While I agree that the 25' clause is obnoxiously and paternalistically statist, couldn't we just pass this and fix it later? It's not an attempt to shut down clubs, as cities that have imposed such a ban have significantly increased bar revenues, negating any impact that nickel and diming would have. The healthcare savings and improved quality of life for service workers are to my mind more pressing concerns than the comfort of smokers.

I honestly don't know how easy it is to amend laws, especially ones that have been put into place "by the people" (or by paid signature gatherers... same thing, right?).

The initiative process is a tricky one because the fact that they're supposedly written by regular people suggests that they're going to be really awesome for regular people-- no tricks and pork barrell crap like our lawmakers throw into everything, etc. etc. blah blah blah. But it's the same either way-- just as few people read initiatives as read the text of laws. And we often don't learn until it's too late that there are clauses that change the nature of the initiative/bill.

I'm afraid that vote yes now/change later sounds good, but the change later part may never come... and in the meantime enforcement of the law can be misused for other goals... which I very sincerely believe happens all the time in this town.

Anyway, no matter how much anyone may or may not like it, tobacco smoking isn't entirely illegal (yet). The 25 foot law, in a dense urban area, is way too back-door-tobacco-ban for me.

ps thanks for joining & commenting, brendanlevy!!

even though it's been noted that i'm a big fan of the smoking ban, i have to agree that the 25 foot rule is weak.

that probably doesn't change my support for the ban, however. i'm not blind to its possible enforcement problems/prejudices, though.

johnny homeless guy will probably get a $75 ticket for smoking 20 feet away from a restaurant window, while suzie BMW would never get the same ticket.

damn you amy! you're making me think again!

On the surface, I agree with this initiative. I think it is a wonderful idea to protect service workers from having to immerse themselves in smoke in order to make a living. The problem here is that this that this initiative is not written to protect people by focusing on the health issues involved, but is written to keep people from smoking. This is simply an “anti-smoker” initiative.

The 25 foot rule is absurd. I’ve been to bars in Boston, New York, and San Francisco, all towns that have reasonable smoking bans. People (mostly) happily smoke outside the place, and the non-smokers sit happily inside talking about how smoke-free bars are great. The idea of a “public space” that extends 25 feet beyond any wall leaves NO PLACE for a smoker to go and gives NO added protection to the patrons.

To a point that this an anti smoker initiative, a “public space” is clearly defined (or at least widely defined, with dozens of inclusions) to not miss a single possible public space, but when it tosses in the 25 foot rule, there are NO exceptions listed. For example, if you are smoking in your car, which is parked at the curb in front of a bar, you are in violation of this ordinance. If you are smoking on your third floor balcony, above a coffee shop on the first floor, you are in violation of this ordinance.

Now a reasonable person can presume that a law enforcement officer would not pursue such a thing, but the problem is that they have the ability to. So to Grant’s point, Suzie BMW would be left alone, while Rico Lowrider gets nailed. And does anyone feel any better about the governments right to pilfer your library records simply because they claim that they haven’t used that right yet?

Another demonstration of how this is an anti-smoker initiative, look at the impossible way laid out for a small business owner to get an exception from the 25 foot rule. He or she would have to develop “clear and convincing evidence” that no smoke will be able to “infiltrate” any “entrances, exits, windows that open,(or)ventilation intakes” at the proposed distance and present to local health officials. Where would someone even start? They wouldn’t, and that’s the point. The writer could have just written in all capital letters “NO EXCEPTIONS” instead of paying this lip service to reasonableness. And where is the clear and convincing evidence that smoke can infiltrate entrances AT 25 feet anyway?

Let’s come up with a way to protect our service workers that doesn’t pass some hidden moral judgment on our smoking brothers and sisters.

the 25 foot rule does concern me. i have to admit, i'm on the fence about this ban now, though i still tilt to the "pro" ban side.

jj, what's your feeling about it? will you vote against the ban?

Big news, if I don't say so myself. I had a very enlightening conversation with someone high up at the I-901 the Smoking Ban Initiative campaign and got the following off-the record quote (though i think you can find on-the record stuff out there pretty easily as they are hearing this complaint from a lot of folks):

The 25 foot ban is a soft rule with a very well defined exemption process that differs significantly from bans passed by other cities. Essentially, if a bar, club or restaurant can show that they have air conditioning, which propels air from directly outside to keep going out of the club, then they are exempt from the 25 foot rule. As well local agencies can be petitioned or can petition themselves for an exemption from the rule.

