Washington Smoking Ban!
Initiative 901, which expands the state's Clean Indoor Air Act, was approved with comfortable margins in all 39 counties. 62% to 38%.
The measure bans smoking in buildings and vehicles open to the public and in places of employment, including within 25 feet of doorways, windows and ventilation openings. Violators can be fined $100 for each infraction. This ban will be the most restrictive smoking ban in the nation and is long overdue.
"Personally, I have advocated concentration camps and public executions of smokers but this is a step in the right direction," stated RCS author and cyclist extraordinaire Michael Buckingham.
It's about time. I'm all for personal freedoms but when those freedoms affect my health, then I have a problem. Shoot up heroin, take pills and all the cocaine you want but don't pollute my air asshole. There have been many occasions where I've been incredibly close to seriously kicking someone's ass because they were smoking somewhere near me.
For all the business owners that say this ruling will put them out of business within 30 days, I say that I might now consider visiting their establishment. One of the main reasons I quit going out on the weekends (besides not having friends anymore) has been because I can't stand the second hand smoke and having my clothes reek for weeks later, even after washing.
Seven states require all restaurants to be smoke-free, but exempt bars: Florida, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, Utah and Idaho. Many cities and municipalities have imposed their own smoke-free regulations.
In California, the ban on smoking in bars simply moved many smoking sections outside. But I-901’s 25-foot rule would effectively ban smoking on many outdoor patios and sidewalks.
Supporters of the initiative raised more than $1.5 million—much of it from the American Cancer Society, with contributions from individuals and groups like the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Lung Association of Washington. The small, but vocal, opposition raised less than $27,000.
The only other bill I cared about, I-912 which called for the repeal of the .08 per gallon tax on gasoline was defeated. This is a great thing because how else are we going to pay for these roads people?
December 7th, 2005 - 15:20
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20031027-094529-3299r.htm
I’ll bet you won’t go the bar anyway–especially if you don’t have any friends.
December 9th, 2005 - 20:44
I think the ban is long overdue, I went for a drink with some co-workers tonight and it was great to come home not smelling like an ashtray. However I still see customers and employees smoking right outside the doors and Target even has ashtrays! If the 25 foot rule is not enforced now, when will it be??
January 25th, 2006 - 13:19
901 as it currently stand is far too extreme.
While I believe that it is a reasonable thing to have a smoking ban in areas that are shared by all members of the public, I think that I-901 was far too extreme in its scope. No non smokers that I know of have any reason to enter a cigar shop or cigar bar, so their health is not being compromised. These venues are patronized only by cigar smokers with very little chance that any non-smoker would ever walk into one or be affected by them.
I would make the following two small changes and return some semblance of reason to the smoking ban.
1. Allow smoking in dedicated “Cigar Bars.” No other state has gone so far as to ban cigar smoking in dedicated cigar bars. Establishments with physically separate “cigar rooms” and dedicated ventilation systems should be exempted from this ban.
2. Allow smoking in “Cigar Stores�. Cigar stores should also be exempted from this ban provided that the sale of OTP (premium cigars) is their primary business. No other state has banned the consumption of cigars in the store that sells them. If a business owner cannot sample cigars or pipe tobacco in his own shop, how can he make proper business decisions with regard to what to purchase.
No other state restricts the consumption of cigars to this degree and Washington should not either. Cigars are not cigarettes and should not be regulated in the same way.
January 25th, 2006 - 14:46
Thank you Stephen for your comment. Though I am probably a “militant anti-smoker”, I completely agree with you on the cigar bar item. Non-smokers would have no reason whatsoever to enter those establishments and thus their health would not be comprimised. I honestly don’t know and can’t think of the rationale for banning those but I haven’t seen any of the cigar or tobacco “stores” close their doors yet. I know a few in Issaquah and one in Fall City that still seem to have a steady stream of patrons.
February 15th, 2006 - 22:30
We in St. Louis totally defeated our smoking ban with the help of local ETS researcher David Kuneman. The case that ETS is any real threat to public health is surprisingly flimsy. Mr. Kuneman’s comments on an STLtoday.com blog helped convince St. Louis that no further restriction of public smoking is really necessary. If I can help you undo a ban in your area, contact Bill Hannegan at: hanneganlounge@safeplace.net
Ok, lets go to all the so-called studies which “prove� ETS is a hazard. There are two kinds of ETS studies… sloppy ones and well executed ones. The sloppy ones are those which are case-controlled. This means, the researcher asks a nonsmoking lung cancer patient what airborne carcinogens he/she was exposed to. If 30% more patients respond to being exposed to lots of smoke, the researcher concludes ETS increases Lung Cancer risk 30%. These studies usually involve a few hundred patients. This is where you get your data from. Trouble is, patients are not experts and do not know if they were exposed to asbestos, lived in a home with a radon problem, etc. The patients have all heard ETS causes LC, so they blame that. Please go to http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/ for a more complete explanation.
The well executed studies are called cohort studies. These rarely conclude ETS causes Lung cancer and Heart Disease. In cohort studies, thousands of persons are enrolled and all are healthy. They are divided among those exposed to smoke..or not. After about 30 years, the researcher contacts as many as he can locate, and determines the health of the study subjects. These are more expensive to run. The most well known of the cohort studies is the UCLA study which found no risk. These kinds of studies are less subject to bias.
The EPA report combined the results of 13 studies, and all but one were case controlled. They could Have used all 58 studies completed at the time, but did not simply becasue if they had, they would have been forced to conclude ETS is safe. According to the EPA report, even using those 13 studies, without the Frontham study, they would have concluded ETS is not dangerous. Trouble with the Frontham study is she refuses to let anyone see her raw data. I have a copy of the complete EPA report—that’s what it says.
In summary, we have the EPA claiming ETS is dangerous, and the Dept of Health and Human Services which only cites studies conducted by antismoking groups, and has never actually done a study of thier own claims ETS is dangerous. We have OSHA, the Congressional research service of the Library of Congress, and OakRidge Nat Labs claiming ETS is not dangerous.
Now, lets move on to population studies. All good epidemiology text books teach than when a weak risk such as a 30% excess risk is determined from epidemiology studies, then the researcher has to conduct population studies to either confirm, or reject the 30% result. If the researcher checks the prevalence of the disease indentified, as being more common in populations, more exposed, then the risk is confirmed. The trouble is, Europeans only get about half as much Lung Cancer as we do, and they are exposed to more ETS and always were. This according to WHO. And euros smoke about 1/3 more than us, and always did and euros live about 2 years longer than we do. Another population study is that in the US, age-adjusted rates of heart disease, nonsmoker’s lung cancer, asthma, COPD, and days missed from work are higher now than than in the 1970s when we were exposed to about 9 times more smoke. There is also a higher rate of childhood cancer, birth defects, middle ear infections, asthma, and most other diseases blamed on smoke today, than in the 1970s. early cases of smoking related cancer among young adults are increasing.. Again see http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/ for more detailed info. Population studies fail to confirm the 30% increased risk these case-controlled studies claim exist. And it’s more than just a litle odd no matter which disease you’re referring to, the elevated risk caused by ETS is always claimed to be the same- 30%- not double, as Dean claims.
I think the fact that we have removed 90% of all ETS, and nothing good happened, speaks volumes as to what we can expect if we remove the last 10% of ETS exposure. Dave Kuneman
February 20th, 2006 - 17:03
Haha, no wonder you have no friends. But seriously dude, you rock!
July 5th, 2008 - 10:04
look, I’m a former smoker. so probably, according to some, if not most current smokers, a whiny, “radical militant” as well.
it IS a proven fact that the plethora of chemicals in cigarette smoke are extremely hazardous to human health and life in general as we know it. why risk damaging other people’s and especially children’s health.
I personally am in favor of the ban. but yes, it’s a little extreme that they have banned smoking in establishments frequented only by smokers, so in that respect I think they went a little far.
I haven’t seen much of a loss of business in the bars I go to. sure, there have been a limited few bar closures in my town, but I’m sure that wasn’t due to the smoking ban. uh, mismanagement?
I’d like to see more adherence to and enforcement of the 25 ft. rule. and not only for public businesses, but for apartment complexes as well. walking through a smoke cloud to get to my home and not being able to open my windows is kind of a PIA.
September 12th, 2008 - 02:06
This is a very informative post, i was searching in google for Lung Cancer and came across this post. My niece is suffering from Lung Cancer, information mention in this article will greatly help me in offering her some advice.
April 27th, 2009 - 16:26
Way to go buddie! Great job for getting mad at the people who smoke. It’s a horrible thing and it stinks so bad i can hardly stand it! Smoking is for dumb people!