DC closer to Smokefree by 2007

[MeridianFC]

Just got this in the inbox:

NEWS FLASH: Smokefree Bill Passes Committee, Heads to Full Council !!* * *



Your hard work is paying off! Today, the Committee on Health by a 3-0 vote passed a smokefree workplace bill that would make all public indoor spaces – including bars and restaurants – smokefree as of Jan. 1, 2007. Establishments without bars will be smokefree sooner than that. While this delays DC from achieving 100% smokefree status until 2007, it will enact a STRONG comprehensive smokefree law with very minor exemptions. These include hotel rooms and cigar bars (narrowly tailored). You can read the bill on the smokefreedc.org website at http://www.smokefreedc.org/materials/draft-bill-20051025.pdf .



Overall, Smokefree DC favors the bill, although we have identified some small provisions with which we have concerns. We look forward to working with the Council in the coming months to ensure that potential loopholes don’t become huge holes. But the bottom line is that this is a comprehensive bill and will eventually give us a strong law, like New York's and Boston's.



Councilmember David Catania, who drafted this measure and who chairs the health committee, is to be commended for producing a bill that ultimately makes the District pretty much 100 percent smokefree. We know that he has wrestled with this and devoted a lot of time to it, and we greatly appreciate his moving this measure. Thank you, David!! You can send him your personal thanks by going to http://www.smokefree.net/dc-announce/.



The next step is for the bill to head to the Council for two votes. We will keep you apprised of when those votes will be. Since we have 10 Councilmembers who support comprehensive smokefree workplace legislation that includes bars and restaurants, we are quite optimistic that legislation will pass in the next few months.



As always, thank you for your support, and a huge thank you to all those who have volunteered to help in this effort -- we couldn’t have made it this far without you. We’re not there yet, but we’re tantalizingly close. Stay tuned.





Angela Bradbery and Tac Tacelosky

Co-founders, Smokefree DC

202-669-6517 and 202-271-9320

[HarkJohnny]

i can't wait for the whole US to be smoke free in restaurants

[P-Train]

Originally posted by HarkJohnny
i can't wait for the whole US to be smoke free in restaurants

Couldn't agree more!

[chazwicke]

I was in DC today at RFD. There were some folks smoking at the bar and it was annoying and stunk. I'm a non smoker but am not in favor of bans. But I am in favor of separate smoking rooms or sections. I know Dave Alexander, owner of RFD and Brickskeller is not supporting the ban either. He views it as a form of prohibitionist training as do I. But....... Smoking is a pretty disgusting habit.

[fretlessman71]

*SNIIIIFFFFFFFFFF*.......... aaahhhhhh..... Smell that, DC? That's the smell of PROGRESS. :)

[zoom6zoom]

Well, now they have Montgomery County, MD as a precedent... as we know, everybody thought the ban was going to be bad for business. However, it was reported this week that there has been no adverse affect since the ban went into effect.

[chazwicke]

I object to the tactics that are employed and when successfulare then learned by neo prohibitionists.

[Bilbo Beergins]

Seems like smoking bans go along with a liberal socialist agenda. Hitler outlawed smoking in the Nazi army. The mannish governor of Delaware banned it, now DC is going that way. They tried it in NJ, but cooler minds prevailed.

A laissez-faire approach in a free market economy would require that any business owner would have the right to allow, or disallow, smoking at his leisure. Basically, if a customer was repelled by smoking, they would have the free choice to not patronize that particular establishment.

I'm hyper-allergenic to nicotine and can't be around it. However, I am more hyper-allergenic to micromanagement of businesses by state, rather than people, centered legislators. Criminalizing smoking in any privately owned establishment is, at its core, anti-American, and anti-capitalistic. Time to re-read "1984".

I am also pissed-off at the typical left wing liberal politician, whose agenda is, to say the least, sinister (remember, I live in NJ, the home of this type of crap), telling cigarette smokers they are "bad". These are hard-working, God-fearing family folks, just like us non-smokers. But how many times, when a smoker leaves to smoke outside, do they say, "I know, I'm bad", a judgment put on them by a society that thinks its okay for 6 year olds to dress like sluts, that thinks parents shouldn't be informed of abortion procedures on underage children, that pushes "Tommy has 2 mommies" down our throats, that makes incentives in the way of welfare to continue the breakdown of the nuclear family, and that has raised taxes to the point where we are no longer a capitalist but, rather, a socialist, economy?

Want to put a cramp in a brew pub's business? Ban smoking. And, remember, its tobacco that built this country, not idiot politicians.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[fretlessman71]

I won't patronize an establishment that allows smoking simply for the health factor. Plain and simple. Don't care what built this country; if we knew then what we know now things would have gone a little differently, don'tcha think?

[Bilbo Beergins]

The implications, fretlessman, go beyond your and my comfort. You hit the nail on the head. If you don't like smoke in an establishment, you won't patronize it. Capitalism at its finest. But what Meridian is pushing in DC is, if you don't like smoke in an establishment, make it illegal. What next, your right to home brew? How about your right to protect yourself? Oh, yeah, they already took that away.