It should be pointed out, as well that there is some politics at play here. The two main culprits:

The non-tribal casinos who believe that this will somehow drive smoking gamblers up to Everett or Quil Ceda.

The owner of the Mirabeau Room who is just whacked out about the 25 foot rule.

In conclusion i think those of you out there who strongly support this initiative should find out more about the exemption process of the 25 foot rule and then fight back. You are definitely getting close to a tipping point on this. too much more concern about the 25 foot rule and this thing dies like a 20 year smoker.{/in bad taste}

I’m looking real hard and I’m not seeing any positive information about the 25 foot rule. Please point me towards something.

To that point, how is this exemption process “very well defined”? And if it is defined SOMEWHERE, why is it not in the proposed legislation? And calling it a “soft rule” is my gripe to begin with. By “soft” it seems we’re talking about not really being enforced, and that’s the point. These types of laws become selectively enforced. If a cop really wants you on something, you’ll quickly discover how many “soft rules” you are breaking.

I’ve stated this before, but this is legislation aimed at smokers not at indoor air quality. Take Broadway for example. Take a walk between Denny and Roy and you’ll soon find that you will never be at least 25 feet from some door, window, or vent. You as the smoker are the one fined for smoking, not the establishment that you happen to be in front of. So, to be able to legally smoke as you are walking down the street, you would have to have assurance that every single establishment on Broadway had been approved for you to be able to smoke on the sidewalk in front of it. Everyone has been looking at this from the perspective that you are a customer of a particular business, but the initiative is not written that way. This is a ban on people smoking outside in any urban part of this city.

The 25 foot rule is BS, no matter what someone that gets paid to promote it says. A ban on smoking outside is not something that I can support.

...then we'll never pass the damn thing. If people vote against it now because of the 25 foot rule, then when someone tries to get another (more reasonable) smoking initiative passed, people will say "well, people voted it down last time", and we will have just shot ourselves in the foot.

No other city or state has passed a 25-foot rule. The iniative even bans smoking in TOBACCO SHOPS-- where I have never seen a nonsmoking employee or patron.

And laws, especially iniative laws, are not easily "fixed later." I don't know about WA, but in most states, the legislature cannot tamper with a "people-driven" law for at least a few years, if ever.

MI voters just approved a ban on gay marraige. Supporters said it would not prevent companies from offering same-sex benefits, although opponents did. Guess what? It's in the state constitution, and the courts said same-sex benefits are now illegal. Careful what you sign for...

First of all, plenty of other states have 25 foot rules, like California for one. Second, plenty of other states have the ban in the first place and it seems to work fine.

Third and finally, I have to agree with Willis on this, voting against it because of the 25 foot rule just doesn't add up. Do you really see cops shooing bar patrons away because of this? Do you see bars agreeing to that? Is that concern really worth throwing the whole thing away?

Just remember this, people who work in bars do so, for the most part, because its the only job they can get. Don't you think we ought to live in a society where that decision doesn't come with an automatic case of lung cancer?

I think the 25 foot rule is pretty silly, along with the whole idea of a smoking ban. The rule is in place to make sure you don't get smoking with outdoor deck dining. This also affects private clubs and is really ment to hit smokers, not protect workers.
I'm a reporter for an entertainment publication in Pierce County. We had a ban for about two months in early 2004. Many non-tribal businesses lost lots of money and a few closed. Most held on until the ban was lifted...but it will be the small "mom and pop" places that will suffer. Here in the Tacoma area we are 15 minutes from the Emerald Queen....many local businesses will suffer and the "Queen will roll on with even more customers.
You can check the state records to see where income fell with the ban...so it was real..

I think most importantly

The prohibition would include areas within 25 feet of entrances, exits, opening windows and ventilation intakes, unless shorter distances are approved by the director of the local health department.

There are exceptions.

It's nothing new as other cities and counties have had them with success. We're not reinventing the wheel here. People don't want the smoke blowing back in the building defeating the whole purpose of a smoke-free indoors. The initiative authors were smart to put "unless shorter distances are approved..." realizing that the businesses in our state were not cut from a cookie-cutter and, therefore, may have another distance approved for them as long as they can maintain the protections of the initiative.
BC enacted one of the first smoking bans 10 years ago. They're now looking to add an outside buffer. We'll have it right off. As people's ideas about smoking bans have evolved so have the bans themselves to include buffers to preserve the intent of the smoking ban.
It's embarrassing that we don't have this law already in WA. I will be voting yes!

