Backers of I-901, for a public indoor smoking ban in Washington state, are off to a strong start raising funds for signature gatherers, and for the public vote that's increasingly likely this fall. They've raised $150,000 so far, and even conservative ballot initiative organizer and ban opponent Tim Eyman is impressed. He concedes if there's a vote, the ban will be a "slam dunk."
We've seen that feelings run very strong on the subject; both here, and here.
But more than a few conservatives and Republicans support the measure and heartily rebut the "personal freedom" and Chicken Little-ish "economic ruin" arguments put forth by ban opponents.
Though a few non-smokers oppose the ban, only 20 percent of Washingtonians smoke, according to the AP story.
Eyman's right: this one IS a slam-dunk if it makes the ballot. And if the campaign can afford to have designer water delivered to their offices, they can afford enough signature gatherers to get it in front of voters.
A few years after it passes, even opponents will stop and ask themselves what all the fuss was about.
Instead of fulminating about perceived overreach they're powerless to stop, conservatives should rededicate themselves to winnable battles, including important initiatives which may land on the ballot later this year. Such as measures for performance audits, and for a new county covering suburban King County. And, ah, how about an election reform initiative, requiring proof of citizenship to register and vote, plus a purging of voter rolls and a mandatory re-registration process?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 08, 2005 10:32 AM | Email ThisNow if we can just get a new Governor's race on the ballot in November to go with it, my life will be complete. Wouldn't that be a great Christmas present this year, a smoke-free environment and Dino in the mansion?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108832/
http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esc07a.htm
Posted by: Steven on March 8, 2005 10:35 AMSome of the lefty pundits in this area are even taking positions on the 'private club' exception. You know, the situation whereby a private club can have members and allow smoking as an entity not specifically open to the public.
The lefty ruse will be to prevent these private clubs from being inspected in order to allow food/liquor licensing on the grounds that the inspectors will have to endure *horrors* an environment that allows smoking. Hence, no licenses will be issued. How crafty of them.
As to county realignment, I'm all in favor of a City and County of Seattle with the remainder being a separate administrative entity.
Posted by: chunkstyle on March 8, 2005 10:45 AMLet me say from the onset that I am not a smoker. I will even go so far as to say that smoking killed my father and stepfather, as well as probably aiding in my mother's death. In fact, I hate it... almost as much as I hate "save-us-from-ourselves" legislation. As a result, my kids don’t smoke and I won’t have it in my home.
And guess what? I made that decision ON MY OWN, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE!
All of which begs the question: does government have the right to assume a parental role in this matter to force a particular form of conduct? I don't believe they do.
The editorial tells us: "The correct path should be obvious. Of course Washington should ban smoking indoors in public. It's a matter of public health, which the state is charged with protecting. That obligation far outweighs any "smokers' rights" argument. Besides, smokers in those seven states are free to puff away to their hearts' content (detriment, actually), just not indoors in public. "
What's obvious in this increasingly litigious society is that we Americans engage in a great many "unhealthy" activities. Would the Columbian have Government outlaw all of them?
Drinking kills tens of thousands of Americans every year... costing us billions of dollars, with a ripple-effect (pardon the pun) of higher insurance and medical costs across the board.
You see, for me, if the Columbian's "logic" is to apply to the matter of smoking, then it must apply to every "public health" issue. So, when can we expect editorials of outrage demanding that the Propstra Family close down the Burgerville chain? How about an end to playing football? (I played, in one form or another, for something on the order of 20 years. Broke every one of my fingers at least once, my left wrist twice, tore cartilage in my knees, broke my nose, severely sprained both ankles countless times, dislocated a shoulder, broke ribs, and sprained my neck... among other, forgotten injuries. If that doesn't make football a "public health" issue, I can't imagine what does.) What about the end of driving cars... an act responsible for the deaths and maimings of tens of thousands along with billions of dollars of property damage every year? Oh, wait a minute... I forgot. The social engineers at the Columbian HAVE demanded we get out of our cars and get on light rail. Sorry.... my bad.
