I have gone back and forth, trying to decide how to vote on this initiative. I can see validity in both sides of the argument. I haven't been able to make up my mind.

On Friday night I went to see a show at a local bar/music venue. An old friend of mine was in the headliner band and so I got to say hi after not seeing him for a few years, and the show was really, really good. I would love to go see them again. But I left the bar after the show thinking "That's it, I'm voting for the smoking ban!" My throat was dry and scratchy and my boyfriend and I were both feeling sick to our stomachs. My motivations for voting for the smoking ban, if I do, are not because I think the government should be our nanny or because I think smokers need to be forced to quit or anything like that. It's more immediate and selfish than that. I want to be able to go see a band and not have to feel that way afterwards. I don't want my clothes and my hair to smell like cigarettes.

So, I'd like to know what those of you opposed to the ban would say to those reasons for voting for the ban. I don't care if people want to smoke in their own space. But I'd like to be able to go see my friend's band without feeling sick and smelling like smoke for the rest of the night.

I understand why some people are against the initiative - the 25 foot rule is a serious problem.

The people who are against the initiative only because of the 25 foot rule need to understand that this is our one chance to pass this bill - and there is a good chance that they can fix the 25 foot rule in Olympia in the next session. If it fails though, we'll be SOL the next time we try to do this (without the 25 foot rule, of course), because the opposition will be able to say "the voters have already voted this down, let it go".

It may not be perfect, but waitresses and bartenders should have the right to work in a (more) healthy environment.

First, the 25' rule is a horrible part of 901. It would be great if it could simply be ammended. But it can't. Here is what someone named Dave (not me) posted on another section of this site:

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.

I understand the desire to pass 901 now. It is a conflict between political princple and practical realities. If 901 passes, part of me will be happy, the part that hates smoke, smokey bars, etc. The part of me that will be sad is the part that appreciates liberty, and hates the idea of a nanny state. My political principles will guide my vote.

Here's an alternative for you who like me hate smoke in venues and want to do away with it but don't support 901 based on principle - start a movement to get venue owners to ban smoking. A number of bars and clubs already do ban smoking - Watertown, Tost, Nectar, Lo-Fi, the Virginia Inn and sometimes the Mirabeau Room (on Tuesday and Friday nights). Visit those places and let the owners know you are going there because there is not smoke. At the same time, get a ton of people to write to the other venues that allow smoking letting them know you are boycotting them until they change their smoking policy.

I guarantee that if you can organize, Seattle will be the first City that has a majority of non-smoking venues and bars without an ordinance. And it will have happened because of a bunch of progressive young people who want to be healthy but don't want a nanny state. This way you will defeat the pro-nany state conservatives behind 901 and still be able to go to non-smoking venues.

If you really get this going, you will get press and a lot of attention for doing something positive. It's work, but the alternative is giving the Police another hammer to harrass people with, and giving the pro-social control people another win (they just got another one with the strip club band)

i've been pretty outspoken about my support for i-901 in the past, but some of the conversation around these parts lately have made me think twice.

i like the idea of supporting businesses who don't allow smoking and being vocal about it. also, making your voice heard to venues that you like to go to but hate smoke is another great idea.

in other words, i like doing this by not legislating, but by public consensus.

however, i can see this through the lense of public health as well. a great argument can be made for i-901 when you consider the amount second hand smoke costs our health system.

balancing the morality police against the public health concern is really a hard one.

i'm on the fence..... again.

willisreed- i'm on the fence about i-901, though i've been pretty outspoken in favor of it and probably lean towards voting yes.

however, do you really think that this will be the ONLY time we can do this? since this is an inititative i can't see this being the one and only chance.

think of the resiliance of tim "asshat" eyman. he's lost a couple and still keeps coming back.

david makes a good point with how hard it could be to change the law once it passes.

A recent study in the Economist finds that smoking actually SAVES society money becuse smokers die ealier and so are not a burden on the health care system. Another analysis with similar conclusions is here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/smoke-pr.html

more here - http://www.smokingsection.com/issues2.html

When you consider the cost savings and the tax revenues, it could definitely mean that smoking makes the country a lot of money. So I don't think the cost of smoking is a real issue.