I've been curious about this 25' thing myself and spent some time around my favorite bars, and bars in busier areas and found that, with rare exceptions, almost every place has a sizeable space on the sidewalk that would still allow smoking even if no exemptions were made. Most people don't think about the fact that their favorite bars are busy when business around them are closed - you can get ticketed for smoking outside a business that isn't open.

I also think that the exemption process is pretty liberal. Under I-901 the cops can't drive around and give you tickets, enforcement of the anti-smoking law would fall on the health department, who is also the same group that grants exemptions to the 25' rule. I can't say that I've ever seen SWAT teams of health department cops driving around to bust McDonald's for not having their warming oven on high enough; I don't think that they're going to have a goon squad in Pioneer Square on Friday nights either.

No matter how you look at it this is a good idea. Secondhand smoke is dangerous and unecessary, it isn't going to kill you to smoke outside.

PURPOSE: This rebuttal to the tobacco lobby’s 25- foot rule controversy is tongue- in- cheek and kind of silly. However, that silliness might be useful to make our point in future on- air or in print media situations.

WHAT: (Pioneer Square) An area encirled by Columbia and King( north and south boundaries) and Second and First Avenues (east and west boundaries) was studied. There were approximately 25 restaurants and 18 bars in that area.

CONCLUSION: Tobacco folks say smokers will be relegated to the street. Unfortunately, they failed to take into account certain directionals learned in kindergarten like left and right. By staying on the sidewalk and smoking alongside buildings(or buildings whose business hours are closed), there were NO bars or restaurants in which the 25-foot rule would force smokers out into traffic. Outdoor seating was also accounted for in the study.

HIGHLIGHTS OF JAY’S SEMI-ANAL OR SLIGHTLY OBSESSIVE STUDY:

*****25 feet is a trivial 8 steps or a birdie putt. The FARTHEST a smoker would have to travel to light up is 23 steps(69 ft.) from Il Chisoco(a restaurant). That would be 15 steps north and 8 steps east.
***If the silk store is open, one must take 25 steps from the New Orleans Restaurant(16 if it is closed)
***On the east side of First Avenue between James and Cherry, the plaza courtlyard area is avilable for smokers as well as the sidewalk.
***The area with the highest concentration of bars is the west side of First Avenue between Main and Washington. 18 steps are necessary at The Central and 19 steps from Cowlgirls Inc. are necessary to smoke. (One would hope they can make it that far). The J and M Cafe only requires 8 steps because the exit is at the end of the outlddoor smoking areas.

Too bad I felt compelled to do this. But you gotta fight slime with reality.

Oh, Jay.

I'm not sure where exactly you think you are, but I'm pretty sure that the opinions expressed here are not from the tobacco industry. But in that sense I can only speak for myself.

That being said your point is not "our point". I do enjoy your sense of condescension and I hope that you can take as well as you give.

The idea that opponents of this 25 foot rule believe that smokers would have to dodge traffic is absurd. And some of us learned our right and left well before kindergarten, so maybe you're a slow learner (it's easy if you just remember what hand you write with! Or there's the trick where your left hand makes an "L" when you extend your pointer finger and thumb. Whatever works for you, Jay.)

I like the idea of you pacing around pioneer square counting off steps. I'm sure that you fit right in. Probably made some friends, but I've a few issues with your anal/obsessive study. First off, we can all figure out what 25 feet is. Just because you think that it’s trivial, doesn’t mean everyone else does. So instead of saying a “trivial 8 steps of a birdie putt” one could easily counter with a “disastrous 8 steps off of a cliff face” or the “thoughtful and difficult 8 last steps to the electric chair.” So take 8 trivial steps off a short pier. And while we’re on it, a birdie putt doesn’t have anything to do with distance; it’s related to what the par of the hole is...

In the initiative, I can’t find anything related to whether a public place needs to actually be open or closed, which is an assumption on your part. I also noted during a quick walk in Pioneer Square (I ran into some of your new friends, they told me to say “hi”) that you are not properly taking into account secondary doors, windows and ventilation systems, which throw those numbers way off. Also, if you are planning on telling someone to smoke in the plaza courtyard by the pergola, be sure to warn them to stay away from the bus stop, as buses are included as public spaces, and they could get hit with one of those $100 fines.

And it’s too bad that I was compelled to do this, but since you consider me slime, I consider it appropriate. Some of us enjoy discussing our ideas and the differences between them. Keep your attitude to yourself.

Just remember this, people who work in bars do so, for the most part, because its the only job they can get.