Government has no business banning smoking in any non-governmental setting. I practice my view with an eye towards economics, by going to private venues that either do not allow smoking or have separate areas for non-smokers.
But that is a VOLUNTARY decision, driven by economics on the part of the business-owners in question... and it is sheer, utter hypocrisy to ban one form of unhealthy conduct without banning them all… not just those forms of conduct that happen to be under the cloud of the moment.
So, for the anonymous editorial writers and those who agree with you… if you don’t like a private environment where smoking takes place… here’s a clue: Don’t go.
That’s right. You don’t like a smoker’s environment? Then stay away. No one FORCES you to go to such a place. No one forces anyone to work in such a place… just like no one forces the obese to eat triple cheeseburgers or for you to sip your martinis, turning your livers into a lump of coal.
In short, stay out of our lives. There are many, many more important issues for you to solve then acting like you’re our nanny.
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 8, 2005 10:59 AMIf you truly want change use our monetary power. The FREE market WILL change to meet the demand of smoke free environments.
Jon - Yes, Florida is one of the states I no longer visit. AND I don't smoke.
Posted by: Suiattle John on March 8, 2005 11:00 AMWhere smokers do not have rights are
- right to smoke near me when I'm standing in a public transportation terminal, coming out of a building, or anywhere else where I have no choice but to breathe their smoke.
- right to throw their cigarettes out of cars causing multiple fires that cost the public millions of dollars to fight and sometimes substantial loss of property and life. The law against this should be enforced and toughened with extremely high fines.
I'm as conservative as they come, but I get crazy when smokers trample on my rights.
Posted by: Gary Love on March 8, 2005 11:03 AMI wonder whether super ventilating fans and filters would work to reduce the health hazards for the bar workers.
I do have to say though, I enjoyed the smoke free bars in Cali.
At the same time, I won't sign this initiative, and I won't vote either way on it. The last signature gatherer I talked to said that he has run across a lot of nonsmokers with a similar attitude--but that lots of smokers are happy to sign on. Funny world, eh?
Posted by: Timothy on March 8, 2005 11:06 AMI am not flaming anyone though. I have always put out a cigarette when asked, except for one time years ago in the Las Vegas Airport, when a very haughty woman came into the smoking section sat down right beside me, even though all the benches around me were empty, and rudely asked me to put that thing out and why couldn't I find somewhere else to smoke. I said no, this is the smoking section and pointed to the 3 foot tall sign less than foot and half away from us!
She moved, but she was quite pained to do it and she continued with her evil looks and attitude until I left the smoking section.
Posted by: sgmmac on March 8, 2005 11:07 AM
Your pathetic evergreen state has become a benign version of Haiti. Voters by the millions have been disinfranchised, the election system has been horribly corrupted and public officials responsible for these travesties continue in office.
Yet, there you are with your panties in a twist because in some small bar one hundred miles from your home full grown adults may be voluntarily using a perfectly legal (and government-subsidized) product on the private property of the bar's owner.
Well, bucko, here's hoping you remain free of sin your entire life, and failing that, that you are at least spared the gimlet-eyed, hectoring busy body who insists under penalty of law that you live your life in accord with his dictates.
Posted by: Stu on March 8, 2005 11:22 AM
There's just not a lot of positive things you an say about cigarette smoke.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 8, 2005 11:28 AMI have a local restaurant/lounge that I prefer above all others, however it used to also be frequented by this horse face that insisted upon carrying on her conversations with others in her party at amplitude that could be heard from the street.
Her mere presence ensured that the noise level in the rest of the room would soon become insufferable, instead of enjoying a relaxing dinner and quiet conversation one had to shout just to be heard, the background noise was reminiscent of a Chucky Cheese.
A few years back this establishment was bought out by the Anthony’s chain of restaurants and smoking was no longer allowed in the dining room. Although I thought that this move was unnecessary I noticed that it had the unintended consequence of eliminating the presence of this individual and an air of decorum once again ruled.
After the no smoking in the dining room rule went into effect if Horse Face was to enjoy a cigarette while ‘entertaining’ every one in the room with her witticisms she would have to do so in the bar.
