Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 10, 2012
Olympia 71 Percent of Washington Voters Oppose Amending Smoking Ban to Allow Cigars
Posted by Goldy on Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM
A new statewide poll conducted by EMC Research on behalf of Tobacco Free Kids, shows that 71 percent of Washington voters oppose amending the state's voter-approved smoking ban to allow cigars in bars, restaurants, and some retail stores. 84 percent of respondents support the current law, including 67 percent of smokers.
Wow. That's pretty overwhelming support for a measure that Seattle Times editorial board member Bruce Ramsey has decried as nanny-state momentum toward unfreedom. Because, you know, his editorial board always respects the will of the people.
1
If it was structured in such a way as to allow specific "cigar bars", defined as separate enclosures with separate ventilation within other establishments, I'd be fine with it. But I don't think our legislature could write a bill that got the definition right, so I'll pass. Even though I like a cigar now and then.
3
If someone isn't OK with cigarettes in bars, why would he/she be OK with cigars? They stink up the air far worse.
Cigar smokers can join the smokers circle outside on the sidewalk like the rest of us.
Cigar smokers can join the smokers circle outside on the sidewalk like the rest of us.
4
@1 That's what I want too. I don't want cigars in every bar, but it would be nice if a restaurant could have a cigar room or you could have specialty cigar bars.
5
Wasn't there that steak place downtown that was already set up with a cigar room? Let them have that. Or they can stand outside with the other smokers. But if you're going to allow cigar smokers into places that cigarette smokers are banned from, you might as well just unban cigarettes.
6
A cigar costs more than a cigarette so therefore you should be able to enjoy it in more places. Quit punishing success.
9
@1 Most bars would claim they were "cigar bars" and their "enclosure" is everything outside the restroom. They'd sell those thin cigars that are like unfiltered cigarettes.
10
@9, that's what you'd have to write the law around.
You could make it a percentage of the square footage, but my preferred solution would be a $10,000 fine for every patron caught without a lit cigar in his or her hand. Tests could be administered to verify they'd smoked it. Those fake cigars would be banned, perhaps by stipulating that a "cigar" is something that has been reviewed in one of those terrifying magazines like "Cigar Aficionado", or available in the JR or Thomson catalog.
You could make it a percentage of the square footage, but my preferred solution would be a $10,000 fine for every patron caught without a lit cigar in his or her hand. Tests could be administered to verify they'd smoked it. Those fake cigars would be banned, perhaps by stipulating that a "cigar" is something that has been reviewed in one of those terrifying magazines like "Cigar Aficionado", or available in the JR or Thomson catalog.
11
I'd be willing to consider an exception for novelty cigars with a little fire cracker hidden in the end.
12
I miss the days of my youth where I could go to a bar (the old Spar in Olympia), get a scotch, sit down in a comfortable wing-back chair, and smoke my pipe (or a cigar).
All I want is a specialty venue that caters to a specific clientele. How revolutionary.
All I want is a specialty venue that caters to a specific clientele. How revolutionary.
13
@3: Yeah, it would have been interesting to find out what percentage would support banning cigars but not cigarettes.
My Uncle Leo is the only cigar smoker I've known who wasn't an asshole. And he quit 20 years ago.
My Uncle Leo is the only cigar smoker I've known who wasn't an asshole. And he quit 20 years ago.
14
I *still* think that they could write a smoking law that enables, say, 40% of bars to allow smoking of any kind, so long as no venues have smoking inside (where people dance). A drink and a cig... I understand that, despite the fact I don't smoke. Just don't take away all my non-smoky air.
16
What ever happened to e-cigarettes? Did they kill off the 0.01 percent of the population that fell into the "dork" category.
17
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
I could see the argument that the issue of smoking in the presence of others was one of personal freedom, if we gave equal weight to the personal freedom of others to reject unwanted irritants in their eyes, noses, throats and lungs. Or if smoke could be contained so it didn't lend unwanted and persistent odors to non-smokers' clothes and hair.
Smoke is like religion. You should have a personal right to it, as long as other people have their personal right to reject it. Being allowed to force it on other people can't be considered freedom. Privilege maybe, but not freedom.
I could see the argument that the issue of smoking in the presence of others was one of personal freedom, if we gave equal weight to the personal freedom of others to reject unwanted irritants in their eyes, noses, throats and lungs. Or if smoke could be contained so it didn't lend unwanted and persistent odors to non-smokers' clothes and hair.
Smoke is like religion. You should have a personal right to it, as long as other people have their personal right to reject it. Being allowed to force it on other people can't be considered freedom. Privilege maybe, but not freedom.
18
I would sign an initiative to force cigar users to smoke cigars with the homeless bums who pee in the parking lot behind Caffe Laddro however ...
20
@2: "It may have overwhelming support, but it's still nanny state bullshit."
