This is not the way to go about eliminating smoking indoors. There has to be a better compromise than just shutting smokers out. How about a tax break for places that go non-smoking? a compromise for outside smoking areas? Or are we smokers just the second class citizens that you smugly look down your noses at, because we are weak addicts who live to spoil your pristine air? If you don't like smoky bars, don't go. there are a lot of places that are opening that are non-smoking. Go there, don't remove us from everywhere just becaus you don't like smoke. This is self righteous bullshit at it's worst.

This initiative is misguided. It makes a very big assumption that people who work in smoky bars feel they need to be "rescued" from their work environment. I remember after California passed their ban, I met a bartender at a quiet bar in Fullerton who was irate that she couldn't smoke any more. I hate to say it, but this is Seattle liberalism at its worst.

...first of all, it's not really fair to say that this is Seattle liberalism at its worst, because it's not as if this is something we dreamed up in this hippie corner of the country. It has been done before in a number of cities. Also it's not as if everyone here is going to vote for the ban because we want to condescendingly rescue the bartenders from themselves. Some might look at it that way but there are other reasons folks might vote for it: non smokers might prefer to come home at night NOT smelling like smoke, or being able to go out and have a good time without being exposed to carcinogens because of others' behavior; bartenders might be excited about the same things; bar owners might recognize that while they might lose some business from the smokers, they will gain business from the non-smokers; etc.

Also just because one bartender is irate does not mean that all bartenders are irate. Pick any initiative or bill, and you will find at least a few people who are irate about it. That in and of itself does not indicate that on the whole people aren't generally happier about it. Whether people will on the whole be happier if this initiative passes, I don't know. But one irate bartender is not, to me, a convincing argument.

Imagine that, Che420 is on the wrong side of an issue again. We always have to hear about the Christianophobes talking about 'pushing their will/agenda on others'. Well, it's time to take a good look in the mirror. Smoking is something that is forced upon others, and not just in a philosophical sense, but a physical one too. Science is against you regarding the effects of second hand smoke on others. You have children at home and you'd endulge in a selfish pleasure to the detriment of the health of your children.

Ahhh, 'progressivism' rears it's ugly head again. If you want to smoke, fine. I don't want to smoke, I don't want to smell your smoke, and I don't want to have to pay medicare to prolong your burden on society, er, um... life.

As stated above over 320,000 people signed the petition to get I-901 on the ballot. That's the 5th highest signature total overall to qualify an initiative in WA. If these bans caused economic ruin and were unpopular, 9 states and many other cities and counties (and countries) wouldn't have enacted them and it would be all over the media. We're not reinventing the wheel here. What we are doing is not adversely impacting workers', patrons', and their childrens' health while we keep the economy rolling.

My 'Seattle liberal' comment was out of line, but I made it for a reason. The reason I made it is because this issue is one of the biggest issues that drives otherwise progressive voters away from the Democratic party. It may only be a perception that 'Seattle liberals' are responsible for this, but it's one that's very damaging for the party as a whole, in this state especially.

As for the bill itself, I disagree with several of your arguments. First, I disagree with the belief that people who go out to bars have some inherent right to not smell like smoke. There are plenty of non-smoking bars in Seattle that you can frequent if that's a problem. This argument actually does the most damage to Democrats as it reinforces some of the worst stereotypes about the traditionally liberal leadership of this state imposing strict rules on individual freedom.

The second issue has to do with the public safety issue, and the "irate bartender." The heart of my disagreement with this bill rests upon the fact that I do not believe that there is any single person anywhere in the state of Washington who

a) works in a smoky bar
b) doesn't like working in a smoky bar
c) will be working there long enough for it to actually matter from a public health standpoint
d) can't find an equivalent job in a smoke free environment

Without that, one irate bartender is absolutely one too many for a bill like this to pass, as the only people you're helping are people who are too lazy, or simply unwilling, to help themselves. I do not believe that certain things should be illegal because others are not capable of being responsible, and so do many other people who consider themselves liberal.

This website is called Better Donkey, and I believe very strongly that progressives need to figure out the best ways to win back this country from the Republican Party (I was actually banned from RedState.org today, they are absolutely out of their minds). Smoking bans like this hurt the cause so much more than any benefit they will ever provide to anyone. We are drifting towards more smoke-free environments everywhere as people grow more and more familiar with how unhealthy smoking is. We don't need to be petty and tell others that they are wrong for wanting to be able to smoke cigarettes at work so that the day comes faster. A bar owner and his/her employees should be allowed to have the ability to set the rules of their own establishment. Over time, more and more of them will choose to become smoke free. It just does not need to be forced upon them.