[fretlessman71]

You know, I just erased a huge dissertation on my opinion on the cigarette smoking ban. Normally I would have posted it, but it's getting too close to my feelings on politics, and if I won't let JohnBarleycorn wax poetic about liberals vs. conservatives, I can't allow myself to get into a political argument on the pros and cons of smoking bans. So I'm staying out of this one - and the conversation has been reasonably civil; let's do our best to keep it that way, please... it's the best way for all of us to find common ground and get to the truth.

Which is what we're after, right? :)

[Bilbo Beergins]

You're right, fretlessman. My apologies for going over the top. If I had been born 20 years later they would have labeled my ADHD. Now I owe you a beer.:cool:

I'm not kidding about the beer, either. My wife and I bought a home just outside of Alamosa and were planning on moving there this last summer until and RN program came up I just had to enroll in. We'll be in your neck of the woods hopefully by next year. Didn't notice any brew pubs while I was in Alamosa this spring, but it seems one bar might be ordering in from the eastern slope...

[MeridianFC]

My problem with smoking stems solely from the fact that it is an invasive habit. If you want to smoke, knock yourself out. That said, in a public place you can't keep your smoking to yourself. An extreme case of your rights end where my nose begins. Smoking is so ingrained in much of society that its encroachment on personal space gets completely overlooked. I have a hard to imagining any type of anti social public behvior that would be as tolerated. If I was using foul language, creating a disturbance, reaching over and knocknig over someone's pint I'd probaby (rightly) get lamped for it. Shown the door at the least. But smoking is ok because folks have always done it?

If there was some way that they could truly minimize or eliminate the impact of smoking on patrons who choose not to imbibe I'd be all for letting people continue to puff away in enclosed public spaces.

It's a complicated issue to be sure as it does have the taint of prohibition. The crux though is the "enclosed public space" element. You can still do what you want outside or in your own home. I've no beef with that.

I apoligize for the liberalness of this post but I took a short break from killing babies and giving money to Al Qaeda. ;)

[fretlessman71]

Okay, break's over. Get back to work! :D

[Bilbo Beergins]

I really want to get the last word on this issue.

[onthesly]

Okay then.

[imperial]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I never looked at the issue of banning smoking from a liberal vs. conservative point of view...I always thought is was just a smoker vs. non-smoker issue.

To summarize what I learned in this thread, conservitives are:

* pro killing yourself and others with smoke
* pro killing others with guns
* against killing babies
* against girls dressing like Britney Spears
* homophobic

and liberals stand for the opposite of all those things.

Good stuff!

[fretlessman71]

Easy, Imperial - it could also be said that liberals are against letting anyone make a decision for themselves, but that would be oversimplifying things. The basic dividing line is that conservatives seem to want less gov't intrusion and liberals would like more gov't aid. How this translates into a liberal/conservative issue is beyond me, but it seemed to work that way in Denver last year when they couldn't get a bill through to ban smoking in Denver restaurants. I guess conservatives don't like the idea of a business owner being told how to run his business whereas the liberals would rather put safety first in everything. I ride the fence here; I can see both arguments, but at the end of the day I want to be able to put my bass gear back in the car after a show and not have to spray it down with Febreze. Just my opinion (Oh, yeah - MrsFret's allergic to smoke, so that's 2 votes here for the ban.)

PLEASE - let's keep it civil and not get snippy - this is a place we come to get along and enjoy each other's company, you know?:)

[chazwicke]

I think people who smoke are silly. They know it is bad for you. I am overweight and there are plenty of hazards to being that way. My opposition is not based on either conservative nor liberal philosphies. It is based on fear. Whenever a tactic is successfully used to ban or stop something, other groups with different agendas, watch and learn from those tactics. I know neo prohibitionists are watching these smoking bans closely and will certainly employ tactics and arguments that worked for the ban smoking crowd when they try to ban alcohol.

[fretlessman71]

But the one argument they won't be able to use - and this is the main sticking point - is that smoking directly, adversely, and instantly affects everyone in the vicinity.

[chazwicke]

Oh but they did use that one last time. The portayed alcohol as the evil undo-er of families. And creating a scourge that effects everyone the drinker came in contact with. At least most establishments have smoking and non smoking rooms / sections.

[fretlessman71]

Well, that does it for me! I'm quitting drinking right now. :rolleyes:

But I'll probably start again later on...

Does the Bible Belt run through Virginia? We don't get any of that sort of political activism here. We're more worrled about the social effects of attending the Columbus Day Parade!

[chazwicke]

No bible belt in Northern VA. Maybe some of the very southern parts of the state.

I am a successionist though. I think Northern Virginia needs to succeed from the rest of the state. Everything from Fredericksburg north of Route 17. We not only would be the wealthiest state in the nation but also our money would stay in NOVA and we could fix our roads. I'd call it New Dominion.

[chazwicke]

:( OOPs, Hope that is not too political.

[Bilbo Beergins]

Chaz has a good point, and it's something I've always said about prohibition. Processed foods have killed more people in this country than booze and cigarettes put together, with social and medical costs through the roof, so the "harm" argument really doesn't fly, comparitively. When are they going to tell a pub owner what kind of food to serve? And guess whose door they'll be knocking on to tell you to put down that bag of Cheetos?

The first decision made by the US Supreme Court, back when all all drugs, including nicotine, were legal, had to do with trade and tariffs. Not abortion, guns, or God (whose presence and providence was a given). Free trade. As we restrict absolute free trade in this country even by something as seemingly minor as a smoking ban, we restrict all our basic freedoms. If I am inconvenienced so that someone maintains their free trade rights, so be it.

Imperial, I'm a capitalist and constitutional textual originalist. I believe in God, guns, and the USA. And I like beer. Beer is good.

PS-A "phobia" is an UNREASONABLE fear. Reason dispels phobias.

[fretlessman71]

Does that mean Churchill was a phobophobiac? ;)

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
Chaz has a good point, and it's something I've always said about prohibition. Processed foods have killed more people in this country than booze and cigarettes put together, with social and medical costs through the roof, so the "harm" argument really doesn't fly, comparitively. When are they going to tell a pub owner what kind of food to serve? And guess whose door they'll be knocking on to tell you to put down that bag of Cheetos?
.

If a person is ingesting a bag of Cheetos it does not immediately affect those around him in any appreciable fashion.

As far as politics, I'm an American so I believe in some things and don't believe in others.

As far as beer, like isn't even the right word.

[Chuckee]

It’s about freedom and ownership.

I despise cigarette smoke with a purple passion. Having said that, in a free society, a business owner should be the one who determines what sort of business he or she wants to run. This would include whether or not to allow smoking.

Customers, as free individuals, are free to patonize a business or go somewhere else.

I say, let’s leave the cradle-to-grave, busybody, nanny-state stuff to the Euro-weenies.

[chazwicke]

Another thing, I'll comment on since it is related. I just don't get those guys who smoke stogies at a beer festival. It seems to me that smoking a cigar severely impacts the taste buds and would restrict tasting the full flavor of the beers being sampled. And several of the fests that I have been to actually have had booths selling cigars. I don't like to be near ciger smoke when I am tasting. Cigars are fine in the right environment but at a beer tasting? I don't get it.

:rolleyes:

[YamahaXS]

Madison enacted a no-smoking law for bars back in July, 2005.

It's killing some of the bars, impacting all of them, and bowling alleys are also getting hammered (remember this is wisconsin!), especially those that are near city boundaries (people just drive down the road to drink where they can smoke).

I fully support a ban on smoking in restaurants, but I am torn on the ban for bars. I personally, enjoy a smoke free bar and will avoid really smoky watering holes. I would be likely to provide business to a bar that elected to ban smoking, or had an uber-ventaliation system.

However, when it comes to bars and smoking I believe it to be a different situation than that of eating establishments. There is (IMO) a difference between eating and drinking....people don't generally take their children to bars, smoke seems less offensive when I'm drinking than when eating, drinking is often not a healthly activity (except in moderation for certain types of alcohol - according to current medical studies)....again, all in my opinion.


The issue that can't be avoided is that of worker's health. Bar workers will almost be certainly be subjected to unhealthy levels of second hand smoke and while many choose to work in such a setting, and many of these workers smoke themselves, it still seems that there is a liability for worker's health that has largely been ignored to date. I believe this was a major arguement for justifying prohibitting smoking on flights.


I think there may be a compromise somewhere that might give each side of the debate something....Why not ban smoking until 11 pm or on even number days? How about requiring separate ventelation systems (expensive, but I am sure there are some bars in Madison who have lost more money on sales than a new ventalation system would cost.

Cheers
Jeff

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Chuckee
I say, let’s leave the cradle-to-grave, busybody, nanny-state stuff to the Euro-weenies.

Unless they are a big corporation of course. Then we cut them breaks ala ExxonMobil...

Originally posted by chazwicke
No bible belt in Northern VA. Maybe some of the very southern parts of the state.

I am a successionist though. I think Northern Virginia needs to succeed from the rest of the state. Everything from Fredericksburg north of Route 17. We not only would be the wealthiest state in the nation but also our money would stay in NOVA and we could fix our roads. I'd call it New Dominion.

Would they have to change the name of the brewery then? ;)

And somehow I think the rest of Virginia would have an issue with losing the cash cow that is Northern VA even if the rest of the state despises the politics there.

[YamahaXS]

Originally posted by Chuckee
It’s about freedom and ownership.

I despise cigarette smoke with a purple passion. Having said that, in a free society, a business owner should be the one who determines what sort of business he or she wants to run. This would include whether or not to allow smoking.

Customers, as free individuals, are free to patonize a business or go somewhere else.

I say, let’s leave the cradle-to-grave, busybody, nanny-state stuff to the Euro-weenies.

However, we regulate restaurants with health codes. Wouldn't your rationale suggest that we remove health codes? I think one of the basic services of a government is to maintain a safe and healthful (at least not a unhealthy) environment for all citizens.

Smoking, aside from the aestethic effects, is pretty damn unhealthy, and as others have said, envasive to all those breathing the air around the smoker.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by chazwicke
Another thing, I'll comment on since it is related. I just don't get those guys who smoke stogies at a beer festival. It seems to me that smoking a cigar severely impacts the taste buds and would restrict tasting the full flavor of the beers being sampled. And several of the fests that I have been to actually have had booths selling cigars. I don't like to be near ciger smoke when I am tasting. Cigars are fine in the right environment but at a beer tasting? I don't get it.

I think its just that a lot of beer connoisseurs also happen to be tobacco (cigar usually) connoisseurs. And a few drinks loosens them up and increases the craving for a good stogie for them. My gf is very much like this and drinking some good beer will make her crave a good cigar. :shrug: Ill smoke a little pipe maybe once a month or so but thats enough for me and thats almost always at home in front of the fire place alone.

[Bilbo Beergins]

"Does that mean Churchill was phobophobiac?"

And ginophilic as well.

And it was not originally government's duty to regulate, but rather to assist, business. That regulation crap came much later. Agencies and their regulations are bullshwanky, and, outside of BOCA codes for building, "public health and safety" is often an excuse to collect another fee or to promote the political flavor of the month. Those who have been sole proprietors will agree. Watch out for the revenooers!

Again, I say laissez-faire is self curing. Let it alone, gummint man.

[MeridianFC]

It's all about finding the balance. Health codes as related to food (and tangentally the public service thereof) were born out of the fact that, suprising as this seems, businesses best interests are not necessarily the public's. Let business be free to make money and employe folks and keep the big wheels of commerce running, I've no problem with that. Regulation and oversight to make sure we're not all getting the shaft or getting ill, I've no problem with that either. It's not an either/or situation. Well not for me.

As far as nannystateism, again do what you want to yourself but the second it impacts those around you your rights should be curtailed.

To keep this specific to the subject at hand, which is the proposed smoking ban in DC, the overwhelming majority of licensed establishment in DC are class CRO2 which is technically a restaurant (40% pretax reciepts from food). Tavern licenses (various stripes of booze only) are rare as the dodo around town, though I have a good friend who has one. So if you were going to limit the language to restaurants, it's pretty much a de facto application to all licensed establishments in this city.

[Chuckee]

Originally posted by YamahaXS
However, we regulate restaurants with health codes. Wouldn't your rationale suggest that we remove health codes?

Nah… apples and oranges.

Smoking (first or second hand) is almost always a choice. You know your options and you can make a decision. Put up with it or leave.

Nobody in their right mind chooses to eat salmonella.

I was just in Toronto. There is bar there called Smokeless Joe’s. As the name indicates, Joe doesn’t allow smoking in his place. And, it’s one of the most popular places of its kind in Canada.... go figure.

Freedom works… even in bars.

[Bilbo Beergins]

Whenever I go to the great white north I bring a couple of cartons of Marlboros. A great ice breaker, and a guaranteed way to make a friend for life. Those folks smoke like Your-a-peein's.

[onthesly]

Wouldnt smoke go against a health code? Just wondering...

[fretlessman71]

HAH! Don't go down that road, sly... ;)

[Fritz_Hahn]

[i]To keep this specific to the subject at hand, which is the proposed smoking ban in DC, the overwhelming majority of licensed establishment in DC are class CRO2 which is technically a restaurant (40% pretax reciepts from food). Tavern licenses (various stripes of booze only) are rare as the dodo around town, though I have a good friend who has one. So if you were going to limit the language to restaurants, it's pretty much a de facto application to all licensed establishments in this city. [/B]

Actually, that USED to be the case, but it's now much easier to make the restaurant/tavern/nightclub switch. Jim Graham was a huge proponent, saying it's better to have restaurants following the law (and you pay more for a tavern license than a similarly-sized restaurant).

To use Adams Morgan as an example, the KCA (Kalorama Citizens' Association) is up in arms because there have been at least six recent restaurant-tavern switches in the last year (to my knowledge), with another four or five set to go before the ABC.

And as for the smoking ban -- none of the bar or club owners I've talked to (including almost all of the usual beer-bar suspects in D.C.) are in favor of it for business or practical reasons.

[NJ Tom]

I'll be happy the day NJ bans smoking in bars and restaurants even though I'm a smoker.

[MeridianFC]

The tough thing is I'd gladly forgo the ban if they'd just make establishments offer a reasonably sized (or any really) no smoking zone. I know it would be tough but something has got to change.

[lordkenpo]

That last comment is my feeling exactly, Meridian. I'm not siding with a ban, but I feel that without some regulation nothing will change. Not just because I am a non-smoker that happens to detest inhaling the noxious outputs of others, mind you, but moreso because of legal precedent. For those of us that don't smoke but choose to patronize bars to socialize, oftentimes we do not have a choice as to whether we want to breathe smoke or not, simply because there are no other options (see: St. Mary's County, for example). It's not like smokers are banned from taking a step outside to catch a minute's worth of nicotine and then re-joining the party, but the non-smokers that would choose to drink and socialize away from the smoke (i.e., outside) are. So, in effect, I am also siding with Bilbo's laissez faire approach - as soon as I am allowed to drink outside, and thereby impact would-be "innocent" bystanders with my habit, I'll happily allow the smokers to go about their smokey way inside.