Also, be careful not to make laws against everything that costs society money - french fries, water skiing, drinking, etc, could all be made illegal under this reasoning.

IF smoking costs society money, we should tax it more, not make it illegal. I don't want to live in a country where other people make health decisions for me. I am a big boy, I can make them myself. Again, I feel the same about abortion, prostitution, strip clubs, pot, etc. Not things I do or necassarily like, but definitely think should be legal.

i agree with part of what you are saying. (i can't speak for the cato or other study you linked to, i'll check them out later... interesting take).

i agree that society shouldn't be in the business of dictating morality. the difference with smoking, as opposed to french fries, water skiing, prostitution, pot and all that other bounty of sinful delight is that second had smoke is a health concern to others.

there's no second hand french fry fattiness that you get when someone eats them next to you at the croc. you can't get a second hand abortion, although dubya would probably like you to think so. all of the things above are personal decisions which won't effect the health of others.

i think smoking in public areas is some what in it's own realm.

it's definitely a slippery slope, and i can't say i 100% know where i stand on this issue right now. government shouldn't dictate morality, but government is also suppose to protect it's citizens.

Grant, I agree that second hand smoke is a bit different, but 901 doesn't follow.

First, a law could creat a regulation allowing just a smoking area it is off limits to workers - so a bar could have a smoking room people could still drink in, but that had no sevice. Second, clubs and bars are places people go to voluntarily. No one has to go. If a bar allows smoking, it is obvious to people and they choose to be there.

People should utlize the marketplace to stop smoking in the places they like. And likewise for the people who want to smoke, and the businesses that want to allow them.

I support I-901, and I think it has a very good chance at passing...the latest SurveyUSA poll from 9/21/05 has it passing by 67% with the support of over 60% of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. (A lot can change 5 weeks before an election, but it's an enviable starting point nonetheless.) All 3 major electoral populaces support it. How often are we all unified like this? It's downright inspiring!! There's usually at least 30% who don't support an issue no matter what it is...considering that, 67% support is stellar! Only 1% are undecided (compared to 6-7% for the other initiatives), and it has a considerable amount more Likely Voters than the other initiatives. Plus over 321,000 petition signatures (6th highest ever in WA). This is the perfect mix of people who are motivated by this issue...more who want it to pass than not. It's a no-brainer for many...plain commonsense.

Nothing in I-901 is new...it's all been tried in other states (9 have comprehensive smoke-free laws), cities or countries...including the 25FR. We're not reinventing the wheel here. It's embarrassing that we don't already have this law.

Come to think of it, the more we talk about the 25FR the better. From talking with people, it seems that for each "con" someone sees for I-901, there are more people who see that "con" as their "pro". Others see the eventual effects of smoking as a go-nowhere deadend...literally...and they want to remove as much as possible the hazards of smoking from their lives as they enter the buildings they want or need to enter in the course of living. Seems rational, even commendable. Case in point: the 25FR. I have 3 colleagues who told me they're motivated to vote for I-901 specifically because of the 25FR. One has asthma, the other can smell smoke at her desk in the middle of our non-smoking building coming in from outside via the ventilation system, and the last one "doesn't want to breathe it in" and finds "the smokers by the door are inconsiderate". I too think the 25FR is sensible and am glad WA will have it. (Some people in other states like RI wish they had it in their laws.) We're 4 of many people who have their own reasons for supporting the 25FR. So please...keep giving I-901 exposure by talking about it. Many will see its intention and that it's reasonable. Heck, it looks like it might actually help it pass!

We all seem to have our own reasons for supporting I-901. There are people like myself who work in "cushy office jobs" and remember not-too-long ago they had to sit by people smoking at the desk right next to them. Could you picture that in Microsoft today? How archaic! It seems like an uncivilized Stone Age, and yet it was only 12 years ago. How quickly we get use to something, take it for granted, and think "it's always been this way" when actually it was once thought of as "radical". It was only in 1993 when smoking was allowed in private offices until the law changed to prohibit it: office employees were at their employer's whims to allow it or not and then possibly allow it again which is the reality for today's workers in the hospitality industry where exposure is heaviest. Now many of those office workers figure supporting I-901 is the least they can do for them so they can earn a living in a healthy smoke-free workplace...like they do. They can relate: call it empathy.