I do think the financial impact is a complete red-herring.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 8, 2005 11:53 AMLikewise, if the market determines that a non-smoking tavern would be profitable, then the market will make the decision for us.
We need less government intrusion in our lives not a big brother state that knows what's best.
Also I can't help but believe that this is another way to cut funding to conservative causes since tobacco companies overwhelmingly support Republicans.
Posted by: Ken on March 8, 2005 12:02 PMYou are judging this based on whether smoking harms people or by how much you hate smoke or smoking. But that's not the issue.
The issue is: Should government/society limit the property owners right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their own property? If a business owner chooses to allow smoking on the premises, the only people affected are those who choose to be there. How does that violate a non-smokers rights? Employees have choices too.. I'm allergic to perfumes.. so I would never choose to work at store selling perfumes there are other choices.
If the public wants and will support non-smoking establishments, supply and demand will provide them - that's why we have so many smoke free restaurants now.
This is about property rights and whether you smoke or not it is in your interest to protect the rights of all property owners to engage in a legal activity that can only affect those that choose to be there.
Posted by: VR on March 8, 2005 12:15 PMI realize that my next statement will make people upset, because it's convenient to ignore facts, but the truth is that there is still no credible link between second hand smoke and lung cancer.
To the people supporting this ban, and the proposed ban on cell phones while driving, and numerous other things, why do you people insist on making these things LAWS?? Things can be good ideas, and be encouraged, but it truly is overstepping to make a lot of these issues into punishable offenses. (to quote you libs - what happened to "choice"?)
Sensible, responsible gun owners have been fighting garbage like this for many years now. And now that WA has total democrat control, there are a LOT of "gun control" bills being written, and I hope to God that none of them pass. The two worst ones have conveniently not been given bill numbers (so people can't look them up), but they both include a provision for allowing those who currently possess such firearms (so-called "assault weapons", and .50 cal rifles) to keep them – but ONLY after registering it with local police, undergoing yet another background check, and the best part: Law enforcement agencies are allowed to conduct an annual inspection of your home to ensure you are “safely and securely” storing the so-called "assault weapon" or .50 cal rifle "properly" (no definition is given).
Anyway, there is a bright side. I think the dems are trying to push through all this hooey all at once because they believe their time is short. Olympia won't be dem-controlled for very much longer.
Posted by: Scott on March 8, 2005 12:18 PMRestrictions on how business owners run their businesses are also common place, with standards for cleanliness and safety, and even what employees have to be paid.
So a smoking ban sets no new precedent in either area of law. Besides, I think an initiative is absolutely the best way to go about this. Because if passed, it will be a true measure of the will of the people, not some government imposed restriction by the legislature.
Posted by: Jason on March 8, 2005 01:00 PMAgain, market forces would solve the issue, and I thank you for providing the example. Even you must have noticed that an increasing number of establishments are smoke-free. And what do you think drove that decision?
Clearly, based on the comments contained within these responses... Matt is once again wrong. It isn't nearly the "slam dunk" you make it out to be... and if this thing hits the ballot, the fur's gonna fly, and the "pro" side will get buried by the money on the anti-side.
No market-force conservative could support this. A leftist "Republican" from King County, OTOH... well... that's a different matter.
Ever here of the concept of a wrap around scale? It's used in the context of the statement that the difference between genius and lunacy is a very short distance. As on a clock face, the different between 11:59pm and 12:01am is a very short distance.
Individual freedom is on a wrap-around scale as well. At once extreme we have a police state like North Korea, at the other end of the scale you have anarchy and chaos, like in parts of Africa. Individual freedom is great, in moderation. It can't be the primary concern of the state, because absolute individual freedom is anarchy. Thats why we have laws, to restrict individual freedom to that point that we can all still pretty much do what we want, as long as we aren't adversely affecting others.
In my opinion, second hand smoke does adversely affect others. I know it adversely affects me, from the runny eyes, scratchy throat, and smell clothes. So I am all for this restriction of Individual Freedom. Because I see it as my opportunity to be free from the adverse affects of someone eles's choice.