[Bilbo Beergins]

NJ Tom, they already took away our right to drink coffee while driving if we've been up over 24 hours (like on that short shift turnaround), even though if we kill someone by falling asleep at the wheel, we'll be convicted of homicide. They've taken away our right to protect our families; we're not allowed to shoot someone who's raping our wife, and God forbid if that gun is unregistered. The rapist will get two years (if he lives) and we will get 5. And we have the highest auto insurance rates in the country, along with the highest property taxes. Yeah, let's just throw another over-bearing regulation on a business owner and bust his ass. That's why we're known as "The People's Socialist Republic of New Jersey". The ban, by the way, didn't fly in Princeton for obvious reasons.

Meridian, I'm sure they'd build that special room if YOU would pay for it. Yeah, that sounds balanced.

Totalitarianism isn't just about the big issues, it is all encompassing. When we allow the state to dictate what a private persona, i. e. a business, can or can't do in the way of a smoking ban, we take one more step to being a state-controlled people. Maybe you're comfortable sucking that teat, but it's much too infected for my freedom-loving self.

Lordkenpo, take it outside, just hide it in a bag. And save a corner for me, please.

[lordkenpo]

Meridian, I'm sure they'd build that special room if YOU would pay for it. Yeah, that sounds balanced.

But we do pay for it by patronizing the establishment. If the owner chooses to kowtow to the wishes of his smoking patrons by allowing them the silly right to smoke indoors (I mean, really - the door is 20 feet away, and EVERYONE, including the smokers, would benefit from them exerting the extra effort), he should also kindly consider the wishes of his non-smoking patronage by either providing proper ventilation or enforcing a smoke free zone. Therein lies the problem - most owners don't, choosing instead to horde earnings rather than invest in responsible, beneficial expansion, a decidedly protectionist move. While still capitalist, in the sense that capital is still generated, protectionism builds monopolies, not free-market economies. Which isn't to say that all owners of all bars turn massive profits, but those that do and greedily choose to leave well enough alone are exactly the ones that should be targeted by a ban. Establishments such as RFD that kindly offer an outdoor, tented area to smoke are quite alright in my book. Hell, under good weather conditions, I would choose to drink outside with the smokers rather than inside with the non any day.

[lordkenpo]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
Lordkenpo, take it outside

And I'm not even going to comment on the irony of this statement. Oops, guess I did.

[MeridianFC]

In spite of my willing to compromise (and yes the establishment would have to foot the bill just like they do for everything that they provide from toilets to jukeboxes), it's still the smokers who are taking action that affects, in a very serious and real fashion, all of those around them.

As I've mentioned before I can understand the prohibition phobia, but there are logical limits to everything.

Mr. Beergins, I think you've taken the argument to an illogical extreme, gun rights have nowt to do with this argument. The association is tenuous at best. I'd rather avoid a whole discussion on gun rights as I think it would not be condusive to civil discourse on this board. I think you'll notice that most folks have avoided trumpting their political beliefs.

Respectfully submitted,

K.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
The tough thing is I'd gladly forgo the ban if they'd just make establishments offer a reasonably sized (or any really) no smoking zone. I know it would be tough but something has got to change. A "No Smoking" section in a restaurant is like a "No Peeing" section in your local public swimming pool. Just so we're clear. :)

[Fritz_Hahn]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
The tough thing is I'd gladly forgo the ban if they'd just make establishments offer a reasonably sized (or any really) no smoking zone. I know it would be tough but something has got to change.

Not that I'm calling you out, bro, but have you ever gone to Dave/Brian/Kristaps/etc. and said, "You know, I'm a regular customer who's tryiing to enjoy a beer, but bothered by the smoke in your bar. I've talked to my friends and there are x number of people who agree with me. We'd really like it if you had a dedicated non-smoking area."

Or have you just groused about it, instead of putting it to the people who could really make a difference?

This is why Blues Alley became smoke-free a few years ago: customers and musicians said something to management, who actually listened and changed the policy.

[Bilbo Beergins]

Meridian, that was my point with going over the top concerning NJ regulations and laws. There IS a connection between a smoking ban and other constitutionally unreasonable restrictions. A private business is, according to the law, an individual. When a business owner's constitutional rights of self determination in business are preceded by state control, it's part of the overall picture of the abrogation of the rights of the individual by the state. And NJ is really the worst. This is the legal equivalent of the state making it illegal for you to smoke in your own house because visitors may not like smoking. I've seen the evolution of totalitarian state control in my half century of life. The state never vacates a burdensome regulation or law once it's in place. They just keep adding to the pile of boo-shwa, and what used to be a right is now owned by the state.

Lordkenpo, about that bag...

[lordkenpo]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
Meridian, that was my point with going over the top concerning NJ regulations and laws. There IS a connection between a smoking ban and other constitutionally unreasonable restrictions.

But there IS also something to be said about the appropriateness of a metaphor. No successful romance novelist ever used the line, "They made love with the tumultuous thunder of a bowel movement."

That the implications of the Patriot Act call to mind the McCarthyism of the 50s is a far more appropriate comparison, and one I think we should be far more concerned with in regards to the dissolution of basic constitutional freedoms. On top of being relatively small potatoes, a smoking ban on establisments whose primary raison d'etre is not the procurement or enjoyment of smoking tobacco is not a radical idea, it's logical. You go to a restaurant to enjoy food; you go to a bar to enjoy drinks. Your right to smoke is not being infringed upon with a ban, you simply have to get up and walk 20 whole feet to ensure that you aren't encroaching on the rights of others. To be honest, I think the necessity of the ban is the most ludicrous part of this whole thing - adequate provisions for the smoking/non-smoking contingents should've been established by restaurant and bar owners decades ago of their own volition. Irresponsibility inevitably prompts action.

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
This is the legal equivalent of the state making it illegal for you to smoke in your own house because visitors may not like smoking.

No it isn't. Adults visiting tobacco shops and cigar bars do so under the general premise that they consent to smoking indoors. I enjoy a cigar from time to time, I just don't like to reinhale the fumes. So I don't patronize cigar bars, and I don't light up indoors. I do, however, think it's a crime for anyone with children to smoke in their residence, if for no other reason than the children have no say in the matter, and no means of legal consent. I certainly would've told my parents to take their habit outside had I been given the choice.

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by lordkenpo
But there IS also something to be said about the appropriateness of a metaphor. No successful romance novelist ever used the line, "They made love with the tumultuous thunder of a bowel movement."
Ah, yes, but it's happened to all of us at least once at one time or another, no? ;)

By the way, this is a terrific debate - I'm enjoying this. Thanks for keeping it civil!

[chazwicke]

[i] To be honest, I think the necessity of the ban is the most ludicrous part of this whole thing - adequate provisions for the smoking/non-smoking contingents should've been established by restaurant and bar owners decades ago of their own volition. /B]


Amen!

[fretlessman71]

Reading this thread, I keep thinking of all the great beer on the east coast that I'll never get to try, even if I come to visit... :(

[lordkenpo]

If you never find your way to a Victory Storm King, Hop Wallop, Prima Pils, Hop Devil, or Weizen Bock, Dominion Oak Barrel Stout, Dogfish 60 Minute, 90 Minute, or Chicory Stout, or any of the guys mentioned here (http://www.realbeer.com/discussions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8417&perpage=15&pagenumber=6) , I will shed a tear for you, sir.

[fretlessman71]

Well, not on tap, anyway. Even if I was there I wouldn't be able to go in because of the smoke. :(

[lordkenpo]

My fault; had to re-read the thread. And, I must say, you are a bolder man than myself. Unfortunately, neither my age nor my location afford me the luxury of that level of determination. I couldn't tell you then number of times I've voiced my opinion to my local bartenders. I also couldn't tell you the number of times I'm sure my opinion has failed to make it as far as the owner, let alone how much he would care when and if it got that far. Some bars will just always be smokestacks.

[HarkJohnny]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
A "No Smoking" section in a restaurant is like a "No Peeing" section in your local public swimming pool. Just so we're clear. :)

ha! ain't that the truth!

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by Fritz_Hahn
Not that I'm calling you out, bro, but have you ever gone to Dave/Brian/Kristaps/etc. and said, "You know, I'm a regular customer who's tryiing to enjoy a beer, but bothered by the smoke in your bar. I've talked to my friends and there are x number of people who agree with me. We'd really like it if you had a dedicated non-smoking area."

Or have you just groused about it, instead of putting it to the people who could really make a difference?

This is why Blues Alley became smoke-free a few years ago: customers and musicians said something to management, who actually listened and changed the policy.

Good point and one of which I am guilty. In the case of the Pharmacy, he obviously can't do two spaces and to be fair I believe his is a situation where smokers outnumber non by a considerable number. I should have a word with Brian though as he's got three flippin' floors to choose from.

All of this said it's not a simple as asking two of the hundreds of license holders to switch and again it's putting the onus on the folks who are not affecting the environment for others.

Still I'll have a wee chat with both Brian and Kristaps and let 'em know where I stand if for no other reason than to not be bitching behind their backs.

[Bilbo Beergins]

I'm not talking poetry on this issue, I'm talking basic law. When that sole proprietor, recognized by the law as a single person, or that corporation, recognized as a single person, has their toes stepped on by a jack boot, believe me, your single-person toes are next. As to the over the top comparisons, I was, not too abstractly, trying to tie in a smoking ban, admittedly on the lower end of of the inalienable rights scale, with a totalitarian mindset on the part of the state, of which states New Jersey just about tops the list. It's about the big picture.

So put the pressure on the pub owner to ban smoking or set up a smoking room. If he gets enough flack and he starts losing money over not complying with his customer base, he'll make the switch. Just keep the state out of it.

You bet I'm paranoid about the state. I live in New Jersey!

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins

You bet I'm paranoid about the state. I live in New Jersey! So move! There's room here in CO, I'm sure, and fantastic beer to boot!

[MeridianFC]

I thought, at least in theory, we are the state.

[Bilbo Beergins]

fretlessman,

We own a home in San Acacio, just south of Alamosa, and we'll shortly be in the land where, if you carry a pistol in your car, it has to be loaded on the front seat in plain view, no permit needed!

You know, come to think of it, when I was a smoker I didn't get a headache out in Colorado like I do back here in the north east. No wonder we're all so cranky back this end.

Meridian, laws are given to man by God, not by government; that's what meant by "natural law". Not based on Darwin, but based historically on Biblical and Judaeo-Christian principles, esp. the Pentateuch. Government merely administers God's natural law as a service to man and God. That's the basis of American legal theory and our Constitutional government. And no, we aren't the state. The state is supposed to serve us at our pleasure, not vice versa.

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins


Meridian, laws are given to man by God, not by government.

No they're not. Man makes laws to govern man.

FWIW PG County is going smokefree

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801432.html

[Bilbo Beergins]

And hence the abrogation of our individual rights.

Just read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It's pretty clear about the God thing, and government's subordinate position.

www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html (http://)

The shame is that even most lawyers and judges don't understand the history of the foundation of our government and the Constitution. Of course some city/district council isn't going to have a clue.

PS-read what our founders wrote about Indians (of which I am 1/16 heritage, I can call myself that, but you white eyes have to call us "Native American"). Not too PC.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
laws are given to man by God, not by government;

Well I didn't vote for him! (In my best Terry Jones voice ):D

[NJ Tom]

Are we some how less free than Americans in the past?

[Bilbo Beergins]

that you should draw that conclusion, NJ Tom.

[Chuckee]

Originally posted by NJ Tom
Are we some how less free than Americans in the past?

No offense… you are kidding, right?

-Bureaucrats tell you where you can live, work and play through zoning.
-Municipalities seize private property under eminent domain and turn the property over to private developers.
-When you ride in a car, you MUST wear a seatbelt.
-Toilets are restricted by Federal law to only certain amount per flush.
-The obscene restrictions on gun ownership have already been discussed above.
-When you drive down the road, harming nobody and breaking no laws, you may be stopped at a checkpoint by police, ostensibly checking sobriety, and forced to show your papers.
-You must ask the permission of a bureaucrat before you can add to your house.
-OSHA tells business how to operate.
-There’s the FCC, FAA, FEMA, FBI, and a bunch more.
-Many people can’t cut down trees on their own land because a certain bird MAY live in them.
-With the IRS, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
-You must get a bureaucrat's permission before you drive a car.
-And need I discuss the federal, state and local taxes?

[MeridianFC]

We have a tacit code of conduct on this site that we all avoid discussions that are primarily political in nature. I think this one has veered pretty far off it's original course, which was mostly informational to begin with.

In the spirit of the fraternity of beer drinkers I'd humbly request we drop the discussion. There are some great political websites I could recommend that those of a mind could continue with the more extreme elements of the debate.

[Bilbo Beergins]

You know, I forgot who started, and argued extensively throughout, this particular thread. Who was that? Does anyone know? Who would it be? Can anybody identify that person? Did it veer so far as to not address the subject of smoking bans in pubs and, now that the heart of the issue is being discussed, we should label it "political" and abandon the subject? Should, perhaps, the author of the thread have started such a controversial subject under another heading and, thus, protected it from the accusation of being "political? Who propounded "extreme elements"? All these questions and more...

Okay, take your ball and go home. But I think this is one hell of a discussion, and it's truly about a subject that is hitting home to all of us who frequent pubs.

[lordkenpo]

I'll second that motion, Meridian. And sign it in triplicate, as soon as I can escape this bastion of democratic freedoms that may or may not be a CIA-sponsored prison camp which may or may not be in Eastern Europe.

Really, seatbelts, gun laws, and toilets?!?! I'm done with this.

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
You know, I forgot who started, and argued extensively throughout, this particular thread. Who was that? Does anyone know? Who would it be? Can anybody identify that person? Did it veer so far as to not address the subject of smoking bans in pubs and, now that the heart of the issue is being discussed, we should label it "political" and abandon the subject? Should, perhaps, the author of the thread have started such a controversial subject under another heading and, thus, protected it from the accusation of being "political? Who propounded "extreme elements"? All these questions and more...

Okay, take your ball and go home. But I think this is one hell of a discussion, and it's truly about a subject that is hitting home to all of us who frequent pubs.

Listen I posted an E-mail I got (go back and check) as it was going to affect PEOPLE IN DC. It developed in to a natural wider discussion of the underlying issue but you started to bring in guns, God, and constitutional originality, which most sane folks would say has veered pretty far from the topic (Smoking ban in DC in case you forgot in amongst you extreme rightest political soap boxing). I've been trying my hardest to not just respond tit for tat but you can't let it lie and now Mr. Alabama comes in with his useless .02 (it'd be nice if there was some beer content in there somewhere and "Jackboots at the sobriety check point" doesn't count.

Your're relatively new to the community and what I've asked for is in keeping with the wishes the community has expressed in the past. When topics turn overly poltical we desist.

[Chuckee]

...and now Mr. Alabama comes in with his useless .02

Mr. Alabama, huh? Well, OK.

Nice addition to the resume, but I’m not going to wear a tiara and walk down a runway. . :eek:

[MeridianFC]

I apologize for that bit I was in steam mode.

Besides I don't know if Mr. Alabama is an appointed or elected position.

[Chuckee]

I apologize for that bit I was in steam mode.

Besides I don't know if Mr. Alabama is an appointed or elected position.

Oh peshaw… there’s nothing to apologize for.

You didn’t question my heredity, patriotism, intelligence or what obscenity I might or might not want to perform on a duck.