Benny, please back this statement up. People who work in smoking bars who don't want to work there could easily find work at one of the many non-smoking establishments around the state, or at a totally different job altogether. Of all the arguments for I-901, this is the MOST ridiculous.

But I didn't used to. I lived and worked in NYC during their anti-smoking fight. At first I was dead set against it. I thought the smae thing that many opponents here seem to think. had problems with the enforcement mechanism, I thought of bars as a place where anyone going there would know ahead of time that it would be smoky, and I was sad about the idea of losing the smoky sh**hole (like my favorite bar in Brooklyn).

But then I had probably 10 different conversations with waitresses, bartenders and other smokers who all said the same thing,: It sucks working here and I know I'm getting cancer.

It may sound a bit crazy, but I think we can have a society that does better than this.

The 25 feet smoke-free buffer section of I-901 is practical, flexible, and designed to keep smoke out of workplaces. This has been done in many jurisdictions including Minneapolis and Albuquerque. A shorter distance can be approved by the local health department, as long as it keeps the smoke from entering. More importantly, many current policies, such as the city of Bellingham, already include a 25 foot rule, mostly to eliminate the difficulty entering and exiting a building through a haze of smoke. Washington state law already requires that office workplaces not allow smoke to blow in, though a specific distance is not listed.
All waitresses, waiters, bartenders, busboys, and ALL workers deserve the same protection from the proven hazards of secondhand smoke already enjoyed by doctors, nurses, accountants, office workers. That's why the Washington State Labor Council, the American Federation of Musicians Anacortes local, the AARP, and PTA, among many other groups, have already endorsed I-901. Smoke-free indoor air measures are good for health, AND good for business. For a complete list and more information, go to http://www.yeson901.org

second hand smoke blows ass

I-901 has my full support, and I think it's gonna win overwhelmingly.

Except for the 25' rule I agree totally. Down here in California where I now live, smoking bans were fought tooth and nail, but now after aproximately 15 years of coping with the ban, folks are now not only putting up with it, they are supporting it by almost 100% compliance.....jsz

Hey all, this conversation is great for the most part. Nice to see it mostly civil. I am the partner in the Mirabeau Room who has been shooting my mouth off about 901. I am not associated with the 'slimy' tobaco industry, though The Mirabeau does get some sponsor dollars for selling Camels there (and this will not be effected by 901, and even the Mirabeau partners who support 901 take this money, it's not a ton). I am very politically active - on the Board of the VERA Project (a non-smoking venue), a consultant for Bumbershoot (we take no tobacco money), on the Mayor's Music Advisory board, etc. I consider myself very progressive, and anyone who knows me knows that my politics are well thought out and not influenced by things like a few dollars from a sponsorship.

I am also very anti-smoking. Several people in my family have died from smoking, I don't smoke, and smoking really, really annoys me. My girlfriend smokes a little, and it is a huge issue with us. So that's me.

All that said, I don't believe the government should be forcing people not to smoke. I think drugs, prostitution, abortion, marijuana, and alcohol should all be legal - regulated, but legal.

And I STRONGLY believe that when marijuana is finally legalized that we shold allow canibus cafe's. 901 would make those illegal too. 901 doesn't just ban tobacco.

I philosophically oppose 901. It is nannyism at it's worst. The people promoting it will soon want to ban fast food, drinking, and any other activity people like that can be bad for their health. I don't eat (much) fast food either, but I don't think it should be illegal.

A vote for 901 is a vote for a nanny state. Period.

As for the ordinance itself, let's get into it.

The 25' Rule - this rule is not enforced by the health department, but by the Police. It is NOT flexible. And it does not allow for smoking outside of businesses that are closed. So some of the above analysis is just off. The 25' rule is a rule thrown into the ordinance by the zealots involved in 901. People involved with 901 have said as much. This ordinance was written by many people. Some of those people are fanatics.

Workers health - this is sort of a red herring. The anti-smoker people have been trying to find an issue that resonates with the general public for the last 30 years. Their real goal is to completely make smoking illegal, and then move on to banning other things that are bad for us. They want to be our mommies. They are not people otherwise involved in workers health issues. If the issue here was really about workers health then the ordinance would be about air quality in bars and restaurants. It could set air qaulity standards and enforce them. This would protect workers, patrons etc. They are ok with 1,000 cars passing within 6 feet of The Mirabeau's open door every day, but want it to be illegal to smoke 20' away from a closed window. That is simply irrational. Their actions do not fit their claims. It is sad to see people take advantage of workers and use the real issue of workers health to pass an ordinance that really is about banning an otherwise legal activity, and the people that do it.