Also, in another aspect of this that che might be concerned with, in Amsterdam, they almost passed this ban in a way that would have closed down all the coffeeshops.

Food for thought.

Sorry to overtake the comment thread here, but this what I do sometimes... :)

Smoking is something that is forced upon others, and not just in a philosophical sense, but a physical one too. Science is against you regarding the effects of second hand smoke on others.

This is silly. You will not get cancer from occasionally standing near a smoker on the street. People who get cancer from second hand smoke are people who are surrounded by it for years on a regular basis.

You have children at home and you'd endulge in a selfish pleasure to the detriment of the health of your children.

And without a bar to go to, they'll do it more often at home. One of the most laughable things about I-901 being a "public health issue", is that it will probably create many more cases where smokers smoke at home and expose kids/spouses to more second hand smoke.

What we are doing is not adversely impacting workers', patrons', and their childrens' health while we keep the economy rolling.

Yes, but you're hurting the Democratic Party by supporting a bill that is associated with 'liberalism' and will negatively impact the lifestyle of a very large number of people in this state. Sure, many people will like it, the signature drive is an indication of that, but for many of the people I know, it will cause them to look at Democrats as "big brother" the same way many of us look at Republicans.

Smoking is something that is forced upon others, and not just in a philosophical sense, but a physical one too.

Only by individuals, however, and that is why it's not the same as when a government imposes its will on people.

How is supporting or opposing a smoking ban a progressive issue?

thehim-

Thanks for your points.

I do believe there are people working in smoky bars that don't like the smoke that meanwhile are suffering adverse effects from it. The science is in.

People shouldn't have to "just go work someplace else". Many are around this for years; it's needless.

I don't look at government as "big brother" for protecting me from smoke in offices. Smoking in office environments has been prohibited by law in Washington since 1993. Most offices are owned by "private" businesses on "private" land. We're not going to repeal that law since it's private property and land. The employees of Microsoft, Safeco, and Adobe (and others) would be up in arms. If the market was still deciding on the office smoking issue, we would still have employers that permitted it. Employees would be subjected to their employers whims to either allow it or not and then possibly change their minds. Their tenure with their company should not be at the whim of their employer's smoking policy; it's not relative to their job.

Smoking has nothing to do with worker productivity or job performance and may arguably deter or negatively effect it. It has no place in a work environment. Hospitality employees' health is no less important than office workers' and their health shouldn't be subjected to the changing impulses of their employer. It's time to have our indoor smoking laws equal the playing field and support our hospitality workers too (and their patrons).

The people voting for this know who they are (there are lots of Republicans according to Gallup's 7/20/05 poll) so Democrats need not worry about "tarnishing" their reputation. I-901 has nothing to do with Democrats; it's truly non-partisan. That is what's been so darned inspriring about it. It's the one thing uniting people on both sides. I'm sure we'll see the stats on this after the election, because people will be interested and it will be interesting.

Gallup Excerpt:
"Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to show increased support for smoking bans in restaurants, hotels and motels, and the workplace.

Currently, 62% of Republicans want to ban smoking in restaurants, up from 47% in 2003 -- a 15-point increase. By contrast, independents are eight points more likely to support a ban in restaurants (from 40% to 48%), while Democrats are only five points more likely (from 48% to 53%).

A similar pattern is found among partisans about smoking in hotels and motels. Forty-one percent of Republicans support a smoking ban in these establishments, compared with 28% of independents and 33% of Democrats. For Republicans, the current figures represent an increase of 15 percentage points over a similar reading in 2003, but only a 6-point increase for independents, and a 5-point increase for Democrats.

In the workplace, Republicans show an increase in support by 11 points (from 36% in 2003 to 47% in 2005) and independents by 5 points (32% to 37%). Democrats show an insignificant one-point decline, from 41% to 40%.

The poll also finds that frequent churchgoers are more likely to support bans on smoking than are infrequent churchgoers, and also more likely to reflect an increase in support from 2003.
* In the workplace, weekly churchgoers show an increase of 12 percentage points in support (41% to 53%), compared with essentially no change among the least frequent churchgoers (33% to 34%).
* That same pattern is found for restaurants -- a 13-point increase for frequent churchgoers (51% to 64%), compared with a 5-point increase for people who rarely attend (42% to 47%).
* And for hotels and motels, frequent churchgoers are 14 points more likely to support a smoking ban now than they were two years ago, while infrequent churchgoers show only a 5-point increase.