Overall, the pool of supporters motivated to see this pass is larger than the pool of people motivated to see it lose. Not many people yearn to be around second-hand smoke. Who wants to place themselves, health and all, in front of the stinky equivalent of an invisible yet toxic freight train? What positives are in it for them? On the contrary, it's more like a sinking ship slowly taking down its captain and passengers. There's no "safe" amount of second-hand smoke, and it's not worth the sacrifice. Most people feel they've "done their time" around it, and now that time is over.

The purpose of the initiative is to ensure clean and healthy indoor air in places open to the public and workplaces. That's it's #1 priority. If a business has chosen to have their business model rely so heavily on smoking for its success, now it might be in their best interest to plan ahead and rethink that model...they just have to look at the warning signs in front of them: "Second-hand Smoke Isn't Getting Any Safer or Healthier". It's remained remarkably consistent in that. The bad policies and habits of the few are not the good policies and habits for the many who live with their effects. People's essential need for clean toxic-free air trumphs people's non-essential choice to smoke and create toxins...whether inside or just outside the door. I-901's goal is to keep the air inside free of smoke whether that smoke is coming from the inside or from the outside via open windows and doors and/or ventilation that is sucking it back in. And, for the most part, I think it will easily and quickly accomplish that if passed. New century, new priorities.

I-901 is not the "Smokers' Accommodation Initiative" with its goal being to outline to people where and how to smoke. That time passed before I-901 was even born...it simply catches us up by giving us modern, effective updates to our existing smoking regulations. I-901 gives people something they can rely on by creating smoke-free areas which are the priority...the days of "smoking sections", which could never even contain the smoke, are ending as they are no longer a priority. If the status quo was working, we wouldn't have had those 321,000 plus people signing to get I-901 on the ballot. In considering what the effects of smoking have been on people's lives over the years, the general population doesn't seem to harbor much sympathy for it, nor do they seem to be willing to accommodate it nor be associated with support of it. Those are the realities of this issue today; success comes to those that see that. People that choose to continue to smoke will just step outside and figure out how and where to do it...that's the responsibility that comes with their choice to smoke. They'll manage. Then they'll come back in, and we'll all enjoy each others company again. Just like in Albuquerque, Bloomington, MN, and the entire state of Utah to name just a few...all cities and states with smoke-free laws with 25FRs. If they can do it, so can we.

Anyone whose hang-up is the 25FR probably doesn't want smoke-free indoors to begin with (they're in that 30% above) or they don't mind "cutting off their nose to spite their face". Their minimal and reactionary interpretation of it appears to be misguided and selective especially when the flexible wording of the initiative that we can all see expressly states 25' or a lesser approved distance. Negative responses to that seem silly and shortsighted. As far as enforcement the vast majority of people will self-comply making it a non-issue just like they do in other states while at the same time everyone will gain the rewards of smoke-free air. The numerous pros of I-901 as a whole far outweigh any imagined cons. Five years from now we'll look back and wonder what took us so long to implement these minor behavioral changes to go smoke-free and reap the benefits for so many by those few simply adapting. And now knowing how it impacts our health, I wouldn't want it on my conscience that I didn't support it.

Bottom line: If smoking was currently not allowed in bars and restaurants, we would never think of allowing it given all that we've come to know in the last 10-15 years about the negative health effects of second-hand smoke. (It's unfiltered smoke coming out of what's essentially a 'weapon' that kills at both ends...yuck!) That would be irresponsible and baffling. I-901 is well-intentioned, reasonable, and a worthy cause...I believe the majority of people know it and see it as a logical step, therefore, they will support it.

I can't wait for the freedom and the choice that will come from the ability to go to ANY bar, club, restaurant, or live music show and have it be 100% smoke-free! It will become the new normal, and we'll all get used to it...most will even like it. It's time.

