Slog - Comments on You Can Smoke 25 Feet from the Door�Even if You�re Inside

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:37:03 -0800

So long as he seals it off with an airlock and no air supply for the sealed area, sounds fair to me.

Once they asphyxiate themselves ...

Comment by Go Away

Go Away — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:45:19 -0800

@1: fine by me too, as long as you're in there with them...

Comment by jeff

jeff — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:49:32 -0800

They do this in Vancouver in the gay bar in the Duffern. I have seen this in Palm Springs. If you put logic before dogma, which can be difficult for the liberal-as-religion folks, then it makes perfect sense and is a reasonable comprimise. I can't see being to catholic about this type of thing.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:56:43 -0800

I love this free country where business owners can't even decide whether or not they allow smoking. You can't possibly leave it up to the customer whether or not they like the decision you've made in your own fucking establishment--it isn't your decision. Refreshing!

Please, God! Cinch it!

Comment by Mike in Olympia

Mike in Olympia — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:57:16 -0800

This bar is such a shithole that removing all of the air would be an improvement.

Comment by Tiktok

Tiktok — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:10:46 -0800

Where did people ever get the idea that the government should have the power to enforce standards of public health? Crazy talk! Crazy talk!

Comment by Dougsf

Dougsf — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:21:17 -0800

So Washington didn't allow for an Owner/Operator clause like California did? Here, if the owner is the only person working (and yes, there's bars here that suspiciously became co-ops), smoking is permitted.

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:32:47 -0800

I for one don't see anything wrong with this. Of course, I was one of those horrible, horrible people that thought the whole smoking-in-bars issue should be left to the bar owners to resolve.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:38:57 -0800

This seems like a step backwards. God damn, bars are so much better now that there's no smoking inside. Seriously.

Comment by tiffany

tiffany — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:40:02 -0800

will you're a douche.

Comment by Will in Irony-Free Seattle

Will in Irony-Free Seattle — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:42:27 -0800

Thanks, tiffany.

Comment by laureney

laureney — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:45:16 -0800

This isn't ben moore's is it? They don't have an upstairs area. What olympia bar is this about?

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:24:49 -0800

The bars are better for 75-85% of the people. I used to think that the smoking ban was good for a multitude of reasons. Now I don't think it is as good as for the reason Poe mentions. I also don't think the status quo before the ban was desirable or even logical in it's implementation. The non smoking sections were a joke. They were effectively "less smoking" sections.

I don't presume to want to control the behavior of other people (my gf smokes) but at the same time I know what I would do in face of a repeal; Stop going out completely to establishments that allow smoking. If we are going to agree in the supremacy of property rights of owners of businesses, then we should try to be consistent in the application of that ideology. Architecture, smoking indoors, etc etc.

Now the manifestation of the control the government has in the case of the repeal could be anything from health code violations for air quality, imposing a licensing scheme, anything really, but we can leave the choice to business owners to either allow or disallow smoking. I

This is a great case of weighing the costs of and owners of the costs of externalities. The reason we CAN pass smoking bans is because the costs are borne to a much greater amount of people than the benefits of smoking are to the group of individuals and the compromise established still was unsatisfactory to the larger group. The property owner may or may not benefit from the choice to allow smoking in their establishment but one could make the argument that since there is no obvious or predictable costs associated to choosing one or the other, the ability to choose might be less valuable than the costs of the externalities on non smokers.

Comment by me

me — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:10:27 -0800

Trying to have non-smoking areas (upstairs or no) is like trying to have non-peeing areas in a swimming pool. Doesn't work.

If someone wants to smoke, they should do it outside or at home.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:02:01 -0800

@13: With most activities it would be easier, but because smoke is in the very air it would be very difficult and expensive to contain properly. I'm not thrilled about restricting property owners' and businesses' abilities to come up with creative solutions, but short of creating a hermetically sealed smoking area inside each building the indoor smoking ban seems to be the simplest and most effective solution.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:21:31 -0800

exactly greg. the remedy was easy because the people who lost weren't bearing any of the costs for their action nor was the choice to allow or disallow smoking in an establishment easily linked to the financial health of the business.

Comment by j

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:48:02 -0800

Second hand smoke is annoying at best.

Comment by Dan

Dan — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:17:07 -0800

If you're drinking at CC's, you should be able to smoke on the deck where Jesus himself expurgates the air.

Comment by smoker in front of your house

smoker in front of your house — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:16:41 -0800

@14 or alternately, if you don't want to smell cigarettes, don't go to the bar.

sheesh.