Posted by: Jason on March 8, 2005 01:47 PMSaying that it is truely the will of the people doesn't matter. If the will of the people wanted a certain group to sit at the back of the bus it would not matter. This is an issue of property rights and who can take them. King County voted for CAO - is everyone for that as it is the will of the people?
Consistency is required. I hope to keep to that, but nobody is perfect... :)
Posted by: Jonathan on March 8, 2005 02:03 PMWhat we have here is a behavior that has been legal for a long time, made legal during a time of ignorance of health and cancer, and now it’s time to correct this mistake.
I hate to think of the USA as a place too traditionalist to accept that sometimes changes based on newly gained science & knowledge has to happen in order to make the free world a freer place to breathe in.
True. The initiative is has bi-partison support. Some of the strongest avocates are republicans.
Basically, having either asbetos dust or carcinogen laden smoke in an enclosed space isn't a good idea and causes cancer.
One should have the personal liberty to eat at McDonalds, drink heavily or smoke.
However, there is no liberty to drinking while operating a motor vehicle or exposing others to carcinogens and placing them in danger of having cancer.
If the issue gets on the ballot, I suspect it will pass by 65 to 70 percent.
As far as the economic impact, approximaely 30 percent of the US now bans second hand smoke indoors. All studies show either a positive or neutral effect on business.
There is still the challenge to get the measure on the ballot.
Those interested in helping collect signatures can contact the campaign at:
Healthy Indoor Air for All Washington
6560 Latona Avenue NE, Suite A
Seattle, WA 98105
206-522-2233
info@healthyindoorairwa.org
Healthy Indoor Air
"Perhaps market forces would solve the issue, but the fact is that they don't have a chance to, since the laws restrict this issue. And I don't hear anyone crying out about these laws, either."
Those laws don't institute a restriction on property rights, either... which is why no one complains.
No one has the "right" to provide bad food. That is a condition for selling food, explicit in the licensing requirements of this state.
But everyone has the "right" to smoke. And, as I pointed out, unless ALL "unhealthy behavior" is to be banned, because ALL "unhealthy behavoir" flunks the same tests applied to smoking, then singling out smoking and smokers due to their conduct is inherently unfair.
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 8, 2005 02:44 PMIf the statistics are accurate, and only 20% of Washingtonians are smokers, then isn't it they who are forcing their way of life on everybody else by subjecting us to their second hand smoke?
Also, as I said, I'm glad this is an initiative, because it is the voice of the people who will tell the government how we want this behavior regulated, not the government imposing it upon us.
Posted by: Jason on March 8, 2005 02:44 PMThe qurestion is: how many of them will vote? Does 20% mean of all adults? Or are we counting all children in that as well.... children who can't vote? And what was the source for that number, again?
Posted by: Who.... me? on March 8, 2005 02:48 PMThat's one way I have thought of the issue. Does one have the right to sell e coli filled hamburgers or just serve undercooked hamburgers which pose a health risk?
The answer is no. Every health department in every county would shut the operation down as it poses a public health risk.
(however, I suppose one could eat raw hamburger at home. No public health hazard there.)
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 02:49 PMAgain, the driving is on public street. The public, within reason, can permit what the public wants on public property. This law extends into private property which, like CAO, is wrong.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 8, 2005 02:52 PMHogwash. Getting enough signatures to have this on the ballot is one easy task. After it finds it's way to the ballot special interest will take over on the campaign, fanatics will come out of the woodwork to vote for it, and the 20% of the people who this affects will have no voice. That is not representative democracy and it is fundementally what is wrong with these types of initiatives.
Again, if 80% wanted a certain group to ride at the back of the bus does not mean that it is right.
Posted by: Jonathan on March 8, 2005 02:57 PMThat's usually what one sees at a bowling alley. A few people filling up the place with cancer causing smoke while the rest of the people are forced to beathe it.
If you don't like it leave...