It is expected that much of the increased support for banning smoking would come from nonsmokers. Indeed, compared with two years ago, nonsmokers' support for total bans on smoking in hotels and motels (up 11 percentage points), workplaces (8 points), and restaurants (9 points) has grown significantly. But the poll shows that even smokers are now more willing to ban smoking rather than just setting aside smoking and nonsmoking areas.

The largest increase in smokers' support is found for restaurants, with 31% supporting a ban on smoking, up from 21% two years ago. In hotels and motels, the increase is slight -- up five points, from just 6% to 11%. In the workplace, however, smokers show essentially no change in their views from two years ago -- only 15% prefer a ban now, compared with 17% in 2003."

Here's the link...caution: you may get to view it once without registration, but after you leave the site you may have to register: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?

By the way Washington just became the 17th state to outlaw smoking in homes with children so that's not an option. Even if it wasn't "against the law" the vast majority will not stop going out. That belief is the mistaken assumption that the primary reason people go out is to smoke.

Link: http://no-smoking.org/august05/08-05-05-1.html

On the "just go somewhere else" point: If one wants to see a band at The Showbox, there's smoking there. Bands don't give a smoking allowed concert one night and a non-smoking concert another. There's no choice there. If I-901 passes, smokers will just go outside to smoke come back in and we'll all enjoy each other's company.

I-901 will expand the smoke-free choices for workers and patrons. There is a freedom in that.

that the smoking ban is perceived as the Democrats being "big brother"? It's just that I haven't really heard that sentiment expressed anywhere else and also, the stats about Republicans supporting the ban in another comment shows that this is not a partisan issue. Do you think that there are a lot of people that perceive this as being all about the democrats shoving their world-view down everyone else's throats? Who? I certainly haven't heard anything about either party taking a stand on the issue - am I missing something here? I realize that the Democratic Party does have a bit of a problem with how it is perceived, but I just don't see this as being part of that.

Also I still really think that most of the liberals who will vote for this will do so because they would prefer to be in a smoke-free environment. I would bet that a higher percentage of Republicans voting for this initiative will do so out of some sort of moral reasoning. (See the stats about churchgoers opposing the ban.)

Also, I have a problem with this statement: ...you're hurting the Democratic Party by supporting a bill that is associated with 'liberalism'... Um, the Democratic party is liberal. That's kind of the point, isn't it? Are you saying that we should support the Democratic party by supporting bills that are associated with conservativism?

I still haven't made up my mind either way... I think both sides have valid points. I prefer a smoke-free environment, but I also already tend to frequent already-smoke-free bars at least as much as smoky bars, and I don't really want to be the one to say to the smokers, "sorry, the smoky bar is no more." But I still would prefer smoke-free bars... so I'm torn.

If bars, restaurants, and all other workplaces were already smoke-free, we would never think of permitting it based on all we know about the health impact of 2nd-hand smoke and people's desire not to be around it.

Why would it be thought of any differently?

Is it simply because it's a change?

When you should be getting something back in return for your interesting and insightful comments.

Decided Voter, your comments are valuable and are exactly the kind of dialgue we hoped would happen here at BetterDonkey, so please...Join the BetterDonkey community.

By just commenting you are contributing to the community without getting all the cool benefits that we offer members (all free by the way):
*Invites to BD sponsored happy hours with drink giveaways.
*Free tickets to events as we get them.
*Email updates on BD campaigns, opportunities to get involved, and quick action items which allow you to learn about a local issue and send a letter to the appropriate policymakerin a quick and easy format.
*The chance to flirt via Private Message.

Anyway, hope you take us up on it.

Join the BetterDonkey community. We'd be very psyched to have you.

The comments that oppose the proposed smoking ban ring in my ears like the rhetoric of gun-toting NRA members who want the right to hunt deer with uzis. From your cold, dead hands? Quite likely, once you get cancer.

I see this as simple Lockean logic: smokers might have the right to poison themselves, but not to poison me in the process. Sure, thehim, a person will not get secondhand smoke-induced cancer from standing near a smoker for 10 minutes, but many will have asthma attacks, develop headaches, feel nauseated because of smokers' disgusting habits. And Anonomous Coward's comments about medicare and the financial burden smokers place on society is spot on.

