While I am also a fan of the smoke-free world, I have to point out that I find Washington's new law pretty flawed. It states that there can be no smoking within 25 feet of an entrance to a building—which is to say, anywhere at all in an urban environment. Not that there shouldn't be smoke-free laws—it's just that that sort of a set up seems rather ideal for selective enforcement. Oregon: don't make a stupid law.

Posted by: zac at November 21, 2005 8:46 PM

I'm a smoker but I still support smoke-free initiatives, much for the same reason posted above-- I hate having my clothes saturated with smoke any time I go out for a drink, and I hate gagging on the sheer volume of smoke at some of my favorite watering holes. It's really not so bad to step outside when you want a smoke.

Posted by: chris j. at November 21, 2005 9:06 PM

I'm a non-smoker but enjoy an occasional cigar. Would this law mean I can't go to the Brazen Bean or Greater Trumps and light up a stogie?

Posted by: gene at November 21, 2005 11:48 PM

fuck this shit
let the bars decide
we dont need another olcc for tobacco making up more stupid rules and laws
let the bars decide

Posted by: adam forkner at November 22, 2005 8:36 AM

oh god
im sorry
that was mean
i just woke up
apologies for being a grump
i do feel this way, but i didnt mean to sound so harsh

a

Posted by: adam forkner at November 22, 2005 9:15 AM

Let the bars decide? But they have a financial interest in having people smoke, as they can sell cigarettes... They don't really have a larger picture of public health in mind. Just like smoking at work is a relic of the past, smoking in bars is on the way out, and people will wonder why we ever allowed it.

Being someone who spends a lot of his professional time in bars and clubs, I'd expect you to be excited about this!

Posted by: Mikey at November 22, 2005 9:28 AM

What is interesting about the CA law (I think we were #1?) is that the bars DO decide, not the law. "No Smoking" is an absolutely unenforceable law (unless we ban cigarette sales), so bars either take the law as an opportunity to make their bars smoke-free, or they keep letting people smoke.

This is the reality of the CA law, which I think is a good model.

Posted by: Andrew V Peterson at November 22, 2005 9:42 AM

and weirdly a lot of the bars DO decide to be smoke free. And then randomly you go into a bar that is filled with smoke and you wonder if you traveled backward through time. What I don't understand is: how come the bars don't decide NOW to be smoke free? How come we pass a law about it, and THEN they decide? There has to be some punative issue at stake. Like, Andrew, remember at that weird bar by the burrito place where we saw the cockroach? They had a "fine jar" that if you wanted to smoke you had to put money in it to pay their fines if/when they got caught. Anyway, I wish there was no smoking anywhere, but I recognize that this is kind of a weird issue.

Posted by: ritchey at November 22, 2005 11:07 AM

Someone somewhere once said "the drinking bone is connected to the smoking bone" and I agree. I'm a non-smoker but I enjoy a cigarette when I head out to places like the Horse Brass and the Space Room (AKA two of PDX's smokiest bars). Eugene passed a no-smoking ordinance a few years back and several bars closed soon after. The rumors were that the new policy was the culprit. While many bars down there have built smoking porches, heading outside to smoke in the freezing cold sucks. While heading home with a jacket smelling like smoke isn't pleasant, is it really any different than leaving a concert with your ears ringing? And pollution, cancer and booze will kill you long before occasional exposure to second-hand smoke will.

Posted by: Brandon at November 22, 2005 2:32 PM

for the record, bars don't make much money on smokes
there is a monthly fee and they buy them at pretty much retail so between employees smoking them and the fees they generally break even on the sales of cigarettes. its mostly something they have so people don't have to leave to get them if they run out.

and to answer ritcheys question about why they wait until its law to go smoke free is because a lot of bars, their employees and owners don't really want or care about non-smoking laws, and don't care to be non-smoking. why should the non-smoking police decide for them? it is unhealthy and gross and wrong but so are a lot of things are unhealthy gross and wrong, like drinking, casual sex, eating meat, listening to smooth jazz, other stuff

here's a weird fact. this figure is from some sierra environmental magazine from like 10 years ago - that living in LA is like smoking 4 and 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day (for yr lungs) and it's not because of cars or second hand smoke, but rather pollution from the air force base that was there, as well as trains and semi's bring the area its non-native foods and goods and such. industrial pollution...

so their are larger issues at stake than bars and smoking.

anyway, i don't think anyone's gonna be won over to anyone else's side on this topic. those who want to put smoking and the evil corporate industry behind this vile addictive killer habit into the past will never want more or less than a total public ban of smoking. other people consider that an infringement of the choice to do with one's body what one-eth want-eth

Posted by: adam forkner at November 22, 2005 5:29 PM

"pollution, cancer and booze will kill you long before occasional exposure to second-hand smoke will"

I dispute this.