I suppose one could argue that one has a right to operate a business without fire escapes, improper wiring, asbestos dusk everywhere and with typhoid Mary in the kitchen who never washes her hands.
However, I think most people believe that there should be some minimal standard of safety when dining at a restaurant so as not to die from eating or working there.
The 20% of the people whom this affects do have a voice, fortunately for the rest of us, 20% isn't enough to force the other 80% to bend to their will.
Jonathan,
You are correct as far as riding buses go, good thing that's not what we are talking about here. And just because 20% of the population wants to breathe noxious smoke ladden air doesn't meant that it is right for the rest of us to have to put up with it.
Posted by: Jason on March 8, 2005 03:39 PMMaybe Jack in the box could have had the same position.
If you don't like e coli hamburgers, then let the market decide and don't eat here.
How about a business who fails to clean up asbestos dust after a remodel.
I didn't force you to come in here. If you don't like it leave.
Unless you don't believe there should be any health and safety regulations of any kind in restaurants, a law banning cancer causing smoke is a pretty reasonable expectation of all businesses.
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 04:04 PMIf anyone can't tell already, I'm adamantly against this legislation and I've been a lifetime non-smoker!
Posted by: ferrous on March 8, 2005 04:32 PMYour argument that in a short while everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about is just plain wrong.
What you’re hearing in the mainstream press is that everything is rosy where they have banned indoor smoking is wrong. Seems that the groups and governments that got the ban in place will show wonderful sales increases. If you look at the raw data (which I have) you will see how it has been manipulated to fulfill their agenda. (Does that sound similar to another event that Sound Politics is reporting on?)
I know that the Grand Central Steak House in Sumner closed due to the illegal smoking ban we had last year. They were so close to the King County line that their customers just left and never came back. Many others were on the brink when it ended. What the tribal gaming establishments didn’t kill in charitable bingo was pretty much killed off by the ban here in Pierce County. So much for the funds that groups used to receive to help the less fortunate. Many private organizations have lost chapters on the East Coast due to bans. Elks, Eagles, VFW, AMVETS and whole host of other groups have been forced to close their club’s doors when a smoking ban was put into place. Seems like old soldiers (who, BTW…fought for freedom) won’t go to their clubs when they are told they can’t have a smoke with their drink.
If you look closely, compliance in Ireland continues to drop where pub owners are faced with complying with the law or going out of business. Canada faces the same problem where pubs and taverns are going out of business when their customers head for the tribal lands.
Just remember when a ban goes into place…you won’t see all the businesses go under right away…it is one here, two there and their passing won’t be noticed by many.
The only good thing I see is that with a ban…and many smokers
quitting (when also faced with a large tax increase-again!) is that the billions and billions of dollars that smokers have been paying will be shifted to the rest of the tax paying public. Seems like the free ride will be over…and won’t we hear a lot of screaming about new/increased taxes here on Sound Politics?
Every wonder why there is now such a push for smoking bans all over the country? Thank your friends at “Big Pharma.” The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (majority stockholder in Johnson & Johnson) has spent $200 million over the past few years. Is this for better public health? No. It is a marketing plan (and a very good one, I might add). As soon as a ban takes place huge amounts of advertising is placed in local media selling patches, gums and the like. So spend $200 million on “marketing” and reap billions in sales. Other “Big Pharma” companies are doing likewise…and are working to make the “obese” their next target. So if they didn’t get into your pockets on this one, they will on the next. Like the old Dupont Slogan: “Better living through chemistry.
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on March 8, 2005 04:52 PMSMOKING AND SECOND SMOKE IS BAD FOR EVERYONE
I am a reformed smoker. I quit smoking in 1982 after smoking for 20 years. I have emphysema and have the effective use of about one lung. I can walk two miles in about 34 minites. I can attest personaly and add to the discussion that smoking should be banned from all public places because of the damage smoking causes not only on the person smoking but also on the all other people in the area.
BTW - I am a conservative republican in most of my views (except for the death penality - If the jury is wrong then you can not undo death!) but letting other people influence my health with their lifestyles is wrong!