Great dialogue everyone. Thanks!

however, do you really think that this will be the ONLY time we can do this? since this is an inititative i can't see this being the one and only chance.

Yes, I do. How many times have you seen it before? It takes well over a million dollars to sponsor an initiative. This is not an "eyman" initiative...that was in the Times earlier this year...therefore, it won't follow any protocols of his.

Remember: "the perfect is the enemy of the good."...although I happen to think this is pretty close to perfect. :-)

To:
David Meinert on October 10, 2005 - 3:31pm.

Some good intentions, but not real world practical. I'm thinking that some of the 321,000 petition signers thought that this probably wasn't practical either. We've pretty much reached a standstill at places going smoke-free. Each business is waiting for the other to go "boo". Most just want an even playing field (i.e. all smoke-free).

I've never considered the fact that WA state prohibits by law smoking in my work office a "nanny state" approach. Whatever it's called, I like being protected at work. I would be PIS*ED if people could start lighting up in the desk next to me; there's no way I think I should have to leave my job because of someone doing something (smoking) that has nothing to do with my job. I want the protection to know that can't change at my employer's whim so I can do the job I applied for in a safe, healthy environment.

Here is the long list of endorsors...you can pick the label for them. Not sure the members of the Washington State Labor Council would refer to themselves as "conservative"...looks like most are non-partisan.

Dayson Jones sounds like someone working for an initiave campaign.

His first lengthy post contains little but rhetoric. "vote for 901 because it is ahead in the polls and lots of Republicans support it". The 901 campaign sounds incredibly worried about the discussion of the 25 foot rule because they know it goes to far. So now they are spinning it. His comparisons of smoking in a bar where the patrons have a choice to leave, and also have the choice of many other non-smoking bars and clubs, to the workplace it just silly. They are not the same.

But his best argument is that the whole state of UTAH has the 25' rule. And this is where the 901 backers show their true colors I am afraid. Are we trying to make Washington into Utah?? Is Seattle the next Salt Lake City? Do we want our laws effectively created by the church? Will the backers of 901 next try to regulate drinking in the same way Utah does? I am afraid they will. The arguments in support of the 25' rule are empty. We should not create laws because someone doesn't like the smell of something.

The politics of 901 smell worse to me than second hand smoke. I would rather live in a City with personal freedoms and die of lung cancer than live in Singapore or Salt Lake City. I am sure Dayson Jones disagrees. He believes in a poltics of controlling people you don't approve of by creating laws that ban them. Mark Sidran is right there. It is a sort of 'fascist' liberalism. It fits right into the politics I have fought for years in opposing the Teen Dance Ordinance, The Poster Ban, and Sidrans civility laws. It just became really clear to me.

Finally, if this law is simply about regulating air quality, then why doesn't it do that. Why ban an otherwise legal activity? Why not just set air quality standards for all workplaces? 901 isn't about air quality. It is another law that moves us closer to a nanny state. Voting for it will empower the people who believe that nanny states are good. I don't. I dislike smoking and I will vote against 901.

Some more interesting news on similar arguments happening around the world...another question - if this isn't about morality enforcement, why does it not just band tabacco smoke, why does 901 also ban indoor marijuana smoking?

Smoking ban and cannabis cafes
NZCITY.CO.NZ

ALLY FOR DUNNE: Unlikely ally for Peter Dunne on proposed smoking ban- NORML sees it as a threat to their goal of cannabis cafes

21 September 2003

Campaigners for the liberalisation of cannabis laws have found themselves backing Peter Dunne, and at odds with Green MP Nandor Tanczos.

A proposed ban on smoking in bars and restaurants is seen as a threat to their goal of legal cannabis cafes in New Zealand, like those seen in Amsterdam.

While the Greens are supporting the proposed law, United Future instead prefers mandatory ventilation.

National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws president Chris Fowlie says it is strange to be in agreement with Peter Dunne.

He believes a clean-air standard is all most people want.

He believes the health select committee which recommended the ban on smoking in bars knew one spin-off would be to prevent cannabis cafes.

you're making me think! it's true, clubs and bars are voluntary places to go.

could you explain more about the "smoking room" exemption in i-901 or post a link? i hadn't heard about that.

There is no smoking room exemption, there just should be. If the real motivation of 901 is to protect workers' health then it would allow for a sealed off smoking room in bars. Why not? That way bars could make a choice if they wanted to have one, no one would be affected by second hand smoke who doesn't choose to be, and smokers could smoke and drink inside. But 901 isn't about protecting workers' health, it is about making smoking, all kinds of smoking including marijuana, illegal. The workers' health issue is just something the health nazi's came up with that has resonated with the general public. And they have a point, but not one that justifies the extremity of 901.

Any establishment requiring employees to assume risk associated with the workplace assumes responsibility regarding relief for health damage incurred. As a society, we expect that soldiers, fire fighters, police, farm workers, construction workers, etc. who sustain injuries in the line of duty are all entitled to relief and recovery from duty-related damages.

I see no reason why things should be different with a smoking establishment - the establishment should purchase health insurance policies covering the affected employees. The establishments could then choose to absorb these costs or pass them along to patrons.

I'm a fairly far left liberal. Having said that, I feel liberals sometimes take the "we need to all have a big group hug and agree on something 100% five times before it ever gets done" approach a bit to far.

A smoking ban will not lead to a slippery slope. A smoking ban will not put anyone out of business or cost anyone money. A smoking ban will not lead to french fries being outlawed. A smoking ban will not prevent pot from being legalized.

Here's why:
News Flash- Washington would not be the first state to outlaw smoking! MONTANA has outlawed smoking in all public spaces. Montana. Enough said.

Other states that have banned all smoking in bars and such have actually found an increase in business as more non-smokers spent more time and money in the bars.

People claiming that banning smoking will lead to other unhealthy things being banned are missing the point. I REALLY don't care that you smoke. Honestly. However, your rights as an individual end when you start blowing smoke in my face or around me. In fact, it's about all I can do to not punch you in the face (my bark is bigger then my bite). French fries will not be banned because your consumption of french fries does not have a negative health impact on me.

You will never be able to smoke pot in the bar, even if it becomes legalized. Get over it. I'm all for pot becoming legalized, but I don't hold any illusions about being able to walk up to the bar and smoke a joint (in the US).

So, get over your feelings of "oh no, i might be infringing someones rights" and ban smoking. We'll all be a lot happier and wonder how why there was so much crying about it in the first place.

The Mirabeau Room, has decided to make the showroom/ main lounge non-smoking all the time. The small lounge, which just had a great smoke eater installed will remain smoking.

Good stuff. I think it's a trend.

An econ professor of mine did a little experiment once where he herded all the smokers in the class out of the room and asked them how much someone in a restaurant would have to pay them to stop smoking. The smokers were willing to stop smoking for, like, $2.

The non-smokers, on the other hand, were willing to shell out an average of $20 bucks just so that they wouldn't have to sit next to a smoker during dinner.

I think this is nuts and was only willing to pay a buck or two for a smoke-free environment, but apparently this is a common response-- non-smokers are willing to pay a LOT to get away from smoking, and smokers really don't give a crap either way (generally... our own che420 is a major exception!!).

So what I'm thinking is that what bar and club owners could make an assload on non-smoking covers. Not that I'm suggesting that you should do this, Mr. Meinert. :)

I apologize, I just get all riled up when someone tries to decide what is best for everyone else. I still think it's retarded for non smokers to complain about second hand smoke when they're pouring poison into their bodies. You can pull your "it's for the benefit of the people who work in the industry" but the truth is you just don't want to smell like smoke when you leave a bar. If you were so concerned about the health and well being of everyone, you wouldn't drink. You wouldn't let bars exist. You would outlaw all the bad things in the world. The truth is this is a feel good initiative, one that is not a priority over what is really going on in the local area and the world today. The Puget Sound is on the verge of not being able to support sea life it is so polluted. We are at a crisis on public transit and our reliance on fossil fuels, without a viable option except obstructionist initiatives and the Seattle way killing every bit of progress. We have a corrupt mayor whose strings are pulled by large business interests, and who is more concerned with naked ladies making money than with viable options for commuters. And we have a long ongoing string about smoking in bars? This is your big issue? Seriously, all you anti-smoking nazis need to focus your energy somewhere else.

