and drink and smoke,

d

[PowerToThePeople]

24. It will hurt bars badly.

Most bars I go to have more smokers in them than non-smokers. And the people who do smoke, spend more on drinks than non-smokers. It relates to Being "health conscious." The smokers I know may show up for a few at the new non-smoking establishments, but the first time they have to walk outside 25' in the cold winter weather to light up a smoke, they will just get in their car and leave. The establishments be be hurt substantially.

Oh, and the California law. California is warm. I did an internship there and the outdoor patios (right off the bars) were a very comfortable place for a cig.

[rd_kent]

27. Uh, wrong!

People will not get in their cars and leave! And all of CA is not warm!!! Ever been in the Bay area? Most places installed patio heaters.
Just stop whining and give it a chance. 6 months from now all your fears will be gone.

[PowerToThePeople]

30. Uh, wrong. It was the Bay area I was at.

It doesn't get 0 deg or below zero there. People will leave. That is if they even show up in the first place. I know that I will be going over to Idaho, where I will still be able to smoke. Many others in this area will be doing the same.

[AntiCoup2K4]

49. It doesn't get to zero or below zero here either.

Or should I say very rarely. Most winters it's rare to get below 25 degrees. And if you think you must go to Idaho in order to pollute your lungs then might I suggest the Aryan Nations compound.

For one thing, it should be nice and warm at the cross burnings. And you can take Amy Strange with you so he knows what "Nazis" are.

[Biased Liberal Media]

33. No, They will just not go out

causing small rural towns to end up in an economic crisis. That's the real problem, especially for the small rural towns who rely on the bars for revenue.

Duhh.

[maxsolomon]

32. Anecdotal Observations.

There is substantial disagreement on whether bars will be hurt. Many other states & cities report there has been no effect. A few sites claim that it has hurt businesses.

Could the reason there are more smokers in the bar than non be that THE SMOKE HAS DRIVEN ALL THE NON SMOKERS AWAY?

[Biased Liberal Media]

34. Give me proof on how the same rules have affected a small

rural town and then we'll talk.

Otherwise, let's ride it out and see what happens when the podunk small towns of WA start falling apart because people are not going out and spending $100+ tabs on beer every night due to the smoking ban.

Like I said before, time will tell, but where I live? It's already in an economic depression and this is going to cause even worse problems.

[AmyStrange]

37. I don't know...

Some of the non smoking bars out here in Seattle that I've been to were always slow when I walked by except for the traditional party nights (FRI and SAT), but the bars that were smoking that I frequent were always busier so what does that mean?

d

[progressivebydesign]

38. I'm totally excited about it too! It's on my calendar!

Yay! I can FINALLY go and see my husband's band play without suffering vertigo and a migraine... He and I just are amazed at the fact that it takes several weeks to lose the smoke smell on just his leather jacket... You can only imagine what is goin in inside your lungs!! uck.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeTheChange]

42. Wow.. just wow to your posts.

A comment was made, this isnt Blue's fucking clues where we try to ferret out the lies. If it was, your bolded denial of being a smoker would have garnered many a comment.

Im a nonsmoker of 4 months. But when I was a smoker, I didnt smoke around non smokers. I rarely smoked in bars cause I could barely breathe as it was, I never smoked in restaurants.. never when a child was in sight. I didnt even smoke in my own house. My parents smoked, the cool kids smoked, so I smoked.. it was completely illogical, but addiction always is.

Im not nessecarily for the smoking ban on a rights level.. but I am for it on a logical and practical level. The cancer stick companies have had us hooked on their product for a century. The butts that people so rudely toss out their windows litter our landscape and take decades to biodegrade... Clue, the world isnt your freaking ashtray people.

The time we spend huddled outside or around an ashtray trying to get our next fix takes away from our interaction with people. That smoke plume, it holds others at arms length. We can go on an on about the environmental, medical and psychological toxins that go along with smoking. I would no more get my nose out of joint regarding a smoking ban then if I woke up tomorrow and there was a ban on fast food. We are killing ourselves and the people around us just because we can. What good is that? What noble cause is that worth fighting for?

I love that people get all up in arms about cigarette bans.. but fuck people dying of cancer or experiencing the discomforts of glaucoma.. they dont need to smoke marijuana, lets load em up on patentable meds.

How can we be liberal fighters of corporations and big business while we line their pockets at the detriment of the health of ourselves and those we love? It makes no freaking sense to me. Never will.