TimMan
Posted by: timman on March 8, 2005 04:57 PMNah. I wouldn't advocate banning it in cars as they are private and are not licensed for public accomodation. Same for houses.
If one wants to drive with no brakes on your own car, go for it. Though if you crash into someone you might get a ticket (or go to jail if you kill someone).
If you want to operate a Limousine service and have the vehicle run with no brakes, most people would disagree with your actions as they believe there should be a minimal standard for safety.
Yeah...but if I told everyone that the brakes were bad, it was their choice to ride in the limo right?
Yeah right.
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 05:05 PMYes. Actually, every study performed has shown that smoking bans have either a positive or neutral effect on businesses.
Millions of Americans live in states and cities where smoking is banned in restaurants, bars and other public places where employees and customers benefit from clean air.
The following states are now have completely smoke free workplaces:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
http://www.healthyindoorairwa.org/i_901_good_for_jobs_and_business
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 05:12 PMWhat do the money lenders know that you don't?
You didn't address all the clubs and organizations that have had to close? How about all the wait staff that have been layed-off and can't support their families? What about those? Are these real people or does that matter?
New York gained 10,600 jobs promptly after the ban went into effect.
All of the studies performed in multiple states show that eliminating cancer causing carcinogins is good for business not bad.
There are numerous studies which have been run well before 9/11 and after.
As Matt correctly points out, the doom and gloom predictions have been proven to be baseless.
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 05:45 PMSure I did.
I responded by stating that your question has a false assumption that employment is going to go down because of the smoking ban which is a false one.
Your assumption is an invalid one.
Smoking bans have proven to be either positive or neutral for businesses.
Now, what do you say you say to the fact that
Smoking related illness kills over 8,000 people in Washington every year, from lung disease, cancer, asthma, and heart disease.
The most heavily exposed non-smoking workers in smoking restaurants and taverns inhale the equivalent of 1 1/2 to 2 packs of cigarettes everyday and are 75% more likely to get cancer than the general public.
Waitresses are more likely to die from lung cancer or heart disease than any other female occupation group.
Bartenders are twice as likely to die of lung cancer, heart disease and other smoking-related causes as workers in other industries.
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 06:03 PMI'm a working journalist and during the ban in Pierce County I went to many places to see how it was going. I had been to all before the ban.
(My "beat" is entertainment and those who provide it.)
Places like The Firwood in Fife was hit really bad. Same bands...same everything else. Business got so bad they layed off their entire wait staff. Had to go to the bar to get a drink.
Great American Ca**no (was known then as the Grand Central) lost $86,000.00 in the first month alone. This info was also reported to the state gaming commission. Same for the other ca**no in Lakewood.
That's why the Lakewood City Council adoped the State Indoor Clean Air Act as local law to get around the Pierce County Ban... as one city councilman said...we may not like those establishements, but they pay taxes and they are hurting. Fife, Sumner also gave breaks on their gaming taxes to help these businesses.
These are all facts and you can verify them all if you wish...I've been "on the ground" when a smoking ban hits and it DOES hurt!
Just an FYI...the Emerald Queen (Puyallup Tribe) is always busy, but during that time you couldn't find a parking place, table at the club..and the place was wall-to-wall each weekend.
I can't wait for that initiative to hit the ballot. makes me (almost, but I won't!) want to do a "King County" and vote twice, vote dead, vote early, vote often, etc. to get that thing passed. I can smell the cleaner air at my favorite restaurant already.
If the legislature had any guts at all, they would have passed a better version of it already. But as with anything important, they punt it away to the people to do their work for them (gee, sound a little like King County!)
Posted by: Michele on March 8, 2005 07:40 PMYour anti-smoking obsession will be the number one cause of loss of support for this blog and all it is supposed to represent.
Your stance on the subject of smoking - runs completely contrary to conservative and independent principals. It is the liberals who constantly wish to curb the rights of citizens - usually for their own profit. (If the people want it - make them pay for it! )
Conservatives tend to believe in personal responsibility and Independents tend to live by the constitution and personal freedoms....Both do their homework with respect to the junk science surrounding the anti-tobacco campaign and the agenda of the United Nations...(who, by the way, is behind the anti-smoking campaign...)