Enforcement - Who will enforce this law? 901 is poorly written. It will take precious time away from the already understaffed Police. The police will now need to come into businesses to check and see if someone is smoking. Alternately, this law will allow the police another way to harrass street kids, and anyone they don't like that smokes outside.

Another question is if the law is enforceable against bar owners at all. The pro-901 people argue that they dont' want to fine individual smokers. But in New York, that is excatly what is happening because the courts have ruled that bar owners can't be made to act as the police. I'll post the articles next.

I am not party of any organized opposition to 901 as some in the pro-901 camp have claimed. I am just one guy who has spoken my mind on what I think is a bad law.

I have been trying to convince my partners at the Mirabeau that we should be non-smoking. At least two of the nights there are non-smoking on the showroom side of the bar. We want to build a deck where people can still drink AND smoke, and then not let people smoke inside. But I hate nanny authority so much that if 901 passes I am tempted to make the Mirabeau smoking all the time.

Lastly, I think that if 901 doesn't pass, most Seattle bars will be non-smoking within two years. I know mine will be. I say vote against 901, if you don't like smoking establishments boycott them and let the owners know. And then go support the bars that don't allow smoking. This will solve the issue without creating a new hammer for the police and without trampling on people's rights, or killing any slim chance we have of legalizing pot.

New York

NY Bars Defeat Smoking Ban

(Click on Read More)

L.I. BARS WIN BIG IN LEGAL ASH FRAY

By PERRY CHIARAMONTE
November 13, 2004

Despite the state smoking ban, smokers are being allowed to light up with abandon in a trio of Suffolk County taverns as long as they're willing to pay the fine if they get busted.

The responsibility is placed upon the smoker if caught in the act by state inspectors.

"The way I see it, it's my prerogative to smoke, and I'd rather pay the fine than the bar," said Richard Long, 47, a regular at Tobin's II.

The smoke-in was sparked by the ruling in a class-action suit filed by owners of the three pubs against the state Department of Health, which had leveled hefty smoke-ban violations fines against them.

The owners claimed they obeyed the Clean Indoor Air Act to the letter by posting no-smoking signs and telling customers that smoking in the bar violates state law.

"We knew we had an airtight case going in," said Jack McCarthy, owner of McCarthy's Pub.

"We knew if we behaved ourselves, followed the law and did what we were supposed to do, we were okay."

Supreme Court Justice Paul Baisley Jr., ruled for the taverns on Oct. 13. Tossing out $650 in fines, the judge noted that while bar owners must inform patrons of the law, they are not required to refuse service, toss them from the establishment or make the smokers extinguish their cigarettes.

This week, a Post reporter went to all three establishments to see if management was complying with the Clean Air Act. At all three bars, he was greeted with the same caveat after asking if he could light up — smoke if you want to, but it's against the law.

"I have to let you know that smoking is still against the law," said one bartender when asked if it was OK to puff away. ". . . If you get caught, you'll have to pay the fine."

In addition, all three bars had no-smoking signs clearly posted, and smokers used plastic cups filled with water as ashtrays.

In explaining his landmark ruling, Baisley noted that when a health inspector visited the pubs, "No smoking" signs were posted.

And while the inspector claimed bar employees did nothing as customers puffed away and flicked ashes into plastic cups, the judge noted the inspector didn't interview any of those employees.

The inspector's failure to talk to employees, Baisley said, was fatal to the DOH argument — the presence of smoking customers doesn't prove the tavern's failure to comply with the law.

The DOH is appealing the ruling.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/33992.htm

NY: Fear, loathing as bars go quietly up in smoke.
So, after weighing the risks, he followed the example of barmen in scores of other low-rent joints and began distributing saucers to his late-night regulars. They have to be saucers because the mere presence of an ashtray - even a clean one - is taken as proof positive that illegal activities have been going on.

NY Bars Defeat Smoking Ban - Sort Of

New York Lawyer
October 26, 2004

A trio of Suffolk County tavern owners have defeated the state law that outlaws smoking in bars — sort of, the New York Law Journal reports. Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley Jr. ruled this month that the Clean Indoor Air Act (Public Health Law Art. 13-E), requires bar owners to post "no smoking" signs in their establishments and to admonish people who light up in defiance of those laws. The statute does not, however, require the bar owners to enforce the law by ordering patrons to stub out their cigarettes or otherwise refuse to serve them. To read such a requirement into the law grafts on to it "an onerous, substantive enforcement requirement that the law itself does not impose," Justice Baisley wrote in an Oct. 13, decision. Patricia Ann Cottage Pub Inc. v. Mermelstein, No. 005806-2004. Accordingly, the judge vacated and annulled rulings, including the imposition of $650 fines, by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services against three different establishments.