10 states have gone smoke free, and they all still have bars in them. I don't think the Horse Brass would cease to exist w/o smoking.

"heading outside to smoke in the freezing cold sucks"

A side effect being that less people smoke and that saves a lot of lives and lot of money (tax dollars!).

"heading home with a jacket smelling like smoke isn't pleasant, is it really any different than leaving a concert with your ears ringing?"

Yes. 1. That smoke is hurting me. A lot. And while I only occasionally go out, it's REALLY hurting people who work and perform in the bar. Plus, the ringing stops eventually, but the clothes continue to reek.

Posted by: Mikey at November 22, 2005 5:34 PM

keep the governments hands off my body

also
bars don't make much of a profit off of selling cigarettes (although some get major donations of napkins and coasters from the evil pushers)

also
DRUG CONTROL

also
eating meat

also
LOS ANGELES POLLUTION

also
whatever

Posted by: honey owens at November 22, 2005 5:35 PM

that was me not honey, btw
she's not a smart ass like me

Posted by: adam forkner at November 22, 2005 5:37 PM

It would be cool if they worked out the math on what people smoking costs the state and society in health care costs (i.e. my health insurance cost is higher because my neighbor smokes). And then divided it by the number of cigarettes smoked. And they could pay that amount to people each time they didn't smoke.

Posted by: josh at November 22, 2005 5:38 PM

Tobacco is poison, and you shouldn't be allowed to poison someone else. Alcohol is a poison, but my drinking doesn't put it into your body.

So yeah, I'm out on poisoning people against their will.

And I think a lot of places are going smoke free. Doug Fir and Berbati's are smoke free, so is that bigger venue on Burnside...

Posted by: Mikey at November 22, 2005 5:38 PM

"keep the governments hands off my body"

How about, "keep your smoke out of my body or I'll call the government"

:)

Posted by: Mikey at November 22, 2005 5:40 PM

Mike, I have to confess I am very surprised to see you take such a "bar owners are bad guys driven solely by profits" approach. The reality is much more complex, as has been pointed out by Adam, who, through Honey, knows about the economics of working in a bar.

As for the "saving tax dollars," again I am surprised, this time at Josh. Is the connection with the apocryphal tax-spending anecdotes of the far right not readily apparent?

I admit that studies showing that smoking actually saves taxpayer money (people die sooner) are funded by tobacco companies, but still, I contend that the reality is much more complex and not accurately reducible to such simple "problem-solution" binaries.

Posted by: Andrew V Peterson at November 22, 2005 11:28 PM

So will I be able smoke a cigar with my single malt whiskey or no? Will Brazen Bean and Greater Trumps have to break the law to let you smoke a cigar?

I really don't understand how anyone can say CA bars voluntarily decide to ban smoking. It's a state law. You decide to break it or follow it. If you don't follow it and someone complains to the right person you'll get fined, regardless of the enforcement effort. I like the idea of the fine jar...

Do cigar bars exist in CA?

"And pollution, cancer and booze will kill you long before occasional exposure to second-hand smoke will."

Considering 2nd hand smoke IS two out of those three items, this is a pretty funny statement.

And for those of you that think it's bad to go outside to smoke here, it's downright hilarous in Alaska... you can smoke in bars up there but most people make you go outside to smoke if you're at their house. So you have these poor frosty dudes coming back inside with red noses after power smoking for 90 seconds in -20 weather.

Posted by: gene at November 23, 2005 9:18 AM

I don't think cigar bars will cease. There will be exceptions I'm sure.

I'm surprised that people would want to fight this. I mean, it makes a little sense if you are a smoker, but even if you are, you have to see that you are forcing your smoke on others, and that isn't cool.