Much that it suprises a confirmed athiest like me to have jesus as my co-pilot, I'll take even the RR's support if it means free breathing in indoor public places. Guess how I'll vote.

How is supporting or opposing a smoking ban a progressive issue?

It's not, but people I know who are pro-gay rights, pro-choice, and generally opposed to the influence of Christian Conservatives in this country see this type of ban as being "anti-progressive," and sadly, despite the facts that Decided Voter pointed out, they also see it as something brought about by Democrats. Maybe that will change to reflect the reality. I certainly hope so.

I do believe there are people working in smoky bars that don't like the smoke that meanwhile are suffering adverse effects from it. The science is in.

People shouldn't have to "just go work someplace else". Many are around this for years; it's needless.

I guess I have more of a philosophical disagreement with this. I don't believe that there's anyone who is "stuck" in a job like that. And I don't think we should ever make legislation to protect people who will not take the initiative to help themselves.

I don't look at government as "big brother" for protecting me from smoke in offices. Smoking in office environments has been prohibited by law in Washington since 1993. Most offices are owned by "private" businesses on "private" land. We're not going to repeal that law since it's private property and land. The employees of Microsoft, Safeco, and Adobe (and others) would be up in arms.

Actually, if the law were repealed today, no one would notice. No office company would allow smoking to occur. Where I work, not a single person smokes. But the problem I have with the bills is that it doesn't allow an exception for establishment where smoking is an accepted part of the atmosphere. These places can be reclassified as "smoking establishments" as an exemption from the law, and it will affect a small amount of people. People who work in bars where smoking is allowed, and smoke themselves, most certainly believe that this ban is a form of "big brother".

Um, the Democratic party is liberal. That's kind of the point, isn't it? Are you saying that we should support the Democratic party by supporting bills that are associated with conservativism?

I really stumbled through that one. :)

Let me try to make sense this time. What I'm saying is that a negative stigma of "liberalism" has grown in this country over time. It comes from the mantra of "we know what's better for you than you know what's better for you". Yes, I know Republicans are WAY WORSE AT THIS, but sadly that doesn't matter much. The reason this hurts Democrats is because people look at that old war veteran who sits at the quiet bar and puffs on a cigarette and thinks, who are these folks who think they can stop that man from doing that? Maybe from my corner of the world, I'm over-exaggerating how many people think that way, but I talk to a lot of people of different political stripes, and this issue comes up a lot.

Finally...

If bars, restaurants, and all other workplaces were already smoke-free, we would never think of permitting it based on all we know about the health impact of 2nd-hand smoke and people's desire not to be around it.

Is it simply because it's a change?

A great hypothetical, so I'll throw out another and then reply. It leads back to my comment earlier about Amsterdam. Let's say that one day, we progress to a point in this country where pot is tolerated enough (I'm well aware of how far away this is becoming with the Bush Administration, but humor me), and we allow for coffeeshops. We now potentially have a place where employees are exposed to marijuana smoke, which may or may not be dangerous to your health in large amounts over time. Would this ban cover that? Does it make sense to stop that process from happening based on either the standpoint of protecting workers health or so that people who don't want to be surrounded by pot smoke don't have to be. People who've been to Amsterdam were up in arms when that kind of reasoning was used to potentially shut the coffeeshops down.

So my response is that once the smoking bars are gone, I'm not sure exactly how much demand there will be to bring them back. In places with bans, increased business by non-smokers usually fills the void left by the smokers who stop going, but the best of both worlds, is to allow for business owners to apply for licenses for a select few "smoking establishments." If the demand grows, allow for more licenses. If not, let the places die out naturally and become smoke free (with only a few places allowing smoking, you'll KNOW when you're in a smoking establishment). This is the kind of stuff that needed to be written into the law in the first place in order for me to vote for it.

Good discussion here. I'm going to fight this thing to the bitter end, and I'll probably lose, but maybe like I did in California in the mid-90s, I can still get away with smoking a cigarette illegally indoors with an irate bartender and an old war veteran.

What are our priorities and intentions in regards to I-901? In the end, that's what will remain.

thehim-

Thanks for making me think again. Some of that thinking is what follows...

Smoking on the job: I'm not concerned about the ability of employees to smoke on the job. They can do that outside.