The case came before the court in the form of an Article 78 proceeding challenging the fines against Jack McCarthy's Pub in Centereach, Tobin's 2 Pub in Ronkonkoma and the Dunton Inn in East Patchogue. In two of the three cases, the judge recounted, a health department inspector arrived in the tavern and discovered that despite the placement of no-smoking signage, patrons were puffing away and flicking their ashes into water-filled plastic cups apparently provided by the bar tenders. (In the third case, the requisite sign was posted, but not seen by the inspector.) The health department agent testified that at no time did she see any employee take action to stop any customer from smoking. But, in the 20 to 25 minutes the inspector spent in each bar, she did not interview any of those employees, the judge noted. Her failure to do so was fatal to the county's case, Justice Baisley said. "The mere fact that patrons continued to smoke in defiance of the law is not ipso facto evidence of the establishment's failure to comply with the law," he said. The judge rejected the establishments' contention that the Indoor Clean Air Act was unconstitutional, however, ruling that the petitioners had failed to notify Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office, as required by Executive Law §71. He did, however, grant leave to renew upon the provision of proper notice.

The law office of William C. Goggins in Mattituck represented the bar owners. The petitioners will likely pursue that leave to explore the constitutional issue, said Mr. Goggins' partner Anthony H. Palumbo. Deputy County Attorney Christopher M. Gatto represented Suffolk County. County Attorney Christine Malafi said that her office is filing an appeal. She maintains that the investigator's observations were sufficient to support the penalties assessed.

http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/10/102604f.html

New York Ban 'Has Cost 2,600 Jobs'

November 10, 2004
By Chris Moncrieff, PA

New York bar owners have denied the city’s smoking ban has been an unqualified success.

Tom McCabe, former health minister in the Scottish Parliament and now finance minister, has been told that nothing could be further from the truth.

In a letter to Mr McCabe, made public today, the Empire State and Tavern Association, the New York Nightlife Association and the United Restaurant and Tavern Owners said the latest available statistics are damning in terms of the economic effect the ban has had on the city’s hospitality industry.

New York’s bars and taverns and their suppliers have lost 2,600 jobs, 50 million dollars in wages and 70 million dollars in production, it was claimed.

“For months, bars across New York have felt the pain of a total smoking ban, only to be accused by the anti-smoking supporters of misrepresenting the impact,” the letter said.

They claim that another important knock-on effect has been the loss of tips.

“Many bartenders are losing upwards of 50% of their nightly tips and as they are only paid 3.35 dollars per hour, this is having a major impact on their salary.”

The letter said that disgruntled city residents are unhappy about the noise caused by smokers, who are forced to congregate on the street outside bars.

“In some cases this has even led to violent behaviour towards smokers in the street.”

The letter continued: “As if this isn’t enough to contend with, there is the major issue of how the smoking ban is enforced.

“The burden of imposing the ban is on the bar owner, not the customer who is actually breaking the law. If customers were fined, as legally they are supposed to be, we really would have seen a riot here.

“The real solution is to put smokers back inside the bars where they belong.”
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3741556

Roger Franklin: Bar's still smokin'
20.11.2004
Like a lot of New York's straight-off-the-boat Irish barmen, Brian - "no surname, thanks" - has a problem with authority; one that means keeping a weather eye on the door of the unfashionable watering hole where he slings suds from 6pm until closing time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz

Hey all, this conversation is great for the most part. Nice to see it mostly civil. I am the partner in the Mirabeau Room who has been shooting my mouth off about 901. I am not associated with the 'slimy' tobaco industry, though The Mirabeau does get some sponsor dollars for selling Camels there (and this will not be effected by 901, and even the Mirabeau partners who support 901 take this money, it's not a ton). I am very politically active - on the Board of the VERA Project (a non-smoking venue), a consultant for Bumbershoot (we take no tobacco money), on the Mayor's Music Advisory board, etc. I consider myself very progressive, and anyone who knows me knows that my politics are well thought out and not influenced by things like a few dollars from a sponsorship.

I am also very anti-smoking. Several people in my family have died from smoking, I don't smoke, and smoking really, really annoys me. My girlfriend smokes a little, and it is a huge issue with us. So that's me.

All that said, I don't believe the government should be telling people not to smoke. I think drugs, prostitution, abortion, marijuana, and alcohol should all be legal - regulated, but legal.