I think if someone thinks about the environment they want to create, they rarely say, "I want it to be smokey as fuck." If they think about it, they build a nice room like Holocene, but more likely they don't think about it, and then when it's all smokey all the time they assume they will lose all those people if they ban smoking.

Posted by: Mikey at November 23, 2005 11:49 AM

Mike, I think the argument you have just made is the only really valid one.

I love the CA law, I love that there are more no-smoking bars, and especially no-smoking restaurants. Even when I was a smoker, I liked CA bars better, because going outside to smoke is cool and builds cool outdoor smoker community (even in Alaska?).

However, I don't think Oregonians should be under the impression that if this law passes, smoke in public places will just disappear, or even that bars will keep their patrons from smoking. People are going to smoke. Bars are going to allow it.

Posted by: Andrew V Peterson at November 23, 2005 1:41 PM

While I enjoy smoking occasionally, I can't blame people for not wanting to drink in foggy bars. There's demand locally for smoke-free drinking establishments and PDX bar owners should weigh their options and decide for themselves whether or not to go smoke free. If they do, they can play it up and cater to the anti-nicotine crowd. Everybody wins.

If customers don't want to endure the London cancer fog at the Horse Brass, there's always the smoke-free expanses of McMenamins or the Doug Fir. Given enough time, and as more and more people become health conscious, it's likely that more bar owners will make the switch.

But they shouldn't be forced to do so through a law. Our bodies, ourselves, all that rot. These bars are private property, not public and as long as cigarettes remain legal, the owners should be the ones to make the call.

If you don't like cigarette smoke, if it's that big of a deal for you, don't go to a bar that allows smoking and don't apply for a job at one. Simple as that. Don't take away the rights of smokers because leaving a bar with your clothes smelling is an inconvenience for you.

And please spare us all the health argument. A few hours in a foggy bar Will Not Kill You. All the containments in our food, water and air in general are far more dangerous than occasional exposure to cigarette smoke.

And if you're concerned about what cigarette addiction cost the government, health insurance companies and society in general, what about fatty foods? Alcoholism? TV addiction and a lack of exercise? Bad driving? The flabby butts and diabetes that result from spending too much time bickering on the internet and not enough time at 24 Hour Fitness? I rest my case.

Posted by: Brandon at November 23, 2005 5:10 PM

(i'll delete the double post for you)

"... don't go to a bar that allows smoking and don't apply for a job at one. Simple as that."

I don't think it's as simple as that. The Horse Brass is the only bar in that neighborhood, plus it's a great place to hang out! And most people don't have the luxury of choosing their job based on it being a non-smoking environment.

This argument is a little frustrating for me. I'm not sure I can really convince anyone, and in the end, I'm not sure that I even have to. More bars are becoming smoke free voluntarily, and the trend of states banning smoking will only continue.

"And please spare us all the health argument. A few hours in a foggy bar Will Not Kill You."

The facts contradict you:
http://www.worksmokefree.com/getthefacts.cfm

And you can always bring in other things, like TV, weight, etc, but that's not what we're discussing here. In the end, the choice will come down to the voters, just like in Washington, and I believe the voters will choose for smoke free. And I also believe that will make Portland more Awesome.

Posted by: Mikey at November 23, 2005 5:39 PM

"And please spare us all the health argument. A few hours in a foggy bar Will Not Kill You."

What about people who already have asthma, or worse, develop it over time or experience a sudden and severe reaction? I think that's reason enough for a full ban.

Posted by: Leslie at November 23, 2005 6:48 PM

i have to agree with andrew verne here in saying i'm pretty shocked at your progressively non progressive thinking inside the box opinion on this issue, mike.

i am not against the banning of smoke. but also don't see why it's necessary, why don't you just vote with your monies and only go where there is no smoke?

there are a number of places that are doing this (holocene, berbati's, scoreboard).

shouldn't business owners have options??

cars/planes/barges emit poison and i think you would be against an all out ban on those.

BARGES, dude.

Posted by: Steve Schroeder at November 23, 2005 7:46 PM

I agree with Steve. If you guys don't dig the smoke, vote with your dollars and drink someplace else.