If you read my blogs and comments you would know that I am not opposed to non-smoking bars, one of my favorite bars is non-smoking. if you want non-smoking bars, you can go to non smoking bars. No one is preventing you, but your solution to this problem doesn't work.

...this is a pretty weak argument, che420. I read your blogs and find you generally have well-considered things to say, but in my view this isn't one of them.

I'm not really going to touch your dislike of determining what's best for everyone, save that A) I don't believe it and B) it's at the foundation of nearly everything discussed on this site - including at the heart of what we should spend our money on to help, say, commuters. The philosophy doesn't hold up.

What I will comment on is, retarded or not, there's a difference between what you do to yourself and what you do to others. I personally hang out in smoky bars. Why? I'm dumb like that. But it makes perfect sense to me that you would ban smoking in public gathering places. Quite unlike your view of it as a standalone issue, this falls very directly into the greater area of public health. And insofar as public health is concerned, there is a great body of legislation that serves to ban things harmful to the public, much of which I am certain you support.

For me personally, I'm more attuned to environmental issues as apparently you are, and in truth the smoking ban is not my primary concern; however, I think you make a grave error in discounting this as a feel-good measure. Many discount enviro issues similarly, and I find them equally short-sighted.

[exit soapbox]

Hey che420- Pouring poison down our bodies? Who's making value judgements now?

Beer is healthy! http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/041204TheBuzzOnBeer.htm.

I enjoy going to see bands play in clubs. I do not enjoy other peole making me sick with their smoke. To say I shouldn't go to these clubs and bars because i dislike other people smoking is presumptuous and discriminatory.

I don't have a say in where the Pixies play. I should have a say in whether or not I'm going to throw up from all the smoke, or worse, get cancer, at a Pixies show.

Guess what Rob, you don't get to have a say over what I decide to allow on my property. It isn't your right.

I hate the smell of perfume at Nordstrom. Should I be able to make it illegal? I am alergic to it. It makes me sick.

It is not discriminatory to say that if you don't like some otherwise legal activity happening at my bar, you get to change it. If you don't like it, open your own bar. If I don't like it I can ban it on my property. Or not. But it should be up to me, not you. Don't come to my bar if you don't like how it smells. But it's my decision. It's called freedom. I hope you don't want to get rid of it.

901, strip club ban. No sitting on sidewalks. No sleeping in parks. No postering. You anti-901 people are part of a trend in Seattle. A trend to turn us into Bellevue and Salt Lake City.

While I see why you're frustrated at being told what to do (especially in light of the recent uncalled for harassment of club owners by the city of seattle) I really don't have any sympathy for owners or anyone else when it comes to this. I understand this is fairly selfish of me. But, if thats my biggest flaw (it's not) then I can live with it.

I have an expectation that I can walk into a fairly public place, such as a bar (unless it's an exclusive members only club) and not have my health put at risk by something as stupid as someone else smoking.

Do I want the government making everything safe for me? Of course not. However, there are times when the government should enforce actions for the good of the society, especially when the majority of the people vote for it. Hopefully this will be one of those times.

Really, when it comes down to it. This is not the governement saying they're going to ban smoking. This is the majority (hopefully) of people saying they're sick of tolerating this. What exactly is wrong with that?

and you're not changing mine. This initiative stinks worse than second hand smoke. There are bigger things to worry about, and as a suggestion to those who are so sensitive to smoking, please stay indoors so that nothing will ever infect your tender little bodies ever again. The funny thing is I tried to quit smoking last week, but your self-righteousness just makes me want to smoke more just to piss you off.

I know it was an attempt at humor Rob, but if you think beer is good for you obviously you haven't been downtown to see the drunks standing around in their own filth begging for change to get themselves another can of brew. That's all they drink, beer. Tell me again how that's good for you. I know it's bad, I drink it a lot, but I'm not disillusioned about it. Just as I am in touch with the fact that I'm going to die, just like you are going to die, although I'm just hastening the process up a bit.

I'm done with this subject, it's really not worth any more time.

Well like it or not, I-901 is expected to pass easily

The problem here is that your basically telling all the smokers that went to that same concert you just went to that they can no longer come. Your basically telling all the people who want to smoke they are no longer allowed to attend any events, because they smoke, and since all events are either in places of employment and public spaces, I-901 will make it illegal for them to attend. Thats like telling someone they can't eat at Mcdonalds because it will increase the insurance premium that other non-fast food eaters have to pay, because you both have the same health insurance. Also, people work in hazardous conditions every day - ask any non-academic engineer what kind of conditions they work in and you tell me which is worse, working within cigarette smoke or with heavy machinery. Its just sickening to see that people would sacrifice individual liberty all for the sake of not having a dry throat and sore stomach. Maybe its time that smokers start having smokers only events - because of prissy, narrow-minded, and selfish so called liberals (more like conservatives) like you! While your out to ban smoking, why not ban vehicles, because everyday I'm at the bus stop or in the parking lot, I have to breathe all the exhaust fumes - which can actually kill a person (whereas cigarette smoke can't kill you - it can supposedly, just make you sick) in under a minute if within an inclosed space. imagine the damage its doing to your health as you walk by and breathe it in.

BTW, just to clarify: I am a non-smoker.

Employees and patrons already have a choice, they do not have to seek employment, or patronize places where smoking is now allowed. there are and will be more places and venues that will become non-smoking to fill the niche market. If you can't see that this is more about losing your freedoms,one small freedom at a time, than you do not deserve any freedoms at all.

Initiative 901 is not about smoking or not smoking, people. It's just another way a few people have found to pit one man against another for their own good. Sure, there are arguments both for and against total abolishment of smoking inside any public area, but ask yourself who stands to profit? Is it the bar or club owner who will watch, if not a majority, at least some of his business go to the local Reservation where smoking will still be legal? Is it the waitstaff at the same areas who will no longer be tipped by people who have learned to kick back, have a smoke, and relax? Is it the Grocery Store, Smoke Shop, or Liquor Store manager who will no longer see some of their regular customers because the customers can no longer light up out front and shoot the sh*t? No, it is the Reservations themselves who will see the most profit from any such legislation passing! Non-smokers would, it would seem, be just as happy if an initiative were brought forth requiring that, for any public building with a capacity of over 1000 people, either a non-smoking rule or separate smoking area be designated. I am not saying have the smoking area be in the front half of the establishment, but in a totally separate room, with higher restrictions on ventilation systems in any areas where public smoking is allowed. If the current initiative passes, smokers will be denied the right to walk in the open doing what they obviously enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I do feel bad for the handful of waitstaff and bartenders throughout the state that either were too stupid to realize that the bar they were apllying for a job at had no anti-smoking bias, or were just plain underqualified to turn in a new application for the local Golden Arches, but let's look at where a lot of the dollars come from that keep the places that allow public smoking in business. Bars sell cigarrettes at a higher price than you are likely to find anywhere else. Do you honestly believe that the bar owner isn't making a profit and laughing to himself every time someone lights one up? Once smokers begin to smoke in a social setting, they tend to become more relaxed and open, enciting longer patronage and larger tips for the waitstaff. Again, if you were the waitstaff, wouldn't you want the mellow, relaxed, social drinker who will stay for a couple of hours peacefully sipping a couple drinks and leaving a larger tip? As a final suggestion to end all this, I'd invite everyone to take a serious look around your local area. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll be able to find a place where you can have a drink without being bothered by smoke. I myself visited a bar in Silverlake (East of Everett) that had such stellar ventilation that a smoker could light up at the same tble as an asthmatic without causing any problems. Wouldn't the fight be much better fought if we all pushed for improved ventilation and air cleaning devices in all our shared public places, rather than butting heads over an initiative that, if passed, will funnel even more money out of the hands of those who pay taxes to the state for local improvements and into the hands of the Reservations that will not contribute even a small percentage to the same State unless it means even more profit for them in the future?