Eh, I might have a different opinion if UHC existed so that barstaff could be properly taken care of, healthwise.
And regarding the topic, if cigar smokers *really* care about finding a place to smoke and drink, they're free to create a private club and not pay the volunteers, like other clubs around Seattle do.
Eh, I might have a different opinion if UHC existed so that barstaff could be properly taken care of, healthwise.
And regarding the topic, if cigar smokers *really* care about finding a place to smoke and drink, they're free to create a private club and not pay the volunteers, like other clubs around Seattle do.
22
There were so many unintended, but completely predictable, problems with the smoking ban that we knew there would have to be a modification phase.
To me, the most egregious failure has to do with the bar & club owners that had spent many thousands on HVAC systems and covered/heated outdoor facilities, only to see those investments neutralized by the draconian smoking ban. If you can't smoke on that heated & covered patio, why would you be out there on a January night?
Empty tables = lost revenue = decreased tax base
Concerts aren't the same, either, with 1/3 of the crowd shuttling in & out to deal with the jones. Sidewalks crowded with people hotboxing so they can get back to their pints. How many bar tabs have been skipped with the old, "Just going out for a smoke" trick?
I find smokers to be pathetic addicts, but the current smoking ban is just a terrible implementation of a good idea.
To me, the most egregious failure has to do with the bar & club owners that had spent many thousands on HVAC systems and covered/heated outdoor facilities, only to see those investments neutralized by the draconian smoking ban. If you can't smoke on that heated & covered patio, why would you be out there on a January night?
Empty tables = lost revenue = decreased tax base
Concerts aren't the same, either, with 1/3 of the crowd shuttling in & out to deal with the jones. Sidewalks crowded with people hotboxing so they can get back to their pints. How many bar tabs have been skipped with the old, "Just going out for a smoke" trick?
I find smokers to be pathetic addicts, but the current smoking ban is just a terrible implementation of a good idea.
23
@22,
I'm not a fan of the 25-foot rule, and actually voted against the ban on that basis, but what, other than repealing the ban entirely, is going to solve the problem of smokers coming in and out of concerts and skipping out on their tabs?
I'm not a fan of the 25-foot rule, and actually voted against the ban on that basis, but what, other than repealing the ban entirely, is going to solve the problem of smokers coming in and out of concerts and skipping out on their tabs?
25
@22: Negative effects, sure. But you overestimate the losses.
"If you can't smoke on that heated & covered patio, why would you be out there on a January night?"
I still see plenty of people in Cap Hill spread out to these, without them, there'd be EVEN MORE empty tables, because who would sneak out to cold tables without a cigarette? This investment is a PLUS considering the smoking ban, not a detraction.
"Concerts aren't the same, either, with 1/3 of the crowd shuttling in & out to deal with the jones."
So fucking what? None of this is lost income. None of this actually affects your experience.
"How many bar tabs have been skipped with the old, "Just going out for a smoke" trick?"
The same number that were skipped with "I have to go out to the bathroom", nothing has changed.
"the current smoking ban is just a terrible implementation of a good idea."
I like smoking in clubs, but every single one of your criticisms was useless.
"If you can't smoke on that heated & covered patio, why would you be out there on a January night?"
I still see plenty of people in Cap Hill spread out to these, without them, there'd be EVEN MORE empty tables, because who would sneak out to cold tables without a cigarette? This investment is a PLUS considering the smoking ban, not a detraction.
"Concerts aren't the same, either, with 1/3 of the crowd shuttling in & out to deal with the jones."
So fucking what? None of this is lost income. None of this actually affects your experience.
"How many bar tabs have been skipped with the old, "Just going out for a smoke" trick?"
The same number that were skipped with "I have to go out to the bathroom", nothing has changed.
"the current smoking ban is just a terrible implementation of a good idea."
I like smoking in clubs, but every single one of your criticisms was useless.
27
As Fnarf suggested, a seperate area for cigars would be feasible while keeping the smoke away from folks. It wouldn't be that hard to codify into the law. The fact you will still reek of cigar smoke after will have to be left unaddressed. But, ah, the joys of that scotch and cigar...
28
@26, he will need to adjust his numbers to account for the increased revenue from people who are like "holy crap, it doesn't stink like shit in here, and I won't have to have all my clothes dry-cleaned tomorrow -- let's stay!"
I've never met a smoker who had any idea how badly he or she reeked. I frequently ride in an elevator with a woman who has just had one, and oh my God she pongs.
I've never met a smoker who had any idea how badly he or she reeked. I frequently ride in an elevator with a woman who has just had one, and oh my God she pongs.
29
@9 Nah you just regulate them like strip clubs. Require a steep licencing fee and only allow so many.
30
You have to be a special kind of douche to think you look good smoking something that smells (and kinda looks) like burning dog shit.
