Jump to content

DC Council Passes Smoking Ban


CrescentFresh

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally, it's hard for me to relate to anyone who needs and craves cigarettes. HOWEVER, I very much enjoy retiring to the bar for a fag and a digestif after a good dinner. I can testify that the way it feels in my mouth at that point is fun. Bloody good fun, too. Cosmopolitan and wordly.

So while I feel for those whose health was damaged by tobacco, I feel sad about losing that particular avenue of pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anybody who has smoked or does smoke who think that it is fun. <snip> But cigarettes are not a habitual, they are an addiction.

I have a friend who smokes about one or two tobacco cigarettes every month or so. Granted that is unusual, but still... he does it for fun and is not an addict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who smokes about one or two tobacco cigarettes every month or so. Granted that is unusual, but still... he does it for fun and is not an addict.
Granted, there are people who can smoke without being addicted or becoming addicted. There are people who can participate in high risk activities on occassion for the fun without being or becoming addicted. I can drink a beer without becoming addicted but I have friends who can't go near the stuff as they are considered alcohol addicts. We don't stop selling beer and wine at restaurants because somebody gets in a car drunk and kills someone. (AGAIN I THINK THE BAN IS A GOOD THING)

However, I don't think it is fair to say that drinking is a fun activity when for many people it is not fun. Drinking can be fun but it is not a carefree sense of fun. Nor is smoking a carefree fun activity.

Now, this whole discussion has made me go do some research. I can't help it, the internet makes it too easy. Here are my thoughts about my findings. First, how the federal and state governments regulate and interact with the tobacco industry is a unique relationship. Second, the CDC needs to update their youth campaign because nobody under the age of 16 knows who BoyzIIMen is. Third, I couldn't put my fingers on an easy to cite place that sets up the difference between being addicted to cigarettes and it being a habit.

But I did find these links which may be of interest to some people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/cigars_factsheet.htm

I also looked up the definition of fun, and based on it, hard to argue that smoking can be a fun activity. However, I do not think the use is appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what will be interesting is how quickly the surrounding counties will pick-up the 'smokers' who have left DC bars for higher ground. Obviously this will be seen in localities on the Virginia side as I still believe certain Maryland counties are smoke-free.

Always find it funny how people think Virginia will never have such restrictions, but in all honesty I can see it going in county by county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always find it funny how people think Virginia will never have such restrictions, but in all honesty I can see it going in county by county.

I'm not a native to VA, but something in the back of my mind tells me that VA law is a little different than, say, MD. I don't think that individual counties/cities can supercede state law in some matters. Or some such thing. Perhaps someone else might have heard something similar or know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a native to VA, but something in the back of my mind tells me that VA law is a little different than, say, MD. I don't think that individual counties/cities can supercede state law in some matters. Or some such thing. Perhaps someone else might have heard something similar or know what I'm talking about.

It can certainly go county by county (or city by city). Remember, first it was Montgomery County, then PG County. I mean, individual cities have joined the Kyoto Protocol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can certainly go county by county (or city by city). Remember, first it was Montgomery County, then PG County. I mean, individual cities have joined the Kyoto Protocol.

In Maryland, sure. But, again, something tells me Virginia law is different and this cannot be passed county by county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Maryland, sure. But, again, something tells me Virginia law is different and this cannot be passed county by county.

:unsure:;) me no know. I just assume that eventually ciggies will lose. Think about it: They kill cowboys and everything. Beef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking bans for restaurants make me happy. I find the smoke extremely distracting form an enjoyable dining experience.

When my wife and I headed to Italy two and a half years ago, we were worried we might have to get used to the idea of smoke filled restaurants. But we were generally very happy with the mostly smoke-free experiences we had while vacationing there.

I have a question for smokers, particularly for those smokers who have quit. Does food and wine and so on taste better to you now than when you used to smoke regularly? I can only imagine it would, but I've never actually asked anyone in that situation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleive Crescentfresh is right about differences between MD and VA on this issue. Local counties and cities only get as much power as the VA legislature chooses to give them. recently, the VA AG rules that some handgun regulations in Fairfax county were unenforeceable becaue they exceeded authority granted by the Commonwealth. The same is true of cigarette bans, I think. Keep in mind that Altria, the parent company of Phillip Morris, is headquartered in Richmond.

Another intersting factoid about smoking is that local and state governments make more profit off of the sale of a pack of cigarettes than the manufacturer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another intersting factoid about smoking is that local and state governments make more profit off of the sale of a pack of cigarettes than the manufacturer.
Wow... plus consider how much money states received from the settlement. Wow. Shaking head...

Staying on point, I went to law school in Winston Salem. When I was in law school in the mid-90's you could still smoke in.... drum roll... grocery stores!!!!! gross gross gross. also gross, you could smoke in department stores at the mall. seriously gross.

Another funny one, there were no "No Smoking" signs anywhere on my school's campus... including the hospital and med school!!!

There are plenty of "no smoking" regulations now though in North Carolina and Winston-Salem, so I think Altria's presence won't stop all the trends against smoking... though I doubt you'll see statewide no smoking in bars anytime soon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, Boy! I may be revealing my age here, but one of the iconic symbols of "modern" America was the picture of soon-to-be-fathers smoking up a storm in the Waiting Room, waiting to learn the gender and health of baby and health of the mother. Now, of course, fathers are EXPECTED to be their wives coaches in the Birthing Room.

Not having been either an expectant father nor a birthing mother, I have no idea if this is a good change or not . . . I DO know that smoking is verboten in most hospitals, whether you are anxious or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are always private clubs, which are exempt from the ban.

I would never join a club that would have me as a member...not that there are any clubs that seem eager to have me as a member. :unsure:

Funny thing, the two restaurants beneath my office now advertise themsleves as "smoke-free environments." No law, no regs, they just decided that they and their customers preferred it that way. And yet, the bistro down the street remains a smoke-friendly environment. So what's happened, is that if I don't want to smoke, I have places to go. If I'm dying for a martini and a smoke, I have a place for that, as well. And, if I'm flexible, the world is my little Appalachicola with cocktail sauce and lemon.

Choice. How...I don't know...logical.

.....

Even more fun than smoking? Hearing people argue for the right to harm their liver, kidneys, stomach and brain cells while participating in an activity linked to violence, thousands of drunk driving deaths annually and waking up next to people whom you'd rather not talk to, even if they haven't left you with an STD or a baby -- without being exposed to cigarette smoke.

Smoking hasn't killed me yet, but drinking once almost led me to chew my arm off. ;)

Hell, I sympathize with the call for smoke-free dining rooms. But a bar isn't a health club. Let the market sort it out and leave me and my weekly Marlboro Light in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An assumption that seems to underlie all the market-based arguments against these bans is that not only do customers have completely free choice as to whether to patronize a particular establishment, but also that employees are completely free to choose where they work. As someone who recently returned to Washington after more than two years working in Wilson, North Carolina, I can testify that this isn't so. Trust me on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a surprise...the Cato Institute agrees.
As I recall, Cato is down with all kinds of fun, chemical-oriented recreational activities.

Here's an interesting 'graph from the study Heather links to:

"Moreover, the report itself, which covered only studies published through 2002, ignored perhaps the largest ETS[second hand smoke] study ever conducted -- a 2003 study that followed, from 1959 to 1998, the health histories of more than 35,000 never-smoking Californians who were married to smokers. The authors found no "causal relationship between exposure to (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality," though they acknowledged that "a small effect" cannot be ruled out."

Arguably, as far as employees are concerned, second-hand smoke is no more than a nuisance -- just like the loud music, drunks, lechers and poor tippers many bar employees are subjected to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguably, as far as employees are concerned, second-hand smoke is no more than a nuisance -- just like the loud music, drunks, lechers and poor tippers many bar employees are subjected to.
So, how did my mother--a non-smoker--wind up with a case of emphysema? She lived for more than 40 years with my father, a smoker, that's how.

As a smoker who has been trying to quit, off and on, and hasn't smoked a single cigarette in my own home since 1994, I'm not willing to play with the health of my non-smoking husband or my cat. Much less waitpersons and bartenders and other innocent patrons of public spaces.

There really is NO justification for inflicting this on people who don't want it. NONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An assumption that seems to underlie all the market-based arguments against these bans is that not only do customers have completely free choice as to whether to patronize a particular establishment, but also that employees are completely free to choose where they work. As someone who recently returned to Washington after more than two years working in Wilson, North Carolina, I can testify that this isn't so. Trust me on this.

I have seriously been counting down the days until the smoking ban like a kid waiting for Christmas. I can't wait. I have never even puffed on a cigarette in my life but probably have the lungs of a 3-4 year smoker just from working in restaurants all of my life. I understand the "free hand of the market" and all those other arguments but they only work in a bell jar. I would GLADLY go work somewhere smoke free but to be honest, with my day job the number of restaurants that I could make it to in time and would hire me for night only shifts AND are smoke free is not high. Plus you think our bussers Arturo and Santos who barely speak english, have been at Deluxe 7+ years work from 5am-10pm 6 days a week at two different jobs can really afford to quit just to show the market a thing or two? Just tell their wife and kids to hang on we will be able to afford food and clothes soon Daddy just has to find a position at a smoke free rrestaurant so he doesn't get cancer in 15 years. Yeah that is going to happen.

And in this capitalist argument what happens when all the positions at smoke-free restaurants are filled. Are we all supposed to just hang out jobless until enough waiters quit their jobs, a waiter/busser shortage is created and the market has to adjust by opening new smoke free places? Thanks for the help. Whenever smoking is brought up everyone becomes all Gordon Gecko saying that the market will sort out the smoking issue on its own without government control. I say phooey.

We make sweat shops illegal. Shouldn't we let the free market handle that? People who have no moral qualms about buying sweat-shop goods will have places they can go and people who are opposed to them will have somewhere. And as for the employees, hey if people don't want to work at them they should find another job right?? Three cheers for the invisible hand!!

Seriously though it is illegal to have your pre-prepped sauces at 2 degrees above a certain number and illegal to put your fish in the same container as beef but cancer causing smoke filling the air, no problem. And I really see this as an employee issue more than anything. We have thousands of requirements and laws in place to protect employees' safety in all kinds of professions so why when this is brought up is it all of a sudden the "big bad government" trying to control everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always amusing to see how some people turn into rainy day free marketeers when it happens to support their purposes.

Did anyone catch this in the Post a week or so ago? A study in Scotland showed that the health of bar and restaurant workers really did improve only a short time after a smoking ban went into effect there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dueling studies.

What I find amazing was that no effort was made to find a reasonable common ground in an attempt to accommodate the substantial minority of bar-goers who enjoy the occasional smoke, a habit that remains, last I checked, legal. Had the debate not been dominated by zealots and extremists on the one side and the avaricious and corrupt on the other, I remain convinced that solution could have been found that would have given most diners and bar-goers a smoke-free environment, made life more pleasant for employees (for what it's worth, last time I was at Deluxe, a couple years back, I bummed a Marlboro from the bartender) and still given smokers a few places to light up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dueling studies.

What I find amazing was that no effort was made to find a reasonable common ground in an attempt to accommodate the substantial minority of bar-goers who enjoy the occasional smoke, a habit that remains, last I checked, legal. Had the debate not been dominated by zealots and extremists on the one side and the avaricious and corrupt on the other, I remain convinced that solution could have been found that would have given most diners and bar-goers a smoke-free environment, made life more pleasant for employees (for what it's worth, last time I was at Deluxe, a couple years back, I bummed a Marlboro from the bartender) and still given smokers a few places to light up.

Yeah they are always bumming out smokes. And while many things like not wearing shoes and playing a game of catch still remain "legal" I don't think any one of us here would dispute if people were asked to enjoy that legal right outside the door for the safety and consideration of other guests. THe thing that upsets me about this WHOLE argument is that the complaint basically boils down to smokers, occasional or not, being completely unwilling to walk 20 feet outside for a few minutes (yeah maybe its cold, so don't smoke, same free market argument used against us) at the expense of employee's and other customer's health. Such a minor minor inconvenience it just seems so inconsiderate. Its not even about smoking or not smoking its just about getting up and walking to the door and doing it outside for 5 minutes. Yeah one cigarette's smoke won't kill me but maybe 10 years worth of dense smoke for 7 hours a day will, all because people don't want to get up and go outside to have their cigarette.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always amusing to see how some people turn into rainy day free marketeers when it happens to support their purposes.

Did anyone catch this in the Post a week or so ago? A study in Scotland showed that the health of bar and restaurant workers really did improve only a short time after a smoking ban went into effect there.

You know if European countries are doing this and even (!!!) Paris is going smoke free than it was only a matter of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know if European countries are doing this and even (!!!) Paris is going smoke free than it was only a matter of time.
Though such bans in Europe may end up being just as serious and strictly enforced as the cellphone-while-driving ban in DC. One of my most treasured memories of living in Italy is attending lectures on English literature at the University of Turin, where at the front of the hall a big red sign read "vietato fumare" while the professor below it puffed away as he discoursed on Chaucer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though such bans in Europe may end up being just as serious and strictly enforced as the cellphone-while-driving ban in DC.
I was in a café in Paris a couple of years ago, when a fellow sitting in the non-smoking area lit up a cigarette. The response of the waiter was simply to bring him an ashtray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy here we go. This same discussion came up on the DCist today. 47 posts in like 30 minutes. I just pasted my little essay from this board onto theirs. Too lazy to write an original one. Don't worry though I am not cheating on DR. It didn't mean a thing to me. Really. You guys will always get my best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not even about smoking or not smoking its just about getting up and walking to the door and doing it outside for 5 minutes.

Does anybody know if the ban is contemplated to include outdoor enclosed patios (Tabard Inn, Iron Gate, etc.), sidewalk seating, or rooftops? (And is that top level at Tabaq a rooftop or not?) I can see a lot more restaurants and bars investing in those outdoor propane heaters for their patios and roofs if smoking is still allowed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody know if the ban is contemplated to include outdoor enclosed patios (Tabard Inn, Iron Gate, etc.), sidewalk seating, or rooftops? (And is that top level at Tabaq a rooftop or not?) I can see a lot more restaurants and bars investing in those outdoor propane heaters for their patios and roofs if smoking is still allowed there.
There was a story on TV a couple of days ago about the lengths some places are going to provide a space for smoking. The roof at the Reef in AM was particularly featured because the owner has spent so much money to outfit the space, including heaters (!). I believe anything considered "outdoors" is exempt including patios, rooftops, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though such bans in Europe may end up being just as serious and strictly enforced as the cellphone-while-driving ban in DC. One of my most treasured memories of living in Italy is attending lectures on English literature at the University of Turin, where at the front of the hall a big red sign read "vietato fumare" while the professor below it puffed away as he discoursed on Chaucer.

To my surprise on several trips to Italy since the ban, I have seen not a single incidence of violation of the law. Overnight, Italy has gone from smoke filled to practically smoke free when in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my surprise on several trips to Italy since the ban, I have seen not a single incidence of violation of the law. Overnight, Italy has gone from smoke filled to practically smoke free when in public.

I was surprised at how well this was working in Italy myself. If it can work there, then there should be no problems here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just mention that I am loving this ban? On particularly smoky nights at Deluxe, I would start to lose my voice by the end of the shift. Nothing like hacking or anything, but I just used to get hoarse quite often. This happens to my brother as well whenever we go out to bars. We will always be voiceless by midnight (probably to the joy of those within our immediate vacinity) Not anymore, it's been crisp and clean at work and we went to Atomic (one of the smokiest places in DC besides Bourbon Glover Park) the other night and played pool for about 4 hours and were feeling great. We couldn't even figure out why we were enjoying ourselves more than usual and then it kicked in a split second later, "oh yeah the smoking ban!"

A few other random observations, the doomsday/mass exodus predicted by opponents must be scheduled for next month or something. All the chain smokers were on their usual barstools when I came in. Most of them were actually drinking a few more drinks than usual and some people who NEVER order food were actually getting appetizers to take their mind off their crawling skin I assume. In confidence I had two HUGE proponents of the smoking ban both tell me separately they secretly have enjoyed it now that it is a done deal. They are smoking less and they can actually wear out their nice coats and sweaters. I am sure there are quite a few hating it but in my neck of the woods it was completely unnoticable except for that realization an hour and a half into the meal, "Oh yeah! There's no smoke in here, awesome."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a good chuckle when WTOP ran a continual piece one day about the ban. They kept repeating the opponents' gloom and doom mantra that smokers would take their money to Virginia restaurants rather than submit to the ban in DC. Right.

