• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Smoking ban begins today in Washington, DC!

A

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am elated! I was sure that Congress would shoot this down, so I hadn't kept up this this issue since the DC Council passed the ban. (The DC Council passed it, but Congress has to approve it). This means that there will be no more smoking in restaurants anymore (except outside)--even in the bar area. Bars (that are just bars and not in restaurants) and clubs are exempt until January 1, 2007. This is just simply fantastic!

:cheers:
 
aps said:
I am elated! I was sure that Congress would shoot this down, so I hadn't kept up this this issue since the DC Council passed the ban. (The DC Council passed it, but Congress has to approve it). This means that there will be no more smoking in restaurants anymore (except outside)--even in the bar area. Bars (that are just bars and not in restaurants) and clubs are exempt until January 1, 2007. This is just simply fantastic!

:cheers:
Click to expand...
Well then...

The DebatePolitics convention will NOT be in DC...
 
cnredd said:
Well then...

The DebatePolitics convention will NOT be in DC...
Click to expand...

Really? Because of that? Where they are considering right now--Bethesda, Maryland--that has had a smoking ban in place for several years.

People can always go outside and smoke. I don't see what the big deal is.
 
aps said:
I am elated! I was sure that Congress would shoot this down, so I hadn't kept up this this issue since the DC Council passed the ban. (The DC Council passed it, but Congress has to approve it). This means that there will be no more smoking in restaurants anymore (except outside)--even in the bar area. Bars (that are just bars and not in restaurants) and clubs are exempt until January 1, 2007. This is just simply fantastic!

:cheers:
Click to expand...

Thre cheers for business owners loss of freedom.

Hip-hip-hooray

Hip-hip-hooray

Hip-hip-hooray
 
zymurgy said:
Thre cheers for business owners loss of freedom.

Hip-hip-hooray

Hip-hip-hooray

Hip-hip-hooray
Click to expand...

You're assuming that they don't want this. Some don't, sure, but some are thrilled about it. Not every business owner supports smoking. And studies have shown that it has had no impact on business. If New York City can do it, then any city can do it.
 
aps said:
You're assuming that they don't want this. Some don't, sure, but some are thrilled about it. Not every business owner supports smoking. And studies have shown that it has had no impact on business. If New York City can do it, then any city can do it.
Click to expand...

lol. Studies have shown this eh?

whatever.
 
zymurgy said:
lol. Studies have shown this eh?

whatever.
Click to expand...

Umm, yeah. That's how they were able to sell the idea here in D.C. Guess you don't like it, huh? Good.
 
Being a smoker I am not offended by such laws because I feel a need to smoke indoors, but I get upset as someone who believes no government has the right to limit personal freedoms. I live in Massachusetts and we have had a public smoking ban on the books for a couple of years now so I know what this is like. It is my opinion that the decision to ban smoking or allow smoking should be in the hands of the business itself, not the government.
 
AnarchyintheUS said:
Being a smoker I am not offended by such laws because I feel a need to smoke indoors, but I get upset as someone who believes no government has the right to limit personal freedoms. I live in Massachusetts and we have had a public smoking ban on the books for a couple of years now so I know what this is like. It is my opinion that the decision to ban smoking or allow smoking should be in the hands of the business itself, not the government.
Click to expand...

I see your point, and, to some extent, I agree with it--let the owner decide. But I love the ban. I don't like smelling smoke when I am eating, and in some restaurants, no matter how far you are from the smoking section, you can still smell it. So for me, it's an opportunity to sit in a place and eat/drink without having to smell any cigarette smoke.
 
aps said:
I see your point, and, to some extent, I agree with it--let the owner decide. But I love the ban. I don't like smelling smoke when I am eating, and in some restaurants, no matter how far you are from the smoking section, you can still smell it. So for me, it's an opportunity to sit in a place and eat/drink without having to smell any cigarette smoke.
Click to expand...

The restaurants where you were must have horrible ventilation, because even before I was a smoker I never noticed the smell.
 
aps said:
Umm, yeah. That's how they were able to sell the idea here in D.C. Guess you don't like it, huh? Good.
Click to expand...

If it is good for business then the law would of been unneccesary. Business Owners would flock to the more profitable model.
 
aps said:
I see your point, and, to some extent, I agree with it--let the owner decide. But I love the ban. I don't like smelling smoke when I am eating, and in some restaurants, no matter how far you are from the smoking section, you can still smell it. So for me, it's an opportunity to sit in a place and eat/drink without having to smell any cigarette smoke.
Click to expand...
Like you would be able to do in an establishment where the owner makes that decision...

If you had an issue with it, why not just complain to the owner and let him make the final decision?...
 
St Paul, MN's ban just went into effect on Friday morning. It's a real shame that private establishments can't define their own spaces.
 
shuamort said:
St Paul, MN's ban just went into effect on Friday morning. It's a real shame that private establishments can't define their own spaces.
Click to expand...

Didn't they read the studies. This is good for them.
 
zymurgy said:
Didn't they read the studies. This is good for them.
Click to expand...
This is the story here as we're having competing cities and counties banning, repealing, and reorging their laws:
At Tin Cup's, a venerable Rice Street restaurant and bar in St. Paul's North End, owner Pat Sovis said sales are down $120,000, or 23 percent, since falling under the Ramsey County ban a year ago.

It's been pretty devastating; the ban went in and -- boom -- it was like a curtain came down," he said.