31
@24 I believe the last few city & state budgets have documented this rather thoroughly. The Governor is giving an address today that is all about decreased tax revenues. Have you not been paying attention to what has happened to the business community around you? All those empty buildings, all the closures listed in the Stranger every month? Really? Ask bar managers what happened to their business after the smoking ban. The crunch happened before the market crash, too, though that made things far worse.
@25 You missed the point. You can't legally smoke on the covered patios at most restaurants/bars, even though they were built for this exact purpose. If people are smoking there, that is a violation. (Not that we have any money for enforcing laws anymore, thanks to the very well documented revenue decreases.)
@25 You missed the point. You can't legally smoke on the covered patios at most restaurants/bars, even though they were built for this exact purpose. If people are smoking there, that is a violation. (Not that we have any money for enforcing laws anymore, thanks to the very well documented revenue decreases.)
33
@31: I had no idea the entire world-wide recession was caused by WA banning smoking in bars and restaurants.
34
@31 & @32: That link shows that business in bars, restaurants, and even non-tribal casinos actually did better AFTER the smoking ban than they were doing before.
35
I'm over here laughing at #31's assertion that frequent bar/restaurant closings aren't a fundamental part of the business.
36
@25 - Smoking in clubs (ie. dance/concert venues) is a specifically terrible idea since the audience is generally dancing, and breathing harder. Talk about polluting vital air. Having people smoke on the back patio of a bar in winter is a fine idea, so long as they can't continue to dirty the air in the summer when the rest of us want to be outside.
37
This was many years ago, but in Boston, they had a provision that allowed cigar smoking in establishments where some (relatively high, I don't recall the exact figure) percentage of the income for the place come from cigar sales. The one cigar bar I went to, you either had to buy from them, or pay a "cutting" fee. There were other rules such as the whole separate ventilation thing, but that's how they got around just any bar/restaurant saying their whole place qualified.
38
@36: I'm not arguing against this. I believe outdoor areas should be legal to smoke in.
@31: The link you posted indicates that tax revenues WENT UP since before ban went into effect, showing that it had a positive effect on business. In response to your criticism of my post, I was stating that nonsmokers enjoy the heated enclosures as the rest of the bar fills up with people. It's good for business.
@27: "As Fnarf suggested, a seperate area for cigars would be feasible while keeping the smoke away from folks. It wouldn't be that hard to codify into the law."
I still haven't heard any sensical rationalization for treating cigars differently than cigarettes.
@31: The link you posted indicates that tax revenues WENT UP since before ban went into effect, showing that it had a positive effect on business. In response to your criticism of my post, I was stating that nonsmokers enjoy the heated enclosures as the rest of the bar fills up with people. It's good for business.
@27: "As Fnarf suggested, a seperate area for cigars would be feasible while keeping the smoke away from folks. It wouldn't be that hard to codify into the law."
I still haven't heard any sensical rationalization for treating cigars differently than cigarettes.
39
@37: Either smoking is damaging to the health of the bar employees, or it isn't. That's the rationale behind banning smoking, at least.
Not this bizarre classism we have about why some deserve "cigar exemptions".
Not this bizarre classism we have about why some deserve "cigar exemptions".
40
At a party I once saw some assholes give a cigarette with a Black Cat firecracker in it to some schmuck they didn't like. It blew his teeth out. It was not funny.
41
@39
There are such things as occupational hazards, once you restrict a cigar-smoking place from a non-cigar-smoking place. You work in a factory, you accept the risk that something might fall on you and turn you to ooze. You work on a boat, you accept the risk that the boat can sink and you can turn into a popsicle. You work in a cigar bar, you accept the risk that people are smoking cigars in the cigar bar. It's a simple principle: I don't want to turn to ooze, or a popsicle, or reek of smoke all the time, so I seek my employment somewhere that I am willing to accept the risks. (And don't feed me any bullshit that there are jobs without risks - even the jobs with the least risk have to risk the fact that they might cease to exist and you might end up homeless.)
There are such things as occupational hazards, once you restrict a cigar-smoking place from a non-cigar-smoking place. You work in a factory, you accept the risk that something might fall on you and turn you to ooze. You work on a boat, you accept the risk that the boat can sink and you can turn into a popsicle. You work in a cigar bar, you accept the risk that people are smoking cigars in the cigar bar. It's a simple principle: I don't want to turn to ooze, or a popsicle, or reek of smoke all the time, so I seek my employment somewhere that I am willing to accept the risks. (And don't feed me any bullshit that there are jobs without risks - even the jobs with the least risk have to risk the fact that they might cease to exist and you might end up homeless.)
43
@41: "once you restrict a cigar-smoking place from a non-cigar-smoking place. You work in a factory, you accept the risk that something might fall on you and turn you to ooze."
Voters worldwide disagree with your libertarian retardation.
Voters worldwide disagree with your libertarian retardation.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS