D.C. Smoking Ban Approved

The D.C. Council gave final approval yesterday to a broad ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places, voting 11 to 1 to add the nation's capital to a growing list of smoke-free cities and states.

Although Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) continued to voice concerns about the measure's effect on small businesses and the city's hospitality industry, the overwhelming support on the council suggested that the ban's proponents have enough votes to override a mayoral veto.

The District's smoking ban, modeled closely on New York City's, would apply immediately to all restaurant dining rooms and would be extended to bars, nightclubs, taverns and the bar areas of restaurants in January 2007.

National anti-smoking activists hailed the vote, saying that having the nation's capital go smoke-free carries great symbolic importance. "It puts an exclamation point on what we see as a national trend," said Daniel Smith, vice president of government affairs for the American Cancer Society.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010401310.html

What's wrong with having smoking in bars if the owners are willing to follow certain rules? In Georgia, smoking is allowed in establishments if no one under 18 is allowed to work there or patronize the place.

We're supposed to have freedom of choice in America! Smoking is an unhealthy habit, but treating smokers like social lepers isn't the way to go. I'm completely in favor of nonsmoking & smoke-friendly places, and the people can decide where they want to go!

This is an example of the nanny state in action!

Leave it up to the establishments themselves.

Following that argument to its logical conclusion, business owners could allow all sorts of hazardous working conditions for their employees- and their patrons.

The scientific verdict is in on second hand smoke- and its not good. Let people go outside to light up.- what's so hard about that?

A family restaurant would be wise not to allow smoking, but a bar, for example, would likely be foolish to not allow it.

that levels the playing field and prevents businesses from externalizing safety costs or gaining a comarative advantage over other businesses that won't follow safety rule like this.

That said, I agree with rules of reason in many cases. I just don't see how you could make reasonable distinctions here. Seems to me that in places where these rules have gone into place, bar owners haven't lost money- although I admit, there's some increased inconvenience- but small price to pay, I think.

Smoking is a natural complement to drinking for a lot of people, and banning smoking inside bars seems a bit silly to me.

I'm very much torn on this issue. On one hand, I think people ought to have the freedom to make their own decisions, even unhealthy ones, if that's what they're stupid enough to want to do to themselves. At the same time, I have to admit, I suspect that making smokers into social lepers probably is resulting in fewer people smoking and, I'm sorry, but I think that's a really good thing. And I say that as one who himself smokes and really wishes he didn't. Okay, it was my right to make the decision to start smoking, but it was unquestionably a bad decision. Frankly, given how incredibly addictive nicotine is and consequently how extraordinarily difficult a habit smoking is to break, I'm tempted to conclude that any measure which discourages people from making the same spectactularly bad choice is a good thing.

and equally flawed. People have the right to live any lifestyle they choose, away from government intervention.

into the air I breathe.

if the owners advertised as a "smoking bar."

(especially beer),
and no one seems to mind the requirement that people who do that go to a separate area.

A workplace hazard is a workplace hazard. And the alternative not very restrictive- more of an inconvenience. I'd have more problems with open air venues where the hazard is considerably lower and alternative wasn't readily available.

What about the poor employees who work at the establishment?

the workplace. Exposures to plenty of carcinogens are tightly controlled in the work environment. It's long past time that tobacco smoke be considered as what it is - a carcinogen, which therefore should not be permitted in the workplace.

Where will Pickles go to smoke now?:shrug:

she will smoke where she damn well pleases. Our laws do not apply to them.

- when I'm headed into DC for the evening. Oh, well . . . dinner is usually less expensive in VA anyway!

America is coming out of the dark ages but very very slowly..

I lived in the DC area and moved away, in large part, because of cigarette smoke in public places. DC is also the loudest city in the nation. You can't walk down the sidewalk without being accosted by the obnoxious sounds of a jack hammer, construction site, beeping truck, ambulance siren, dump truck or mack truck.

both are voluntary acts in a public place, and both are considered by certain interests groups to be harmful to society.

I oppose all attempts by government to police people's personal lives. Shame on DC.

Why is it certain groups are always pushing to legalize marijuana, but refuse to let cigarrette-smokers light up?

between banning gay marriage and banning smoking in a public establishment. Gay marriage doesn't cause cancer in employees that serve gays.

Conservatives argue that homosexuality diffuses diseases like AIDs and other STDs. If you replace homosexuality with cigarette smoking and AIDs with lung cancer, or whatever, you certainly have a similar phenomenon.

If restarants and bars want to prohibit smoking, fine, but I will not tolerate the government intruding into individual's private lives.

Anyone who opposes the marriage bans but supports this nonsense is a hypocrite.

Are you really claiming that gay marriage is as harmful as cigarette smoke?

That's disgusting.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

"There is little difference between this and the marriage bans"

Sure sounds like a comparison to me.

Both target a consensual behavior that the mainstream finds abhorrent.

The DC ban targets those who smoke. The marriage bans target those who practce homosexuality. The supporters of both bans have cited health reasons.

and yes, if you believe homosexuals should be free from gov't bans, the same should apply to smokers.

the health concerns about gay marriage are bogus (gay folks in committed monogamous relationships won't get AIDS but promiscuous gay people do) -- but the health concerns about second-hand smoke are genuine and serious (as demonstrated by a great deal of published scientific research).

And I'm no hypocrite to both support gay marriage and smoking workplace bans. Both gay marriage and smoking bans promote health.