Like it has been done in the other states, cities, and countries with smoke-free legislation, I'd like to see workers, patrons and their children be able to patronize or work in any public establishment they want without the unnecessary health implications of second-hand smoke. Smokers and non-smokers alike will not have to deal with it. And, yes, I know smokers who signed the petition. Everyone has their reasons, but nobody gets anything positive from second-hand smoke. There is no craving for unfiltered smoke, no high to be obtained.

"...where smoking is an accepted part of the atmosphere."

That's assuming that all that attend and work at bars don't mind the smoke. We know from all the signatures for the initiative that's simply not true. It also says, because it always been it always should be no matter what new scientific data we have. We're evolving on this issue.

"No office company would allow smoking to occur if that law was repealed."

I disagree. Most wouldn't because it is so popular and accepted as good business practice. It's that way in some part because it was legislated to begin with. Some would allow smoking again, though. It was only a few, maybe four, legislative sessions ago that some workers in Woodinville were trying to weaken those laws to allow smoking indoors again. I thought I was timewarped back to the '80's. Thankfully, they weren't successful.

And yes, smoking pot, in indoor public places would be prohibitted under I-901. It's still smoking inside. It's not healthy to those around you. It's still an indoor public place.

Excerpt from I-901:
Sec.1 INTENT AND FINDINGS. The people of the state of Washington recognize that exposure to second-hand smoke is known to cause cancer in humans. Second-hand smoke is a known cause of other diseases including pneumonia, asthma, bronchitis, and heart disease. Citizens are often exposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace, and are likely to develop chronic, potentially fatal diseases as a result of such exposure. In order to protect the heath and welfare of all citizens, including workers in their places of employment, it is necessary to prohibit smoking in public places and workplaces.
Sec.2 (1) "Smoke" or "smoking" means the carrying or smoking of any kind of lightd pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other lighted smoking equipment.
Link: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Initiatives/INITIATIVE%20901.pdf

Interestingly, last Friday 8/5/05, ASHRAE, the ventilation industry's technical standards society, stated..."adverse health effects for the occupants of the smoking room cannot be controlled by ventilation". It's simply not doable so they won't certify it. They will not risk being liable in the future. Many employers won't mind the reduction of liability either.

Among the findings by ASHRAE in the document are:

It is the consensus of the medical community and its cognizant authorities that ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) is a health risk, causing lung cancer and heart disease in adults, and exacerbation of asthma, lower respiratory illnesses, and other adverse effects on the respiratory health of children.

Currently, the only way to effectively eliminate health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity.

Although complete separation and isolation of smoking rooms can control ETS exposure in non-smoking spaces in the same building, adverse health effects for the occupants of the smoking room cannot be controlled by ventilation.

No other engineering approaches, including current and advanced dilution ventilation or air-cleaning technologies, have been demonstrated or should be relied on to control health risks from ETS exposure in spaces where smoking occurs. Some engineering measures may reduce that exposure and the corresponding risk to some degree while also addressing to some extent the comfort issues of odor and some forms of irritation.

An increasing number of local and national governments, as well as many private building owners, are implementing bans on indoor smoking.

Because of ASHRAE’s mission to act for the benefit of the public, it encourages elimination of smoking in the indoor environment as the optimal way to minimize ETS exposure.

Link: http://www.ashrae.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/46296

The long-term view...more choices of smoke-free establishments=more freedom from indoor public smoking...ensuring workers' and patrons' health by moving smoking outside....that what's important to me.

We'll look back on this possibly in as little as five years and the "smoky indoors/stinky clothes/scratchy throat" thing will seem like it was before our time. But it wasn't, for we will have literally made history.

In reply to the anonymous coward's posting 'In the words of Liberals...'; I don't know you, you don't know me, so how can you say where I stand? I'm not opposed to smokers going outside, and if I were at a bar that is non smoking I would comply. As I stated in my blog, one of my favorite bars is non-smoking, and I patronize it frequently. What I'm saying is that a complete ban is unnecessary, and that if non smokers want non smoking bars then they should open them. Let the government give them a tax break for doing so.

I don't know what the fuck you’re talking about in regards to my children. I don't smoke inside or anywhere that they go, so you can take your self-righteous judgment of me and shove it up your bible hole.

To address your last paragraph, if you want to be full of hot air, that's fine. I don't really care to hear it, so don't try to breathe it all over me. This is not about liberal 'progressivism', this is about compromise. Like sex and violence on TV, if you don't like it, don't watch it. If you like non-smoking bars, go to them. If you get off on being a self-righteous ass, then do it. Just don't get into my face about it, because that could be worse for you than my second hand smoke. Lastly, you don't need to worry yourself about paying for my burden on society. I pay for it with every pack that I buy because Washington State has one of the highest tobacco tax rates in the nation. I even voted yes for Initiative 773 back in the day to tax tobacco more to cover health costs and reduce teen smoking. But I digress; I guess you're the type that doesn't really care to pay for anything that doesn't directly affect you.

There isn't a right side to the argument, although there seems to be a right angle on 4 points of your head. If you want to post here, sign up. Otherwise keep it to craigslist, you fucking troll.

You kiss your mother with that keyboard? ouch...

Decided voter,

This is my last comment on this thread. I've posted up a query for people who work in bars in restaurants. I think it greatly matters what the people who you are intending to protect with this initiative actually think, and so I've solicited their thoughts. I believe that if there's even a significant minority of workers at bars in Seattle that like being able to work in such an environment, than this ban is misguided without some kind of clause to allow for some "smoking establishments" to remain. If I find that there are people out there who work in these places and truly can't find other jobs, or I find absolutely no bar workers who oppose this thing, I'll humbly change my position and support the initiative.

Oh, and Che, rock on.

I am stealing this from the Strangler's Blog SLOG

Second Hand Sucks

Posted by JENNIFER MAERZ at 08:20 AM | permalink | read/post comments

I just heard that Christopher Reeve's widow, Dana Reeve was diagnosed with lung cancer, which is especially tragic news because she didn't smoke. So how'd she get it? Word is she worked as a cocktail waitress for years....can we pass the fucking smoking ban already? Yeah it's a bummer that there's a rule in there about how close you can stand to a building when you smoke but I'm running out of patience. When it's your job to be in specific bars that allow smoking--and especially when you're a non-smoker--the idea of getting lung cancer or even anything remotely close to that is totally appalling.

Having a Class A carcinogen remain in the workplace is not something that should be "owner's choice". If an indoor ban is so bad for the economy, there sure are a lot of cities, counties, states, and countries making really bad business decisions.
As for the 25 foot rule, I can understand the hardship for the smoker to have to take a marathon eight steps away from the doorway. What an inconvenience(compared to getting cancer). The 25 foot rule is in effect in over 300 sommunities and it works..............especially because of it's flexibility with bar owners. In Pioneer Square, the farthest one would have to step from the doorway is 23 steps from Il Choriso. Contrary to being "forced to smoke in the streets", people must remember directions we learned in kindergarten like "left", "right", and "alongside". You are allowed to smoke alonside buildings on the sidewalk. If the neighboring business is closed at the time,(like a bookstore) the rule is waived. It is also waived if the open establishment has airconditioning where air of forced out of the building. Bar owners are also allowed to apply for exemptions, which have been granted numerous times in other communities.
There is squawking and squeeling from some right now. However, just like everywhere else, once the ban is passed people get used to it and approval increases even further.

It is great there is a place some rational conversation can happen.

One comment to someone's earlier comment about smokers being a drag on medicare. According to a recent study done by the Economist magazine, smokers die younger, thus saving Medicare and Welfare money. While they tend to get cancer, they die younger than non-smokers who end up getting government assistance for much longer.

So is this now a reason you would not support 901?

901 is yet another move toward a do-gooder nanny state. it is interesting to note that Hitler started off his reig in Germany with a smoking band, so you pro-901'ers are in good company.

There are a lot of inventive ways to make do away with smoking in most bars. We should do them. But not only should we not band cigarrette smoking, we should not band indoor pot smoking which 901 does as well.

vote FOR legalalization of pot, vote AGAINST 901.

David wrote:
"It is great there is a place some rational conversation can happen."

--David then gives us this "rational" gem:
"Hitler started off his reig in Germany with a smoking band, so you pro-901'ers are in good company."

--A smoking band? Do you mean they were really good or they all smoked?

Hey, David, I heard Hitler was a vegetarian, too. So do you think all vegetarians are Nazis?

What a simp.

i agree with an earlier poster that this initiative will hurt the democratic party in the long run. this ballot initiative reaches way to far into personal behavior. the 25-foot rule is what really throws it over the top...and no cigar bars too. this is the nanny state at its worst.