And I STRONGLY believe that when marijuana is finally legalized that we shold allow canibus cafe's. 901 would make those illegal.

I philosophically oppose 901. It is nannyism at it's best. The people promoting it will soon want to ban fast food, drinking, and any other activity people like that can be bad for their health. I don't eat (much) fast food either, but I don't think it should be illegal.

A vote for 901 is a vote for a nanny state. Period.

As for the ordinance itself, let's get into it.

The 25' Rule - this rule is not enforced by the health department, but by the Police. It is NOT flexible. And it does not allow for smoking outside of businesses that are closed. So some of the above analysis is just off. The 25' rule is a rule thrown into the ordinance by the zealots involved in 901. People involved with 901 have said as much. This ordinance was written by many people. Some of those people are fanatics.

Workers health - this is sort of a red herring. The anti-smoker people have been trying to find an issue that resonates with poeple for the last 30 years. Their real goal is to completely make smoking illegal, and then move on to banning other things that are bad for us. They want to be our mommies. They are not people otherwise involved in workers health issues. If the issue here was really about workers health then the ordinance would be about air quality in bars and restaurants. It could set air qaulity standards and enforce them. This would protect workers, patrons etc. They are ok with 1,000 cars passing within 6 feet of The Mirabeau's open door every day, but want it to be illegal to smoke 20' away from a closed window. That is simply just irrational. Their actions do not fit their claims. It is sad to see people take advantage of workers and use the real issue of workers health to pass an ordinance that seems really to have to do with banning an otherwise legal activity, and the people that do it.

Enforcement - Who will enforce this law? 901 is poorly written. It will take precious time away from the already understaffed Police. The police will now need to come into businesses to check and see if someone is smoking. Alternately, this law will allow the police another way to harrass street kids, and anyone they don't like that smokes outside.

Another question is if the law is enforceable against bar owners at all. The pro-901 people argue that they dont' want to fine individual smokers. But in New York, that is excatly what is happening because the courts have ruled that bar owners can't be made to act as the police. I'll post the articles next.

I am not party of any organized opposition to 901 as some in the pro-901 camp have claimed. I am just one guy who has spoken my mind on what I think is a bad law.

I have been trying to convince my partners at the Mirabeau that we should be non-smoking. At least two of the nights there, people are not allowed to smoke on the showroom side of the bar. We want to build a deck where people can still drink AND smoke, and then not let people smoke inside. But I hate nanny authority so much that if 901 passes I am tempted to make the Mirabeau smoking all the time.

Lastly, I think that if 901 doesn't pass, most Seattle bars will be non-smoking within two years. I know mine will be. I say vote against 901, if you don't like smoking establishments boycott them and let the owners know. And then go support the bars that don't allow smoking. This will solve the issue without creating a new hammer for the police and without trampling on people's rights, or killing any slim chance we have of legalizing pot.