Mikey, you've linked to a site that quotes stats relevant only for people that work in smoke-clogged environments and it doesn't seem to include any stats for those who only spend a few hours, every now in then, in them. Yes, breathing cigarette smoke over the course of a 40 hour week isn't a good idea but if you're not willing to make that sacrifice, then you shouldn't work in a bar that allows smoking. It's just like being a cop or a fireman. If you don't want to run the risk of getting burned or shot at, work someplace else. If you really, really, really want to be a bartender and not suck down cigarette smoke, apply at the any number of PDX bars that don't allow smoking. There are options. No one is forcing these people to work in these environments.

As for the Horse Brass being the only bar on Belmont, what about the all the ones that line the blocks down by the Avalon? There's got to be at least half a dozen bars within ten blocks of everybody's favorite Brit pub, if not more.

As for asthma sufferers, come on, Leslie. If someone has a severe asthmatic condition that would result in a life-threatening attack in a foggy bar, they would know the risks beforehand and stay away. The sort of person you describe would keel over during a smog advisory day. A friend of mine has suffered from asthma his whole life and has no qualms with spending time in smoky bars. On occasion he even lights up himself. The chances of the scenario you present happening, at best, must be one in a million. If someone has a bad back and can't ride a roller coaster, does that mean that all roller coasters should be banned? Of course not.

The problem with the law is that it would completely ban smoking everywhere. There wouldn't be a single bar in PDX that could (or would) run the risk of being fined. All the fun would be ruined for those of us that enjoy a little cancer with our brew.

Let the owners decide!

Posted by: Brandon at November 23, 2005 8:49 PM

"...it doesn't seem to include any stats for those who only spend a few hours, every now in then, in them."

So it's okay if we kill the people who work in these places as long as exposure to visitors is safe? (This assumes that people that spend "a few hours, every now and then" in a bar are safe, which almost certainly is not the case if you consider how many hours the average 21-35 year old single city dwellers spends in bars.)

"Yes, breathing cigarette smoke over the course of a 40 hour week isn't a good idea but if you're not willing to make that sacrifice, then you shouldn't work in a bar that allows smoking."

A person in the profession of bartending should have to limit their options to the 1 out of 20 bars that ban smoking if they want to live a long healthy life? This seems pretty dismissive.

"why don't you just vote with your monies and only go where there is no smoke?"

Because bars are social gathering places, not a product in a grocery store aisle. I can go to a bar with no smoke and no friends, or I can go to Alibi or the Clinton Street Pub, have fun with my buds, and have sore lungs the next morning.

" as long as cigarettes remain legal, the owners should be the ones to make the call."

This argument breaks down pretty quickly: As long as cigarettes remain legal, the owners of media outlets should be able to sell advertisements about them. Bzzzzzt!

"Don't take away the rights of smokers because leaving a bar with your clothes smelling is an inconvenience for you."

It's an issue of health, not smell.

"And please spare us all the health argument."

Your dismissal of the harmful effects of 2nd hand smoke pokes large holes in your credibility.

"And if you're concerned about what cigarette addiction cost the government, health insurance companies and society in general, what about fatty foods? Alcoholism? TV addiction and a lack of exercise?"

These are all personal choices that don't directly effect the person next to you. Feel free to gorge on fast food while taking shots of vodka and watching 18 hours of TV a day.

"Bad driving?"

Ah HAH! Caught you! This is a perfect example. If you run a red light (and are caught) you are issued a citation. Why? Because ITS AGAINST THE LAW. Why? Because this behavior is harmful to the community. My right to a safe road trumps your right to get to your destination as fast as possible.

The argument here is the right of person to smoke vs. the right of the community to enjoy themselves indoors without significantly raising their risk of cancer.

Posted by: gene at November 23, 2005 11:28 PM

Odd. I (as a smoker) just recently wrote a post over on FURIOUS nads! about how the emotional charge of much of the debate over smoking bans would be a little less heated if there weren't so many asshole smokers.

But I'm dropping in here mainly to respond to this bit from Gene: "Because bars are social gathering places, not a product in a grocery store aisle. I can go to a bar with no smoke and no friends, or I can go to Alibi or the Clinton Street Pub, have fun with my buds, and have sore lungs the next morning."

So you're saying that your friends won't go to a non-smoking bar with you? Maybe the problem for you isn't smoking in bars but having shitty friends.

Posted by: The One True b!X at November 24, 2005 12:18 AM

I think it's unfortunate that the "pro ban" comments are choosing to address only the arguments made by Brandon, whose statements are, to put it mildly, less informed and more along the lines of "asshole smoker" rhetoric.

There are many sides to this, and I for one support the ban--however, I do so only because I know (from experience in CA) that it will not end smoking in all bars. The ban creates choice (though as pointed out a handful of bars in PDX already provide this) by providing legal incentive to go non-smoking, and then preserves choice by being relatively unenforceable.

Posted by: Andrew V Peterson at November 24, 2005 8:14 AM

I agree with Andrew. I would also just like to point out that "choosing not to go to a smoky bar" isn't always as cut and dried as you might think. This choice can hamper many aspects of your life outside of just social gathering. For me, I play music, I go on tour. Sometimes you play a show in a bar like 5 nights in a row. You leave late at night, reeking, with nowhere to do laundry, your voice is scratchy and your throat is sore, you sing like shit the next day. Am I supposed to give up touring in bands? Sure, you can create a tour where you only play non-smoking establishments, but that seems pretty sad to me that you'd have to do that. I just don't understand why non-smokers are the ones who have to make choices, rather than smokers. You aren't allowed to drunk drive or punch people in the face or BRING DOGS INTO RESTAURANTS, but you can blow horrible smoke all over everyone? Why is that particular choice more valid and important than any number of other choices (like my choice to limit my breathing of pollution as much as I can)?

Posted by: ritchey at November 24, 2005 9:52 AM

Odd. I (as a smoker) just recently wrote a post over on FURIOUS nads! about how the emotional charge of much of the debate over smoking bans would be a little less heated if there weren't so many asshole smokers.

you show your cards as being an/the asshole in that statement right there.

conviction is the devil's play thing

leave bars alone, for fuck's sake. they are not hospitals, they are not restaurants, they are not galleries they are not churches, yoga centers, all ages community music centers or even punk clubs. they are BAAAAAAAARS. they feed you booze. i've said it before. the ethics involved on this come from outside forces that can easily and faliciously split hairs when it comes to what drugs they want to be able to consume and where. bars are not really neccesary for anyone's lives, they are not ethically sound places to be. they are places of ill repute. they are the scum of our society. the long history of our city state and countries relationship with the ethics of alcohol are well documented. the OLCC started out as a woman's religious moral group that would protest outside of down town bars 100 years ago. people who thought/knew that they were in the right. that drinking was/is bad bad bad. look in the mercury for the class action suit against them on racisim charges. ask anyone in the bar industry what they think of this organization and you might start to get the picture that bars dont want the government, or any high moral group of activists telling them what they can and can not do around as much as possible. even those that have gone smoke free.

Posted by: honey owens at November 24, 2005 11:02 AM

again, this is forkner, not owens.
jesus

Posted by: adam forkner at November 24, 2005 11:03 AM

and again

sorry for being harsh

you are not an asshole. i dont think anyone here is being an asshole.

lets leave the assholes to poop somewhere else

im sorry

happy turkey day

to your health. and to the health of those around you

adam

Posted by: adam forkner at November 24, 2005 11:06 AM

Indeed, some people don't have much of a choice to be in a smoky environment (another example: casino dealers). And, in terms of the asthma argument, people do develop asthma from it, and they do sue.

Brandon, your one asthmatic friend doesn't set the rule for everyone else. I have friends with asthma who aren't comfortable with being in smoke-filled bars. I don't think they should have to avoid places they want to go.

Asking smokers to go outside or into a smoking room to do something that is their choice is much more reasonable than asking people with asthma to "cope with it or stay away".

And your rollercoaster argument sounds nice but I disagree that you can compare that to the act of smoking.

Side note: I was at the Baltic Room in Seattle a while ago and they had a smoke-eater machine. People were lighting up all over the place, and yet the actual amount of smoke in the air was minimal. If a smoke ban were ruled out, I'd settle for making those mandatory instead.

Posted by: Leslie at November 24, 2005 11:46 AM

"So you're saying that your friends won't go to a non-smoking bar with you? Maybe the problem for you isn't smoking in bars but having shitty friends."