So..Keep posting your anti-smoking threads - in the middle of an election contest update...and the Rossi camp may as well pack it up! If you add to this - a favorable thread about Ron Sims CAO and how we should all give our land up freely...for the (cough) good of the people -Goldy will have a spot open for you tomorrow in his blog!
Posted by: Deborah on March 8, 2005 07:57 PMhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050205-101558-5835r.htm
The Stepford employees
By Bob Barr
Yeah.
At the time, I am sure everyone was predicting a great economic catastrophe if California went smoke free. Same thing happened with the other 6 states which are smoke free as well as the other 1800 municipalities.
Think of it, injecting carcinogenic smoke in enclosed spaces is good for business? The truth of the matter is that its good for lung cancer.
Your anti-smoking obsession will be the number one cause of loss of support for this blog and all it is supposed to represent.
I beg to differ.
I believe Matt set a record with his last post concerning smoke free workplaces. There were over 200 comments. I believe the number was around 230.
Some of the strongest support of smoke free work places comes from staunch republicans and some noteable republicans in the Legislature who have sponsored many of the smoke free bills.
The interest to breath clean air is bi-partison.
The opposition (smokers) are bi-partison as well.
quit smoking in 1982 after smoking for 20 years. I have emphysema and have the effective use of about one lung. I can walk two miles in about 34 minites. I can attest personally and add to the discussion that smoking should be banned from all public places because of the damage smoking causes not only on the person smoking but also on the all other people in the area.
You said it Timman. These young jokers are still believing themselves invincible.
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 08:57 PMOk. I won't argue with your definitions.
However, a 65 to 70 percent majority of both parties: republicans and democrats will support the initiative in November.
Posted by: Erik on March 8, 2005 09:40 PMA smoking ban is contrary to the civic ethic we should be promoting in this state and this nation which is a strong and healthy regard for the personal interactions and decisions of individuals acting in private concert, i.e., let people alone to decide where they eat, smoke, work and how they run a business. A smoking ban is not just wrong, it is unethical in any reasonable code of civic ethics. Furthermore it represents the worst form of condescending statism that folks like Kerry are the expemplar of. Just say NO to anti-smoking statism.
Posted by: barchester on March 9, 2005 07:43 AMThanks Erik, like Patty Murray, you solve all of our problems for us. You get an A because you showed up.
Posted by: Inquisitor on March 9, 2005 08:55 AMLet's see. "Big money" (the American Cancer Society and American Lung Associations, supported by voluntary donations) is getting "the government" (by citizen's initiative) to enact this ban.
They are opposed by the poor, struggling businesses (Altria aka Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, etc...) in their altruistic attempts to maintain freedom, protect democracy and fight for truth, justice and the American way.
Obviously outgunned, these poor, struggling businesses (current worth $154,407,499,980 - Dow Jones US Tobacco Index) are obviously fighting for their lives.
Brent wrote:
"I really can't believe so many so-called Republicans are in favor of government involvement of a private business."
Let me try to spell this out. Citizen initiative. The government will get stuck enforcing the ban, but it is not enacting it. We are. The citizens. Remember us? The people supposedly in charge?
Dave wrote:
"In Washington State "staunch and notable Republican" is code for cheap immitation democrat. Real conservatives will use this issue as a litmus test."
Ah, if only it were so... Fortunately(?) most conservatives are smart enough to avoid the "litmus test" trap. ;-)
(Side note - how many people talking about a "litmus test" have ever actually used litmus paper?)
Posted by: John Barelli on March 9, 2005 09:26 AMTo smokers I say- ABOUT TIME! You have injured enough people with your addiction. Get help and quit smoking.
Posted by: DIVA on March 9, 2005 11:02 AMThe health care savings argument was debunked long ago. Whether you like it or not the government save considerably more in social security expenditures defrayed from premature deaths than expenses related to heatlh care financed by the government. That is why the activists are leary to make this claim in public anymore.