Aren't drunk drivers a menace? Wouldn't it be better to prohibit alcohol altogether?

We should ban fried chicken and hamburgers, too, because if an employer serves them to his workers, it's a health risk.

All health problems in society can clearly be solved by prohibitive bans.

I guess they'll ban the internet one day (got to get kids out to exercise more).

drunk driving is a menace, thus it is outlawed.

fatty foods aren't accidentally ingested by workers - people make a choice to eat them, and don't shove their leftovers into passive bystanders.

It's implied that YOU believe they are comparable. Let's break this down:

1) Does gay marriage harm the health of bystanders?

2) Does smoking harm the health of bystandards?


The reason the comparison is abhorrent isn't because banning health hazards in a work place is offensive; it's because the assertion that gay marriage is a health hazard is offensive. I'm sorry you can't see that.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

I can't compare legislation aimed at smokers and gays without being a bigot?

You'll notice I've staed I oppose both bans. Strange world, I guess.

Cigarette smoke causes lung and heart problems. It's a safety hazard, not just to the smoker (in which case it wouldn't be an issue) but also to those working around the smoker. It's a work place health hazard.

Does it cause all of society's ills? Don't be ridiculous. It causes specific health problems.

You may as well argue that banning loose asbestos is like banning gay marriage, for all the sense you're making.

I oppose this ban, and view it the same way I view laws restricting the rights of homosexuals, given that supporters of both bans cite health reasons (I don't buy into the health-risk stuff conservatives get into re: homosexuals, but they certainly do). You disagree.

That's it. No desparaging remarks or name-calling should enter the equation.

I guess we'll leave it at that. Have a nice night.

from car and manufacturing exhaust, because BOTH are much more dangerous AND prevalent in the air that you breathe than is cigarette smoke.

If you don't want to breath carcinogens, you're just shit outta luck. If you BREATHE at all in a major city, you are breathing in carcinogens.

than outdoors. Anyway, regardless of the danger of outdoor air pollution (which is significant), the danger of environmental tobacco smoke is very real. Here is an abstract of an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, volume 270, page 490:

Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace. A review of employee exposure and health effects

M. Siegel
University of California, Berkeley/University of California.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the relative exposure to environmental tobacco smoke for bar and restaurant employees compared with office employees and with nonsmokers exposed in the home (part 1) and to determine whether this exposure is contributing to an elevated lung cancer risk in these employees (part 2). DATA SOURCES--MEDLINE and bibliographies from identified publications. STUDY SELECTION--In part 1, published studies of indoor air quality were included if they reported a mean concentration of carbon monoxide, nicotine, or particulate matter from measurements taken in one or more bars, restaurants, offices, or residences with at least one smoker. In part 2, published epidemiologic studies that reported a risk estimate for lung cancer incidence or mortality in food-service workers were included if they controlled, directly or indirectly, for active smoking. DATA EXTRACTION--In part 1, a weighted average of the mean concentration of carbon monoxide, nicotine, and respirable suspended particulates reported in studies was calculated for bars, restaurants, offices, and residences. In part 2, the relative lung cancer risk for food-service workers compared with that for the general population was examined in the six identified studies. DATA SYNTHESIS--Levels of environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants were approximately 1.6 to 2.0 times higher than in office workplaces of other businesses and 1.5 times higher than in residences with at least one smoker. Levels in bars were 3.9 to 6.1 times higher than in offices and 4.4 to 4.5 times higher than in residences. The epidemiologic evidence suggested that there may be a 50% increase in lung cancer risk among food-service workers that is in part attributable to tobacco smoke exposure in the workplace. CONCLUSIONS--Environmental tobacco smoke is a significant occupational health hazard for food-service workers. To protect these workers, smoking in bars and restaurants should be prohibited.

I got this reference from the following statement, given by the president of the American Lung Association to the US Senate: http://epw.senate.gov/105th/munzer.htm. Worthwhile reading.

On edit, a more up-to-date link: Second Hand Smoke Fact Sheet (from the American Lung Association).

The data in all the places that have already enacted smoking bans is that business in restaurants and bars increases, not that they lose business. Less than 25% of the US population smokes, so that leaves 75% who do not, and most of that group don't want to be around second hand smoke.

I do not go to bars anymore, even if a band I really want to see is playing, because I simply cannot tolerate the smoke. I will not consider a restaurant that doesn't have a real no smoking section (not just one side of the aisle for smokers the other side for non-smokers). I would patronize a lot more establishments if they didn't allow smoking indoors.

Regardless of economics, a primary rationale for the indoor smoking bans is employee health and safety. Exposure to second hand smoke is the second most common cause of lung cancer, which is essentially incurable, other cancers, emphysema and heart disease. It is not reasonable to expect restaurant workers to be virtually the only segment of workers left that are expected to sacrifice their health for other people's self-inflicted personal behaviors. We long ago banned smoking from offices, hospitals and airplanes for this very same reason.

...I have seen studies showing that business did not suffer or the drops were light.

Do you have a link for these studies?

I do not smoke in restaurants out of consideration of people trying to eat. But it really bothers me when I am told I am
"not allowed". It is the prime reason we no longer go to Dover Delaware to watch the races or to gamble.

Or will the cops make up a whole new sting operation just to catch him violating the ban?

out of their car windows. Fines need to be increased to at least $5,000.00.

Most cars are ashtray equipped, I believe. Littering idiots make me sick.

I would think smokers like to smoke outside. They can spit on the street all they want out there.