Since early January, 50 bars and private clubs have been granted two-year exemptions. To qualify, they had to show that at least half their sales came from alcohol.

After losing a third of his business during the ban, Osseo bar owner Martin Duffy said sales shot back up after he got an exemption.
Click to expand...
 
zymurgy said:
If it is good for business then the law would of been unneccesary. Business Owners would flock to the more profitable model.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was good for business--I said it did not have a negative impact on business.

These laws are created because of the health benefits. There are less heart attacks as a result of the smoking bans. I think that's great. If a smoker doesn't smoke, the smoker benefits healthwise, as do non-smokers. If it's the other way around, no one benefits.
 
cnredd said:
Like you would be able to do in an establishment where the owner makes that decision...

If you had an issue with it, why not just complain to the owner and let him make the final decision?...
Click to expand...

I am not sure a lot of owners would choose to ban smoking for fear of losing business from those that allow it. I think that's why the ban applies across the board. Then everyone is affected equally.
 
shuey said:
At Tin Cup's, a venerable Rice Street restaurant and bar in St. Paul's North End, owner Pat Sovis said sales are down $120,000, or 23 percent, since falling under the Ramsey County ban a year ago.

It's been pretty devastating; the ban went in and -- boom -- it was like a curtain came down," he said.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a "negative impact"...:shrug:
 
cnredd said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a "negative impact"...:shrug:
Click to expand...

There are definitely studies out there that show a negative impact on businesses. I'm not denying that.
 
Of course this will have a negative impact.

That's the thing, voters got together and decided how to operate someone elses place of business.

The invisible hand of free market capitalism would create tons of smoke free bars if it was profitable to do so. Because it isn't, a bunch of non-smokers joined together and forced the issue on everybody.

I don't like being around smoke. Even worse, I hate to be around do-gooders that tell other people what do do with their property.
 
zymurgy said:
That's the thing, voters got together and decided how to operate someone elses place of business.
Click to expand...
[Nitpick]In D.C, as well here in my hometown, it was the city who decided and not the voters directly. [/nitpick]
 
zymurgy said:
Of course this will have a negative impact.

That's the thing, voters got together and decided how to operate someone elses place of business.

The invisible hand of free market capitalism would create tons of smoke free bars if it was profitable to do so. Because it isn't, a bunch of non-smokers joined together and forced the issue on everybody.

I don't like being around smoke. Even worse, I hate to be around do-gooders that tell other people what do do with their property.
Click to expand...

Just so you know:

New Study: Bars and Restaurants Thrive Despite NYC's Smoking Ban [03/29-1]

Excerpts from: Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says By ANDREA ELLIOTT New York Times [03/29/04]

The city's restaurants and bars have prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments since the law took effect a year ago, according to a study to be released by the city today.

The study also found that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less secondhand smoke in the workplace.

"It really confirms that New York City is now a healthier place to work, eat and drink," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, commissioner of the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which produced the report along with two other city departments and the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

Data from the city's Department of Finance shows that the money spent in New York bars and restaurants has increased, the report states: from April 2003 to January, the city collected about $17.3 million in tax payments from bars and restaurants, a rise of about $1.4 million over the same period a year earlier.

http://www.no-smoking.org/march04/03-29-04-1.html
Click to expand...

Impact of a Smoking Ban on Restaurant and Bar Revenues --- El Paso, Texas, 2002

None of the regression models for restaurant, bar, or mixed-beverage revenues or for such revenues as percentages of total retail revenue over time showed any statistically significant changes after the smoking ban was implemented (Table). In addition, the results did not change when revenues were adjusted for inflation, and adjusting for changes in price did not change the results (8). In all models, the variance inflation factors had values of <2 for each of the independent variables, indicating that multicollinearity was not present, and the Durbin-Watson statistics indicated that none of the autocorrelations was statistically significant (Table).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm
Click to expand...
 
It's unconstitutional, and the slippery slope has been more slick then anyone could have imagined. Read these tales, and see how ridiculous this thing has become, it's certainly not American, and it stinks more then any cigar ever has!:roll:

http://www.nycclash.com/unreasonable_archives.html
 
Deegan said:
It's unconstitutional, and the slippery slope has been more slick then anyone could have imagined. Read these tales, and see how ridiculous this thing has become, it's certainly not American, and it stinks more then any cigar ever has!:roll:

http://www.nycclash.com/unreasonable_archives.html
Click to expand...

Now it's unconstitutional?

Odd, I feel I have a better understanding then most of how the constitution is supposed to operate. Could you show me where in the constitution the federal goverment has the power to prevent states from creating these types of laws?
 
zymurgy said:
Now it's unconstitutional?

Odd, I feel I have a better understanding then most of how the constitution is supposed to operate. Could you show me where in the constitution the federal goverment has the power to prevent states from creating these types of laws?
Click to expand...

"Odd, I feel I have a better understanding then most of how the constitution is supposed to operate"

And you are the problem then, your opinion shows that, "you know better then most" you don't know sh!t!

States have their own lawmakers, and they can obviously be bought and sold to the highest bidder, but they can't bypass the constitution. These rights are well described, and well known, it's just a step away from the SCOTUS, as it should be. If a group of folks want to get together and smoke, they should be able to be afforded a little tiny spot in our f**king existence, don'tcha think?:confused:

To turn them in to criminals, and extort unreasonable taxes, this is the crime!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom