No exemptions | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

einmaleins
Guglielmo
oldtimeydave
srh31
Rick
oldtimeydave
The Fire Inside
FRESH

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

colormagician
wilybadger
Mariner719
stiks071
banyantreenich

No exemptions

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 11:08pm.

No indoor smoking evidently means no indoor smoking. From kgw.com:

By RACHEL LA CORTE / Associated Press: Cary Wilson studies for his astronomy class while taking a drag from the hose extending from his hookah water pipe, slowly inhaling the fragrant shisha — a mixture of tobacco, molasses and fruit flavors.

Joined by his friends on a plush maroon couch at Fire & Earth, a hookah lounge and tobacco merchant in downtown Olympia, Wilson said the newly passed statewide ban on indoor public smoking — including hookah bars — is unfair.

"You have a place to go that's not centered around drinking," said Wilson, an 18-year-old year student at South Puget Sound Community College in Olympia. "It's just a nice place to come and hang out."

Wilson and his friends will now have to smoke their hookahs at home, as the citizen-passed initiative takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. Fire & Earth will be closing its hookah bar, and several hookah lounges around the state are wondering how they'll be able to stay in business under the ban, the strictest in the country.

Rick's blog
Login or register to post comments

We can't even blame politicia

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 12/07/2005 - 11:33pm.

We can't even blame politicians for this. The people handed more power to government.

Well, if the hookah lounges c

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 12:15am.

Well, if the hookah lounges can't get exemptions, they probably will go out of business. That's democracy for you. Hopefully, with the money the state saves as a result of having fewer smoking related health costs, new jobs, and better opportunities will be made available for those left out in the cold by the indoor smoking ban.

This is classic. Not only ar

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 1:01am.

This is classic. Not only are we tightening up private property rights but now we're hoping that, since jobs are being eliminated in the process, government will step in and create opportunities.

I think the only thing that could top it is if The Spar closed, as has been discussed in the immediate aftermath of the indoor smoking ban, and a large, corporate restaurant were to begin leasing space in the same spot.

Good luck to any corporate ch

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 11:13am.

Good luck to any corporate chain that tries to inhabit that space! More than likely, it would go the way of quizno's, which is more often empty than not.

Smoking is harmful, cigarettes are toxic, and a known carcinogen. If this effort can reduce the occurence of heart attacks, cancer and emphysema in Olympia, it will have been worth it.

Then why not just outlaw the

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 11:42am.

Then why not just outlaw the product?

It would seem to me the government has no problem taking money from the tobacco industry and taxing the consumer to death (literally, I suppose) but banning the use of the product in nearly every setting except for your own home.

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would definately be wondering why the government continues to profit from a product which we have known will kill you for the last half-century while at the same time places high restrictions on where it can be consumed. I would almost start to wonder whether the government wants you to smoke.

They definately would appear to want it both ways (preventing people from smoking while continuing to profit).

You don't see the irony in a

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 11:47am.

You don't see the irony in a local restaurant having to close in the name of Public Health to make room for a large franchise?

Prove to me that a local rest

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 5:15pm.

Prove to me that a local restaurant will have to close because of the smoking ban. How many local restaurants already ban smoking? 90% or more? If the spar closes, it will be because they don't provide as good of an eating experience as other restaurants, not because people can't smoke in the bar.

Hey, what do you know? Check

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 6:11pm.

Hey, what do you know? Check The Olympian's front page on their website. The Maytown Tavern, located just south of Olympia and been in business for 15 years, has announced they're going to be closing.

And no, I doubt The Spar is going to close. What you'll see are small businesses, such as hole-in-the-wall bars which depend on "regulars," have to shut down. Like I said, the irony of forcing the real small businesses out in the name of Public Health is almost comical.

I said, prove they are closin

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:20pm.

I said, prove they are closing because of the effect of the smoking ban. It has only taken place today. Saying that business is negatively influenced is purely speculation at this point. Give it at least a month before the effects can even begin to be tabulated.

I tend to agree with Fire on

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 12:30pm.

I tend to agree with Fire on this. Car exhaust is toxic as well, and we have emissions standards instead of passing laws that would force us to use cleaner burning fuels. Instead of forcing corporations to stop making a product that is harmful, we punish ourselves for using these products. We go right along with this because the government knows best, and we shouldn't question it, that would be unpatriotic.

I propose mandatory emissions

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 5:17pm.

I propose mandatory emissions tests for all vehicles built since 1985. If it doesn't pass a minimum standard, no license tabs.

As a bicyclist, I can assure you that car and truck exhaust is highly offensive - but not all vehicles emit the same quantity or quality of exhaust. Those which emit more, and dirtier - should pay for it somehow.

We've covered this ground bef

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 6:16pm.

We've covered this ground before. You're going to be adding another tax for those in the lower income brackets.

As much as you might hate that brand new F-150, it's still putting out cleaner emissions and burning gasoline far more efficiently than just about anything else on the road built in the years prior.

Why would you limit testing t

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 6:18pm.

Why would you limit testing to cars after 1985?

Becuase it's 20 years, which

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:24pm.

Becuase it's 20 years, which is a nice even number. And, cars were starting to be built under more strict emissions standards by that point. The point is that cars need to be maintained properly, so that their emissions are as low as possible.

Separately, I do think that there should be an initial (at purchase) emissions tax on gas guzzlers, like oversized pickups and suvs.

I understand what you're sayi

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:44pm.

I understand what you're saying, and it seems reasonable. I also think that cars built before that time are the biggest polluters, for the reasons you stated, and should perhaps not be on the road.

As a poverty advocate, I would hate for a law to be passed that would make it impossible for low-income people to get to work, but I think if we are going to solve some of the environmental problems that we are faced with then we have to have strict air quality laws.

How do we balance the need for emissions standards and the fact that some people might not be able to afford to keep their vehicle up to par?

Tax the wealthy. Find ways

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:45pm.

Tax the wealthy.

Find ways to increase the incentives for employers to pay living and family wage jobs.

There are many ways to improve the situation.

Rob W: Tax the wealthy.The Fi

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:59pm.

Rob W: Tax the wealthy.

The Fire: I don't even know what to say. Obviously I'm against taxing the crap out of people just because they happen to fall into a certain income bracket. I'm actually at a loss for words.

And what's the deal with this

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 5:18pm.

And what's the deal with this; is it true that a business can't apply for a special license to provide exemption from the smoking ban? It seems that a smoke shop would be #1 in line for this type of exemption. I have no problem with granting exemptions.

It's written so that if you'r

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 6:20pm.

It's written so that if you're 25 feet within a building you're in violation!

Technically if you're on the sidewalk you're in violation, though I doubt any police department is actually going to be actively enforcing this portion of the passed initiative.

Also, I doubt exemptions are going to ever be allowed. The same people who helped fund the initiative are going to claim that Public Health trumps all other concerns, no matter what.

There must be a protocol to a

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 7:26pm.

There must be a protocol to apply for an exemption.

I've spoken to a downtown pat

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 12/08/2005 - 6:40pm.

I've spoken to a downtown patroller who says it is their job to enforce this new law. The sense I got from the officer was that it wouldn't be enforced with very much enthusiasm.

The thing I worry about, is how this law may effect homeless people, it gives the police another way to target them, much like the jaywalking ordinance has. I've seen the police ignore jaywalking when done by well dressed citizens, and swoop in when it's a homeless person. The same thing will most likely happen with the smoking ban.

From The Seattle Times:"A typ

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 10:54am.

From The Seattle Times:

"A typical Thursday lunch crowd at the Dugout is, oh, 20 customers. Thursday, there were none. The first food order of the day came around 4 p.m. The day's take to that point: a stinkin' $30."

"Kay Bonus, whose husband bought the small bar on Marine View Drive South about 30 years ago from his father, who opened it 58 years ago, is afraid the smoking ban is going to be the death of the Dugout."

"'I've never had a Thursday like this,' Bonus said. 'I know it's just one day and I am trying to stay positive. But I talked to a bar on the other end of town and they are just as slow as we are.'

Excellent work people, excellent work.

Absolutely pathetic. Smokers

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 11:05am.

Absolutely pathetic. Smokers behaving like little children. They know that they are doing something harmful, yet they won't stop and admit it. It is proven that second hand smoke is harmful. Yet the bullies still sorry for themselves. Give me a break. I should have more sympathy. Except for the fact that as a smoker for 12 years I never had a problem going outside because of no smoking regulations. Smoke stinks and is harmful to health. get a clue.

I'm sorry, but this is an ext

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 11:52am.

I'm sorry, but this is an extremely neo-liberal viewpoint, and is not reasonable. Many non-smoking citizens I've spoken with are outraged about this smoking ban. These are hardworking, level-headed Americans who aren't blinded by ideology and can see when the government is taking away rights unnecessarily. This is not, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, a progressive way to better public health and safety. This is duct tape on a leaky pipe. It might work a little, but people are still going to smoke.

Yeah, you caught me dabbling

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 9:09pm.

Yeah, you caught me dabbling in fascism again. I'll try to watch out and seek tolerance.

I'm as much of a non-smoker a

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 12:35pm.

I'm as much of a non-smoker as they come.

This is a private property issue, though. You and I volunteer to step into a business and, by doing so, assume a certain amount of risk. Nobody is forcing us to frequent an establishment which permits smoking, just as those who smoke and choose to visit an establishment which does not allow smoking (Pints & Quarts in Lacey comes to mind) are prohibited from smoking. It's up to the owner of the property to determine the manner in which their business will operate free from undue government interference.

I say "undue" because I think some government regulation, such as food preperation, is necessary. The consumer has a reasonable expectation that their food will be properly stored and prepared, largely because their ability to know if it was prepared correctly or not is not a reasonable expectation, short of watching the act be done.

It is reasonable, however, for a consumer to be aware of whether or not a private establishment allows smoking. If the consumer happens to be unaware it is just as reasonable that the consumer make the decision between staying or leaving, since their options are far from limited (since there are a great deal of establishments which do not permit smoking).

I'm actually giddy that Rob Richards and I not only agree but seem to agree for the same reason.

A caiman is probably making m

Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 1:34pm.

A caiman is probably making me say this, but I think I agree.

This is an excellent summatio

Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 3:35pm.

This is an excellent summation, TFI.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: