WA Supreme Court lifts Pierce Smoking Ban.
There are strong views on both sides of this issue; I tend towards the libertarian argument: the state should not be telling a business owner how to run their private enterprise on this level. I agree with what KVI host John Carlson said today, that if it were up to a vote, smoking would probably be banned (liked his personal aside that his first activist role at age 4 was persuading his father to quit smoking) but constitutional liberty should prevail.
I don't smoke, never have, think it's pretty raunchy to wade through the puffer's gauntlet around office buildings. But nobody was forcing me to go into the bars and clubs the Pierce ban affected, are they? None of my business. I think my friend Matt Rosenberg has a different and relevant perspective... (and got 250 comments!)
Gregoire favors the ban. Odd. Had it been in place statewide several years ago, her big lawsuit to shakedown the tobacco companies would've been somewhat moot. And the high taxes on cigarettes surely are the blood of many a lib agenda...
On another point, isn't interesting how generally the same ideologues who loathe "Big Tobacco," denying the personal responsibility of the consumer, are usually also the ones who want to legalize pot? Perhaps the animus towards tobacco is because it's big business. You know, with shareholders, profits and jobs, and capital creation which allows RJ Reynolds to diversify and provide us with Oreos and aluminum foil.
So if marijuana were legal, would they turn against it, too, as corporations made profits on it? Then we'd start to see edgy ad campaigns against "Big Cannabis."
And later we'd hear callers to AM talk radio gardening shows asking for advice on how to care for their homegrown stashes.
Posted by Brian Crouch at February 10, 2005 11:18 PM | Email ThisI take care of people who smoked for forty years and who come to my ER short of breath with nect to no respiratory capacity. And then they step ou tof the waiting room to light up while waiting to be seen. Let me tell you, it is a helluva bad way to die.
I know how hard it is to quit. But it can be done. For those who have tried and just can't, I know how frustrating it can be. It really sucks. That's why I will never come down on a person for lighting up.
But I also take care of people who use marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol. Let me tell you: legalizing MJ will just make it worse.
Been there. Done that.
It is ironic that the marijuana legalization advocates are some of the same people who want to ban public smoking. Not me though - I want pot legalized and I don't want the government banning smoking tobacco.
The most ironic thing, I think, is that state governments now are trapped in a position in which they need to make sure that big tobacco companies do not go bankrupt. Almost all of the states in the settlement, WA included, securitized the future payments from the tobacco settlement. The have already issued the debt and spent the money!
So, if the big tobacco companies go bankrupt, and can't pay, guess who ends up with a much lower debt rating ... the states! Which means a much higher cost of debt.
On this latest stupid law, if the legislature were really interested in doing something practical, they would simply pass a law saying that public places need to put a sign that informs people of whether they are "smoking" or "non-smoking."
People can take it up from there. But, of course, GreGore thinks we are all to stupid to make those sorts of decisions for ourselves.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 11, 2005 12:16 AMCarlsons right on this one.
Smoking bans overwhelmingly pass when brought to a vote in states and cities. Typically 2 to 1.
There are 7 states now with smoking bans including Florida and 4 cites in Texas and a hundred municipalities.
One can thank republican Mayor Michael Bloomburg for implementing a policy in New York City that has spread across the US and the world.
Washington Legislature:
There are a number of bi-partison legislators group sponsors who are trying to modify the existing law with various degrees of restricting smoking. Seven separate bills address smoking.
The Ds and Rs each have their contingent for and against. Stange breakdown of alliances. Doesn't look like its enough though. I don't see a complete smoking ban passing through the legislature.
There were around 250 exhaustive posts on Matt Rosenberg's post on initiative 901 which he concluded:
"You want a coffin nail; do it at home, or take a walk."
Matt's post set off a blogging marathon with views on every angle. I don't think there's a whole lot to add now.
Free Tobacco Samples
The Washington Senate Voted overwhelmingly
39 to 9 to ban free tobacco samples with SB 5048. Apparently, they disproportionately end up in the hands of minors. Looks like a clear ride through the house.
I remember when I could buy a carton of cigarettes (10 packs) for $8. Now it is close to $5 a pack. The difference ... is taxes. That extra $4.50 a day that each smoker puts into the tax coffers ... where is that money going to be made up? This is not even counting the settlement money ... this is just pure tax revenue I am talking about.
Other fiscal points also include ... smokers die younger and as a result leave more money in SS and Medicare than they take out. Getting people to quit will bankrupt those systems sooner too.
If you want to take away someones civil liberties, then take a personal view. Since the latest ads like to tout how only 20% smoke, then look at it this way. How would you like to pass a tax that requires every citizen of the state, regardless of income, to pay $1 a day (to offset the $5 a day habit of a smoker), and then ban all smoking. At the same time, you also need to reduce your social security payments 20% for everyone, forever. Then the states have to write off all the settlement money. Like it or not, THAT is what you are voting on when you vote to ban smoking.
Still think banning smoking is a good idea?
Posted by: TJ on February 11, 2005 07:32 AMLike Carlson also said "show me one case where second hand smoke killed someone"
(off topic slightly)
the left was also talking this morning on air america, about bringing down JP Morgan and Bank of America (city of chicago) for their participation in slavery 200 years ago. ???? check out JP web page. City of Chicago is will deny you a business license if you don't FESS UP to having been involved in slavery.
This is where they are going with it.
http://www2.bankone.com/presents/home/
dorothy tillman is behind this issue
FYI
Posted by: chardonnay on February 11, 2005 08:51 AM1) The 'I am being deprived of a place to go' argument is specious - there is an identical place right there.
2) The employee argument is specious - it's a lounge. You don't need anyone but the owner.
There is no exception for this type of place - which has none of the 'drawbacks'.
A second point is about 'Freedom of Assembly'. It has been ruled to be free speech to stand in the street and fling poo. So don't give the the speech about how noxious smoking is - flinging poo is MORE SO.
The way the current legislation seems to read, you couldn't have a cigar at a cigar tasting conference. Or any other nominally _private_ function.
I personally think it is disgusting, but I'm vehemently against this nanny-statism. At the very least a small number of businesses should be allowed to be 'smokers only' - along the lines of private clubs (not allowed with the current bills).
Yet another point is the sheer insanity of this '20%' commercial. There's less than 20% of the state that plays ice hockey. Ice hockey is proven to be (more) hazardous. Why is that 20% forcing 'the majority' to allow their hazardous behavior?
This isn't 'a little regulation of smoking' to enforce air quality, it is a total ban. If you want to mandate air quality - then there's something to work with. Make the 'no smoking' areas insanely low concentrations - this can be engineered in where someone feels strongly. Or not if the restaurant decides to go smoke free. Sigh.
Posted by: Al on February 11, 2005 10:11 AMSee, it's true. Sleep deprivation really CAN affect how articulately a person expresses himself.
Just for clarification:
Smoked for 20 years. Quit.
Did not try any of the other stuff.
Your honor, I move to strike that last post.
I'm going back to bed...
Posted by: ERNurse on February 11, 2005 10:18 AMAnd those 20% ads are lies, because they state as if a fact that "2nd hand smoke causes cancer" and deaths.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega on February 11, 2005 11:21 AMBack to the smoking issue, I haven't smoked a cigarette in years, and now only smoke an occasional cigar on my home's deck. I wonder how long it will take the nanny staters in both parties to have my deck declared a "public place." I am sure that when the government gets around to giving this scrutiny to my deck, they will still not be paying much attention to enforcing our immigration laws.
Posted by: Boonie on February 11, 2005 11:54 AM