Neatly packaged as a smoking ban, I-901 is really an anchor that's attached to every non-tribal property and business owner in our state. All non-tribal land owners lose their right to decide what is acceptable on their property without any compensation or due process. The value of your land or business is reduced since what is allowed on the land is restricted.
Small businesses, charitable and private groups like the VFW, Eagles, and Elks will be stripped of their rights to accommodate their guests, members and customers which means they'll lose significant amounts of revenue. Based on the previously imposed ban many employees will be the losers as well.
Taking away the right of these people to run their business or charity as they see fit will negatively effect tens of thousands since smokers will simply go to a tribal business because they’re all exempt.
I-901 makes it illegal to smoke within 25 feet of any building regardless of a persons age, disability, weather or the safety of your guests, customers or visitors. There are no exemptions even if the person is confined to a wheelchair or bedridden. Seniors in nursing homes or assisted care facilities in the middle of winter being forced to be 25 from their own residence just because they want to smoke. Is it really reasonable to punish these people?
Many employees lucky enough to keep their jobs will lose half their pay all under the guise of “big government know better than you.” I-901 supporters cite studies but in fact 11 of 15 studies cited don’t address the negative effects of the business that will be harmed in this state. These cheery picked studies were purposely cited because they don’t show revenue losses from taverns, bars and charitable groups which is who will suffer.
Another example of how I-901 supporters deceive voters is their New York City Study. This study uses economic data from April 2002 to September 2002 and compares it with the same period in 2003. What’s the problem? On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center Buildings were destroyed and businesses for miles around were closed down or severely damaged. This study uses economic data starting just 6 months after this disaster. Would it surprise anyone that revenue
18-24 months after the disaster would be higher than 6-12 months after the disaster regardless of a smoking ban? So 12 of 15 studies cited are irrelevant to Washington State.
Just because you open your doors to the public shouldn't mean you give up your property rights. I-901 makes it illegal to smoke on private property even if all parties consent. Even if you have no employees I-901 says it’s still illegal. Isn’t this going to far?
If smoking bothers you then why would you vote for I-901 which requires smokers stand on the public sidewalks or in the street to smoke? I-901 says it's illegal to smoke on private property but encourages smoking on our public sidewalks?
There is an old saying, "the government solution to a problem is usually worse than the problem itself." I-901 makes common sense, customer service, reasonableness, compassion and the right of the property owner to decide what is acceptable on his or her own property illegal.
There are about 29 tribal reservations scattered around our state that are exempt from I-901 and not a single one has agreed to ban smoking if I-901 passes. We don’t take issue with tribal sovereignty but we do argue that all property owners should retain the right to decide for themselves.
I-901 isn’t a statewide ban. It’s simply singles out all non-tribal land owners and
makes it illegal for them to make any reasonable accommodation for smokers who are 25% of the states population but tribal businesses are exempt. In some businesses smokers make up 70% of the customers. Banning smoking on non-tribal lands doesn’t mean smokers quit. They’ll just go to a tribal business that will allow them to smoke and spend their money there.
I-901 will cost taxpayers at least 150 million in the first year and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why? Smokers will buy their cigarettes where they can smoke. Local tribes keep 70% of all taxes they collect so instead of the state getting $20 a carton they’ll only get $6. Voters in favor of I-901 better hold onto your wallets.
I-901 allows government the power to enter private property to of all things check to see if anyone is smoking and if so issue citations. Voters had better learn what is at stake are really their individual freedoms and property rights, not smoking. This isn’t even about smokers rights. It’s about your property rights!
Do you really want government micro-managing your daily lives? Vote NO on
I-901. See www.NoOn901.org for more information.

Dave Wilkinson
No On 901 Committee
Email: Dave@NoOn901.org
P.O. Box 12986
Olympia, WA. 98508

To amend I-901 within the 1st 2 years would take a 2/3 vote of the legislature. Both House and Senate. It is unlikely 2/3 of the legislature could agree to change I-901 even if it could be shown businesses, charities and priovate groups were suffering.
Becuase 2006 will be a short session and the law tates effect Dec 8th (I believe) there wouldn't be time to gather the data needed to convince legislators of the problem before they ajourn.
So unless the Governor called a spercial session all the people hurt would have to wait till January 2007 to get relief. I don't think voters should take the chance. Like any bad piece of Legislation just vote NO on 901.

California does NOT have a 25 foot rule. You can walk right outside. Same in New York. You're either misinformed or trying to misrepresent critical facts.
As to the success in other places the studies I-901 supporters cite mainly deal with restaurant revenues. In fact 11 of 15 studies cited don't address the negative effects of the business that will be harmed in this state. These cheery picked studies were purposely cited because they don't show revenue losses from taverns, bars and charitable groups which is who will suffer.
Another example of how I-901 supporters deceive voters is their New York City Study. This study uses economic data from April 2002 to September 2002 and compares it with the same period in 2003. What’s the problem? On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center Buildings were destroyed and businesses for miles around were closed down or severely damaged. This study uses economic data starting just 6 months after this disaster. Would it surprise anyone that revenue 18-24 months after the disaster would be higher than 6-12 months after the disaster regardless of whether a smoking ban had been enacted? So 12 of 15 studies cited are irrelevant to Washington State.

(http://www.healthyindoorairwa.org/pdfs/Econ-Study.pdf)

Anonymous wrote: "It is nannyism at it's [sic] best. The people promoting it will soon want to ban fast food, drinking, and any other activity people like that can be bad for their health."

That's false. If someone eats a hamburger next to me, that doesn't give me cancer. Secondhand smoke DOES increase my chances of cancer. Your analogy fails.

Requiring clean air isn't nannyism any more than requiring clean water in restaurants is nannyism.

Anonymous wrote: "Workers health - this is sort of a red herring."
-----------

No, it's not. 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.

Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death and secondhand smoke is responsible for one of every nine tobacco-related deaths.

Secondhand smoke is known to cause cancer in humans and from which there is no safe level of exposure.

901 is supported by the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Children's Hospital, among others.

901 is opposed by Big Tobacco. Nuf said.

See http://www.yeson901.com/ for more details.