To John Barelli:
Your observations regarding the financing of this effort are in error. This effort is financed primarily through billions passed through the tobacco companies to a tobacco settlement trust fund that funnels the funds used by the anti-smoking advocacy groups to push these initiatives and pay for the blatently political PSAs (like the one making the 20 percent argument) on the radio. The idea that voluntary contributions paid for this effort sounds noble but it is untrue. As is the fiction that scores of citizens are pushing for this effort (they aren't, most to the extent of almost all who show up at legislative hearings, etc. on this issue are grant recipients of which there are now many because of the settlement trust fund). The real outrage here is the grant baby-political activist industry that was spawned by the tobacco lawsuit which was nothing more than a phony tax. And the fact that so many on this site are unconsious of the manipulation going on behind the scenes by the phony "nobles", i.e., the anti-smoking grant industry.
Posted by: barchester on March 9, 2005 01:44 PM"Whether you like it or not the government save considerably more in social security expenditures defrayed from premature deaths than expenses related to heatlh care financed by the government"
Wow, that sounds exactly like the argument Big Tobacco was giving foreign governments as the excuse to allow smoking. Funny thing though, I thought the nicotine addicts were claiming that smoking didn't harm you. Oh and they now want us to beleive that if the filtered end of the cancer stick from which they inhale causes "premature death" (according to Barchester), that the UNFILTERED end has absolutely no adverse health consequences. Got a bridge to sell us too?
As for who is funding whom, it is well known that the National Restaurant Association (the OTHER NRA) along with many other front groups, receives bribe money directly from Phillip Morris. Here is a letter from Phillip Morris detailing their $250,000 bribe to NRA.
http://www.no-smoke.org/images/optionsletter.gif
The nicotine addicts out there will have to shake the monkey off their back. No longer will they be allowed to endanger the health of non-smokers.
Where is that initiative? Where do I sign?
Posted by: DIVA on March 9, 2005 04:06 PM
It's the bar and club owners who will get hammered. If you see my prev posts...saw it with my own eyes in Pierce County. That's who will really loose...it has happened all over the country...which has been hidden by the "nannys" and the MSM. Isn't it nice to know you have been had? Frank Zappa was right...we have you until the rights to you are sold.
Posted by: Bruce Kaye on March 9, 2005 04:37 PMYou apparently think $250,000 (voluntarily given to the Restaurant Ass.) and approximately $ billion (to the Anti-tobaccco grant babies as a result of the tobacco deal --fake tax) are somehow equivalents. . . that's a little strange. Secondly, whether the argument about premature death might sound hypocritical coming from a tobacco company it is, nonetheless, true and I'm not a tobacco company, just a citizen who pointed out the errors and mischaracterizations you and others have made that you haven't refuted. As I pointed out before, the initiative is not a real grassroots movement but is instead driven by well paid grant recipients feeding of the tobacco settlement. . . it is, without doubt, the biggest fake grassroots movement in history . . . which should bother those who don't care for government programs whose main purpose is manipulation (not to mention political activism). The initiative is sponsored by Big Grant baby, who gets multiples more, under the phony duress of the tobacco settlement, than does the Restaurant Association. And cigarettes are not costing taxpayers $$ when you balance out the numbers.
At the end of the day it is you who are choosing to abuse the freedoms of others, not me and that is an ethical lapse, not a matter of spin. Shame on you.
Posted by: barchester on March 9, 2005 05:01 PMTo make my point Diva included in her unexplained rant against the Restaurant Association (apparently membership dues are bribes in her mind) a web site hosted by one of the Tobacco Settlement Grant Babies. That's rich with irony. . . Of course those folks at No-Smoke don't have the decency to explain that THEY are receiving their money through a government blackmail operation whereas the Restaurant Association is getting theirs voluntarily. Speaking of hypocrits. . .
Posted by: barchester on March 9, 2005 05:07 PMIt is so, and IMO I'd replace "smart enough" with "foolish enough"
Posted by: dave on March 9, 2005 06:38 PM