Washington State bans smoking... with a twist

bholdr · #1 11-11-2005, 01:59 AM

from the seattle times:

[ QUOTE ]
Initiative 901, which expands the state's Clean Indoor Air Act, was approved with comfortable margins in all 39 counties.

"I think this is a clear sign that Washington voters are demanding the right to breathe clean air," said Peter McCollum, Yes on I-901 campaign spokesman.

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.

I-901 had enormous support from the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and more than 400 people, all contributing more than $1.3 million total. There was only token opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to hear some people's opinions before i get deep into my position/thoughts on this, but here's a starter:

25 feet?!?

In my neighborhood, that means i can smoke A: in my apartment (that is, i could if my lease let me), and B: in the middle of the intersections ('cept for the cars, natch)... WTF?!

PoBoy321 · #2 11-11-2005, 02:01 AM

25 feet isn't nearly as far away as you might think. Also, I don't know of any states that have passed a similar law, but I know that many colleges and universities have similar anti-smoking rules (it's only 15 ft. here, though).

wmspringer · #3 11-12-2005, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
25 feet isn't nearly as far away as you might think. Also, I don't know of any states that have passed a similar law, but I know that many colleges and universities have similar anti-smoking rules (it's only 15 ft. here, though).

[/ QUOTE ]

Shame it's not better enforced
I've seen a lot of the "no smoking within X feet of building entrance" signs...usually with someone leaning against them having a smoke :-p

ripdog · #4 11-11-2005, 02:28 AM

The 25 foot rule seemed a bit much, but I voted for it anyway. I hate having to walk my kid through that cloud of [censored] and it is truly offensive to non-smokers. I rarely go to cardrooms because I come home 8 hours later with a hack and needing to immediately wash the clothes I have on and take a shower. I'm always stunned when I'm at the grocery store and someone buys two packs. "That'll be $11.78." What kind of chump pays $5.89 for a pack of smokes? I quit in protest when they hit $1.50 a pack (1987). Why haven't you quit yet?

PoBoy321 · #5 11-11-2005, 02:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I quit in protest when they hit $1.50 a pack (1987). Why haven't you quit yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

This boggled my mind. I started smoking when I was a freshman in high school (I recently quit, knock on wood) and they were about $4.75/pack. I remember being piss when they went up to $5.50. Now they're something like $8/pack in NYC.

#6 11-11-2005, 02:39 AM

Um, before I quit, I got Djarum Cloves which are usually 150% of the regular cig cost for 3.49... thank you texas!

bholdr · #7 11-11-2005, 03:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The 25 foot rule seemed a bit much, but I voted for it anyway. I hate having to walk my kid through that cloud of [censored] and it is truly offensive to non-smokers. I rarely go to cardrooms because I come home 8 hours later with a hack and needing to immediately wash the clothes I have on and take a shower

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually liked it in san fran where there is no smoking iin the bars... it made me smoke less, and provided a nice non-deafening spot to meet the chicks at the bar. yours are all reasonable complaints, and, in the 'burbs, even the 25ft rule could be considered reasonable, even in washington, BUT, here's my hood:

I estimated on the size of the circles- i think mine are actually much smaller than 25ft radius... they are actually centered on entrances, though, and should give you an idea of where i'll be able to smoke.

[ QUOTE ]
Why haven't you quit yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

it used to be because i liked smoking a lot (and not just cigs, wink-wink), but now it'll be just for spite, dammit. j/k... this, as much as i dislike the idea of a majority imposing their TASTES on a minority's use of public space, may encourage me to quit....

...and it IS a matter of taste, except when it comes to secondhand smoke- and there are better, less draconian/categorical ways to deal with that. why didn't the law conditionally allow bars to continue to have smoking: bars that would let people light up would have to meet a standard of ventilation/filtration, health care and education for employees, etc: make it as safe as any other reasonable working environment for the staff and non-smoking patrons. This would allow the smokers to continue to have public places to enjoy their habit in, and solve the main problems that (theroeticly) motivate smoking bans... if it was really primarily a public health issue, then a more pragmatic solution should've been persued. Instead, most people just DON'T LIKE smoke(ers).

bottom line, IMO.

ripdog · #8 11-11-2005, 05:39 PM

I talked to my wife about it and commented that it would basically make downtown Seattle a No Smoking Zone. As a former smoker I can understand your frustration, but as a non-smoker I have way more empathy for those who choose not to smoke and are exposed to it anyway. I don't dislike smokers, I dislike smoke.

hmkpoker · #9 11-11-2005, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I talked to my wife about it and commented that it would basically make downtown Seattle a No Smoking Zone. As a former smoker I can understand your frustration, but as a non-smoker I have way more empathy for those who choose not to smoke and are exposed to it anyway. I don't dislike smokers, I dislike smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a never-smoker, probably-never-will-smoker, and someone who doesn't care for cigarettes, I think this is completely ridiculous. A sensible restaurant will have a non-smoking section if they don't want to alienate customers, and that's perfectly fine. Anyone bothered by someone passing by them on the streets with a cigarette needs to grow up. It's just one more freedom to take away from us.

BCPVP · #10 11-12-2005, 01:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I talked to my wife about it and commented that it would basically make downtown Seattle a No Smoking Zone. As a former smoker I can understand your frustration, but as a non-smoker I have way more empathy for those who choose not to smoke and are exposed to it anyway. I don't dislike smokers, I dislike smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a never-smoker, probably-never-will-smoker, and someone who doesn't care for cigarettes, I think this is completely ridiculous. A sensible restaurant will have a non-smoking section if they don't want to alienate customers, and that's perfectly fine. Anyone bothered by someone passing by them on the streets with a cigarette needs to grow up. It's just one more freedom to take away from us.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm semi-torn on the issue. I don't think the gov't should have the right to tell private businesses whether they can allow smoking in their establishment. But then there's in public. Now, the non-smoker is being forced to inhale the smoke, which has been proven to be dangerous. On the other hand, there could be people who want to ban cars because the exhaust annoys them. Where's the line? I don't know.