[AmyStrange]

44. Whatever...

I havemet people from the DU here and they know I am a non-smoker.

Besides, me message was deleted so no one really knows what you are responding to so I added this to make it clear.

I was a smoker once also in 1988, but have not smoked since.

I am courteous to both smokers and non-smokers when I did smoke and also now that I don't. I have never bullied either side until one side decide to be jerks and repress the .001% places that smokers could smoke.

Believe what you want,

d

[rd_kent]

51. What is so hard to understand?????

1. People go to bars to drink, not to smoke. People will quickly get used to the idea of going outside to smoke if they choose to.
2. Business will not be hurt by this. There have been very few, if any reports from anywhere smoking bans have gone into effect stating that business was hurt.
3. The smoking ban is not about getting people to stop smoking. It is about protecting those employees and patrons who do not smoke. Smoking removes the right to breathe non-polluted air away from anyone near the smoker.
4. All of the above is FACT!!!!! NON-disputeable FACT!!!!

Why is this so hard to understand???????

[Fenris]

43. Austin has a smoking ban...

It passed with endorsements from the American Cancer Society and hometown hero Lance Armstrong. The opposition to the ban have attempted since then to derail its enforcement, but to no avail.

I'm a smoker myself, but I didn't oppose the ban. Frankly, I've never smoked in a bar or anywhere else enclosed and in public in deference to both the people who work there and patrons who have asthma. I just don't think it's fair to them.

From what I understand, there has not been a rash of bar and club closings along Sixth Street. If I were a betting man, I'd bet against that ever happening. Believe it or not, most people go to clubs to see bands or bars to drink. Smoking is a prerequisite for neither.

So call me a fascist or a self-hating smoker, but I agree with smoking bans.

[AmyStrange]

45. I have no problem with smoking bans...

as long as bars were left alone giving smokers at the most .001% places to smoke. I think most smokers agrred with the workingplace ban also. It's when you try to outlaw it all together in public, and then not do the same for cars which is just as bad or worse then smoking because there are a hell of a lot more cars then smokers and they are just as much a cause of cancer and emphasyma in my opinion.

Not only that, but cars cause other types of deaths besides cancer and that is car accidents and one of the biggest causes of obesity because it makes people too lazy to walk anywhere without taking a car.

And not to mention drunken driving deaths.

It's an elitist way of thinking and a good example of the majority repressing, bullying, and ostracizing a minority who stand on some type of self-righteous moral authority to back their play. Not unlike the religious far rights self-righteous authority to try and ban gay marriage and abortion and other sundry things.

I never thought dems would be so callous in their actions, but now I';m proven wrong,

d

[PowerToThePeople]

46. "I never thought dems would be so callous in their actions,...

but now I'm proven wrong."

:applause:

[maxsolomon]

47. would this be workable for you then?

allow "private" smoking clubs. you pay a fee to buy a membership, then you can smoke your nuts off. you could have hookah bars, cigar bars, and stanky cigarette bars (however, i fear that allowing any loophole will simply lead back to the current situation).

either that, or we ban car exhaust. since your main issue is consistency, that ought to make you happy.

[rd_kent]

52. Nothing will make her happy

At every turn when she is presented with facts, her viewpoint becomes even more extreme. She actually equated banning smoking in public places as the precursor to banning abortion.
I have found it fruitless to respond to her wacky posts since she becomes more extreme and reaching at her every response. It is if she has nothing better to do than attempt to prolong a dead issue by presenting extreme and fanatical points of view.

[geniph]

53. Amy Strange is a "he", by the way

He's a guy named Dave. Honest. I think the nickname was his cat's name.

[rd_kent]

54. SO! Anyone remember this? Did your predictions of

bars and clubs going out of business come true? Did any of the negative things predicted come true?

NOPE!!!! I hate to say "I told you so", but I TOLD YOU SO!!!

[Lagomorph]

55. We just moved to the Indian casinos...

...they still have cigar lounges. Because the casinos invested in good air conditioning and filtration, smokers and non-smokers can enjoy each others company without the smoke hanging in the air.

[SeattleGirl]

56. The Snoqualmie is one of the best for ventilation, I think.

EQC is one of the worst, especially the location in Fife (not the riverboad, the one by the freeway). Was in there the other day, and the ceilings are so low there's almost no place for smoke to go.