My friends don't like me mandating where we will all be hanging out night after night after night. If yours do, more power to you. Until I am the leader of my own cult I'll make do with following the crowd.

I'm actually against an all out ban, because I would like to be able to smoke a cigar legally once every couple weeks in a bar. But I haven't heard much coherent argument for the other side yet. The best so far is that bars are inherently evil and thus evil smokers should be allowed to frolic in them.

I also don't like the argument that an all out ban is okay because some bars will choose to ignore it. That's no excuse for making reasonable laws, especially since Oregon (or "Little Utah" as some of my Seattle friends lovingly call us) has a history of rather rabid enforcement of these types of statutes.

Posted by: gene at November 24, 2005 12:16 PM

second hand smoke is the only real plausible reason for why i got cancer 2 years ago, getting bladder cancer at 27 used to be unheard of. i won't go to any smoking bars anymore and that sucks for all the show i miss because of it.

it sucks even more for bands that don't have much of a choice.

Posted by: jason sturgill at November 25, 2005 12:25 AM

Ritchey, your argument isn't akin to the people saying they don't want to have to choose to go to another bar as a PATRON, but more akin to the worker health and safety argument. So saying that "choosing not to go to a smoky bar isn't always as cut and dried as you might think" makes no sense in the context in which you were trying to coutner it.

Posted by: The One True b!X at November 25, 2005 1:10 PM

Adam, while you later said I'm not an asshole after calling me one, your use of that quote of mine only shows you missed my point, which was this: There are legitimate public policy debates over smoking (e.g. workpalce health and safety) and illegitimate ones (e.g. "I don't like smoky bars"). The only reason the latter illegitimate one ever gets traction is because so many smokers are assholes in day-to-day situations where they are NEVER considerate of people around them.

If that were not the case, the emotional heat and cheap rhetoric against smokers would be lessened, because no smokers would be giving anti-smokers extra fuel for their positions.

Posted by: The One True b!X at November 25, 2005 1:13 PM

I posted this entry about non-smoking when I read about WA citizens voting it in. I see it as a gradual trend that will eventually become the norm, and for me it's frustrating to not have Oregon leading on issues like this. I had no idea the post would generate the interest that it did, and I was really surprised that so many people oppose or have concerns about anti-smoking laws.

I have stopped going to the Horse Brass. I don't mind hanging out with a smoker or two, but when it's thirty smokers all in the same enclosed space, that gets pretty intense.

As for the idea that people don't have a right to have their bars be smoke free... We have the right for our workplaces to be smoke free, so why not bars? I mean, it's beyond just a nuisance. We're talking about a poisonous atmosphere... that seems like a strange thing to defend.

Now I'm not saying that tobacco should be illegal, but just like you can't serve alcohol to a drunk person in Oregon, maybe there should be some limit to the amount of smoke in the air.

If it was something other than cigarette smoke in the air that was causing the same health problems those bars would be held accountable for the health problems!

Why is it okay to have a poisonous atmosphere of cigarette smoke and not carbon monoxide?

Posted by: Mikey at November 25, 2005 4:03 PM

"As for the idea that people don't have a right to have their bars be smoke free... We have the right for our workplaces to be smoke free, so why not bars?"

Because people have to work. They don't have to go to bars.

(Understanding, as I've said before, that this dynamic changes if your workplace IS a bar.)

Posted by: The One True b!X at November 25, 2005 4:08 PM

"Because people have to work. They don't have to go to bars."

Yeah... well... uh... That's a good point there.

But the trump card is the fact that these bars are someone's workplace, and this astounding thread was being discussed in person with some friends and someone mentioned working in an irish bar in new york, before the smoking ban... it wasn't like she had the opportunity to be choosey about where she worked.

Posted by: Mikey at November 26, 2005 3:10 AM

Which is the aspect I think is the legitimate public policy debate, and the one over which I have mixed feelings.

My only real overriding point (a carryover of sorts from what I kept trying to do on Communique) is that we need to filter out the personal perferences and/or emotional hysteria from the actual public policy question.

FYI, as a pre-emtive comment because I know it's going to happen, that includes not using "the bar staff I talk to think a ban is a good idea" as an argument, because I or anyone else could just as easily find bar staff against a ban.

That doesn't mean I know how to identify the criteria on which a ban decision SHOULD be made -- just that I have pretty firm thoughts about which criteria SHOULDN'T be used.

Posted by: The One True b!X at November 26, 2005 1:28 PM

I bring up the personal example to make the point that people don't get to choose where they work. Certainly we have both experienced that (CyberRep.coM).

Is removing personal preference and emotion (I'll remove the 'hysteria' bit) from public policy decisions really necessary? Is it even possible?

One of the things I'd like to promote in Portland's Future Awesome is the idea of bringing back the The Great Light Way, (http://communique.portland.or.us/05/06/revisiting_the_great_light_way.html), and I only have emotion and personal preference to defend that position. :)

Posted by: Mikey at November 28, 2005 3:51 PM

"Because bars are social gathering places, not a product in a grocery store aisle. I can go to a bar with no smoke and no friends, or I can go to Alibi or the Clinton Street Pub, have fun with my buds, and have sore lungs the next morning."

This, I believe, negates the entire pro-ban arugument. You see, smoking is very cool. People like to go out, have fun, down a few brews, and smoke cigarettes--not go out, have fun, down a few beers, and crochet sweaters (okay, except at Acme). Sure, there are a lot of bars that have decided to ban smoking, but have you ever noticed that there aren't any cool people hanging out in them? Heck, sometimes when you hang out near a smoker, his or her coolness rubs off on you.
As a smoker, I sometimes feel unappreciated by non-smokers. Don't you know that you NEED us? If we're sequestered outside, who will you borrow cigarettes from when you're at the bar? If smoking is banned, who will pay the cigarette taxes that fund our roads, our schools, our anti-smoking public service announcements? Next time you're lost in the woods, who will you turn to for matches?
If Star Trek has taught me anything, it's that people in the future don't smoke. I'll admit that. But I'm willing to bet that it came to be that way by choice, not by government intervention. That's how Doctor "Bones" McCoy would have wanted it.

Posted by: Apcow at December 1, 2005 12:52 PM

Pacific Coast Restaurants becoming smoke-free

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/11/28/daily34.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Posted by: Mikey at December 2, 2005 6:16 PM

"I bring up the personal example to make the point that people don't get to choose where they work."

You're missing my point. There's a difference between the degree of people's choice of where they work and the degree of their choice of where they play.

I have stated -- repeatedly, both here and elsewhere -- that the workplace health and safety angle is where I have mixed feelings, and that it is precisely the sort of issue which is a legitimate public policy debate.

What I have said is not a legitimate public policy debate is "I don't like smoke, and I should be able to go drink in any and every bar without having to deal with smoke."

I really don't know how many ways or times I can make the distinction clear.

Posted by: The One True b!X at December 4, 2005 2:39 AM

Off-topic, but on the subject of the Great Light Way, it's been suggested (not by me) to the community advisory committee dealing with the transit mall that it be studied for inspiration for some of the "station as place" stuff they are supposed to do with the new light rail stops when that line goes in. Do a Google for "Great Light Way" and you should find some PDFs of meeting minutes where this is mentioned.

Posted by: The One True b!X at December 4, 2005 2:42 AM

I totally get you, I didn't mean to seem like I was still arguing that point, I was just explaining why I pulled the "I know someone..." line.

Posted by: Mikey at December 6, 2005 10:26 AM

You anti smokers have decided what's best for me once again, God forbid I smoke in a smoking section. That's ok because I'm going to be one of the first ones to help push through all of the new laws they're whispering about. The ones that decide what's best for all you fat people. That's right, the government is going to be picking on fat people next. After all, being fat kills you. I can do without my smoke if I have to. Can you do without your Big Mac?
Why should I have to pay higher health insurance premiums to pay for your extra 20 fat pounds. You have taught me a valuable lesson, so as the concerned health conscious citizen that I am, I have already started writing letters to all politicians, insurance companies, airlines and so fourth, begging them to lobby for laws to raise prices for overweight people. Better yet cancel their insurance so that my premiums are lower. It's for your own good you know.
HaHa your next!

Posted by: Lori at December 23, 2005 5:40 PM

I am new in oregon, even before i moved here I tried to find info on no smoking here, and I found little, I did know restarants were listed as non smoking, when I actually moved here i found most had smoking. Since asthma can be life or death for me, thats how bad it is. I have to avoid so many restarants, forget bars, that one quickly sees the damper on a persons social life here, I am at a age where people my age over 50 go to restarants and I have to avoid the majority of them. I am quickly finding I will not want to live here very long, since I see no real effort to enact a no smoking ban in this state.

Posted by: Jim at July 14, 2006 9:16 PM

I have asthma too, and being around smoke makes me wheeze. When I go out to a smoky bar I wheeze for a few days afterward, and hack up nasty glop. When I go home I have to decomtaminate every scrap of clothing, and if I carry a purse it needs to sit out on the back porch until it outgasses. I roll into the house, bag the clothes, throw them down into the laundry room, and climb into the shower, where I wash everything, and then flush my eyes with saline. Sounds obsessive-compulsive, but if I forget any of this the next day I can hardly breathe, and my eyes swell shut.

Honestly, it's a bit of a pain when I want to go out to listen to friends play music, or if I am playing myself. After a night at a smoking venue, I sound a bit like Lauren Bacall with laryngitis, and it takes days to get back to normal.

All the same, being an ex-smoker (believe it or not I got the asthma AFTER quitting), I can really emphathize with having to huddle under the eaves in the rain and furtively puff while people shoot you dirty looks. Been there.

What would work for me is if bars who wanted smoking put it in one part of the bar, and vented that part with fans so all the smoke went out the vents, and not into the rest of the bar. Or, alternately, if they segregated the non-smokers and blew clean air at them to keep the smoke in the rest of the bar away.

Would it be perfect? No, but it would be a lot better, and I could go out without hacking up grey goop for days afterward. I'd really like that.

Posted by: Katherine at July 31, 2006 3:30 PM

think about all the money this city gets from it's sin tax. if you ban smoking more people quite then your children would finally get the education they deserve!!!!!

Posted by: STACEY at January 9, 2007 10:36 AM

A. Bars do not make enough money selling cigarettes to care if you smoke or not.
B. Cigarette smoke leaves a film on glass and all other materials in an establishment; it is harder to clean and things have to be replaced more often.
C. Since service personal can't smoke when helping customers, a non-smoking workplace is more desirable.

The fact is simple. Why should a establishment change just to suit your personal desire, if a majority of the people that frequent the place like it as is.

Your pleasure is important, go somewhere that serves things the way you like them. That is what makes this a free country. Don't make us all wear the same print shirts. They tried that is Russia and look where it got them.

Communism is what you are asking for. If we do this, we must make other changes a well.
Maybe it is time to sell cheese and eggs on a ration book type setup. Number one killer in this country is heart disease caused by poor diets and lack of exercise.
Should we pass a law that adults may only have 2 eggs a week?
SHould we limit the amount of cheese allowed?

Let there be bars, taverns and restaurants that are proud NON-SMOKING establishments.

Let there be SMOKING ALLOWED establishments as well.

P.S. I have not smoked a cigarette in over six years. I quit because of the smell it left on my clothes, hair and skin.

I came here from a Communist Country with words like Republica Socialista in its name. You guys are changing this wonderful place and writing yourself laws into a corner. There you will weep, for what you once had.

Just think of what Bush and big business has taken away from you already. Your home may be searched and they do not have to inform you.
You may be arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist and have no rights to defend yourself; they don't even have to inform your family that you ere taken.
So,
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. IS GONE! No more.
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.-Heinlein

Back to the point, smoking is nasty, but it should not be illegal for a informed adult.

Never has this quip been more true: The Bill of RIghts stands except where forbidden by law,

Posted by: Honest and Not-Retarded at February 27, 2007 2:27 PM

A note to those on the asthma bandwagon.

There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants, bars, taverns in Oregon.

It is absurd to force the rest of us to change for you. There are people on vegan diets, there are people alergic to penuts, etc...
Should we outlaw Peanuts?
Should all restaurants serve Vegan food only?

Do you guys actually think about these things?; or are you so self absorbed that nothing and no-one else matters.

Posted by: Honest and not-Retarded at February 27, 2007 2:40 PM