(My new title, Mr. Alabama, has been added to my profile.)

[lordkenpo]

Originally posted by Chuckee
(My new title, Mr. Alabama, has been added to my profile.)

Inspiration is catching.

[Chuckee]

Originally posted by lordkenpo
Inspiration is catching.

... as is pomposity.

[MeridianFC]

And here I thought it was just a rather bad rash.

[lordkenpo]

Originally posted by Chuckee
... as is pomposity.

Easy boy, no harm intended. Can everyone in this discussion just relax and have a damned homebrew already?

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by lordkenpo
Easy boy, no harm intended. Can everyone in this discussion just relax and have a damned homebrew already? Apparently not - this kind of stuff is going to drive me from the board. You know, I had enough arguing and posturing and pissing and moaning with my ex; I don't need to see that stuff here. However, if there are enough people who want to scream and yell about laws and this and that, I'd be willing to give up my moderatorship on the News & Opinion forum and let you all have a go at each other - and I'd simply do my level best to steer clear of that forum entirely. Lemme know and I'll send Stan an email on it.

[Chuckee]

Originally posted by lordkenpo
Easy boy, no harm intended. Can everyone in this discussion just relax and have a damned homebrew already?

I thought you were being snotty. If I misunderstood, I humbly apologize.

[lordkenpo]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
However, if there are enough people who want to scream and yell about laws and this and that, I'd be willing to give up my moderatorship on the News & Opinion forum and let you all have a go at each other - and I'd simply do my level best to steer clear of that forum entirely.

I dunno... Parts of me do like to scream and yell and be opinionated, but the part of me that visits this board just likes being opinionated. I dig this space because, by and large, we can all be civil and play like adults. After all, if we can't appreciate one another enough to be respectful, how can we possibly appreciate beer?

So, I vote status quo, and for those that don't like it, take their opinions elsewhere. Unlike my stance on the smoking ban, of course. :D

[MeridianFC]

Some other boards I frequent have OT section which many times will feature a "Politics" section. Typically it's a flame heavy zone which I studiously avoid. But we might could do here. I wouldn't be going there but some folks might enjoy it. That said I think the tacit "let's not get blue and red" policy has worked very well here. I mean if Brewmonkey and I can get along anyone can right? ;)

As for this discussion I apologize for my outburst, I was geniuinely attempting to keep it from a political free for all but things just got a bit out of hand.

Mea culpa maxima.

[lordkenpo]

But that's the thing about this board: no one posts to just one section. Personally, I think that would lead to the forming of grudges that will inevitably spill over into other areas of the board. Politics is such a heated thing right now, and the hobby we all share is so rare, that I just don't think it's worth chancing. It really comes back to my main argument about the smoking ban. We come here to discuss and appreciate beer - not smoke, and not defend our philosohpical standpoints. Ergo, I believe that focusing on something other than that aim will, as it has in this instance, drive contention into our ranks.

There are plenty of other forums out there that will allow you plenty of anonimity to spread your animosity for the other side. It's why they exist. Bringing up beer over there would be equally as ridiculous.

[Bilbo Beergins]

Come on, fretless, they just legalized Rocky Mountain High in Denver, didn't they? Everybody's pissed off here in the North East. That's why, when we visit, we look at you so funny with our pale faces when you say "Hello" to us. We think you want something, you just want to say hi. However many days of sunshine you have, we don't. Needless to say, sunshine ain't on our shoulders.

I'm ready to lay up my 5 gallon batch (extract), post primary and secondary fermentation, started 10/16/05. Flocculation has just about ceased and settled, fermentation is all but over. About one more week, and it's beers for the house.

I grew up with my Dad, uncles, and Granddad drinking beers, arguing politics and religion, and smoking. Bad habits are hard to break, I guess.

I must admit to telling sister-in-law to go outside to smoke. Can't stand the fumars. So spank me, Spanky!

[fretlessman71]

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
Come on, fretless, they just legalized Rocky Mountain High in Denver, didn't they? *smirk* Sort of. Can't buy it legally, just possess it - and you had better hope that it's a city cop and not a state one that catches you with your doobage down. On top of that, there's a very good chance that sometime in the next 2 years CO will be smoke free in public. So don't view this as your political panacea just yet. ;)

[Bilbo Beergins]

Yeah, but do you think they'll allow you to have an opened pack on the front seat of your car in plain view?

[fretlessman71]

No. Nor will they allow food and/or drink to be present in your vehicle unless you're bringing it home from the grocery. :rolleyes:

But I gotta tell ya - doesn't it irritate you when you see someone at a stoplight with their cigarette in their hand, and their hand is hanging out the window? That's just pathetic... it's as if they're saying they KNOW how vile this stuff is, and so they're going to keep as much of it outside their car as possible (as if that really works), and in turn share their stinky cig smoke with the rest of us who wanted to be comfortable with our windows down? Makes me want to carry a loaded squirt bottle in the car so I can at least try to put their cigarette out for them. Wouldn't that be a great way to get through to them?

Again, most of these laws wouldn't exist - or even have been thought of - if people were simply considerate of others... something that has, for the most part, gone the way of the 8-track tape.