If this board has shown anything, it has shown that even hard-core ...ahem - what's that word? ..."people passionate about food"...have major issues with crossing into the great unknown that is NoVa, no matter what the lure. Call me nuts, but no way the average DC JoeSixpack is going to drive "all the way" to Virginia just to have a smoke with his burger and beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a good chuckle when WTOP ran a continual piece one day about the ban. They kept repeating the opponents' gloom and doom mantra that smokers would take their money to Virginia restaurants rather than submit to the ban in DC. Right.
I don't know if this was the same WTOP piece, but it highlighted a wrinkle I hadn't heard about before (sorry if mentioned upthread).

What's up with the hardship waiver? If a restaurant/bar shows that their business drops 5% "cigarette prohibition" is repealed for them??

Currently, there is a proposed exemption for businesses that show a 5 percent drop in sales due to the ban.

But Fenty, appearing on Washington Post Radio's Politics Program with WTOP's Mark Plotkin, says that percentage is too low.

"We definitely will do a hardship exemption," Fenty says.

The threshold could be raised to as much as 15 percent, Fenty says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Tobacco bars" are not subject to the smoking ban. The DC implementing legislation defines a "tobacco bar" as:
a restaurant, tavern, brew pub, club, or nightclub that generates 10% or more of its total annual revenue from the on-site sale of tobacco products, excluding sales from vending machines, or the rental of on-site humidors.
Apparantly, Shelly's can meet the 10% test by including the revenue from renting on-site humidors. Here is a link to the Act.

With my lazy-ass colloquial understanding of English grammar, this looks an awful lot like a case of ambiguous commas. Is humidor rental part of the "excluding" statement, or part of the "generates from" statement? Because that could make quite a difference.

One hopes that those in the legal profession here have a well-established tradition of operator precedence. Unlike those wacky Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve held my tongue long enough. My (current) signature and avatar tells you where I stand in this debate. As much as I hate traveling to Virginia, I have spent quite a bit of time researching smoker-friendly restaurants in the Commonwealth.

This came after deciding, on three separate occasions, against visiting my favorite burger and beer places ‘cause of the ban. (And this after only day 9 into the ban!) I’ll admit: the allure of going to the burger and beer places was that I could sit at the bar and have a cigarette before and after my meal.

Several places voluntarily banned smoking soon after the bill passed. That’s fine; they made a business decision and I respect that. However, I no longer patronize those places. Others have plans to provide heat lamps and enclosed areas on rooftops or terraces. I will patronize those places.

If I’m ready to cross the river for a burger and cigarette, you know, as someone “passionate about food,” I’ll search out a “high-end” restaurant that may allow smoking. And, thanks to this board, I’ve been introduced to some very good restaurants. Most are walking distance from a Metro station. I do realize these places may not allow smoking, but that’s okay. If (when) I find one, it will be well worth the trip.

Besides… eating at home guarantees that I’ll meet my goal in the “Fit for Summer” challenge.

Virginia is a tobacco state; a smoking ban will not happen anytime soon.

If this board has shown anything, it has shown that even hard-core ...ahem - what's that word? ..."people passionate about food"...have major issues with crossing into the great unknown that is NoVa, no matter what the lure. Call me nuts, but no way the average DC JoeSixpack is going to drive "all the way" to Virginia just to have a smoke with his burger and beer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spent quite a bit of time researching smoker-friendly restaurants in the Commonwealth.

Virginia is a tobacco state; a smoking ban will not happen anytime soon.

I'm curious what restaurants near Metro you have found so far that let you light up at the table?

Extrapolating wildy and irresponsibly from the fact that you haven't yet actually made it across the Potomac for that burger and smoke, still makes me believe that the doom-and-gloomers overestimated a wee bit in their dire prediction of a mass exodus of DC smokers into the Commonwealth. My own prediction is that most smokers will stay put and make do with sidewalks, alleys, stairwells and patios in DC before they will get on Metro and head to Ye Olde Pub & Grub in Crystal City.

And don't be so sure about Virginia. The Commonwealth may never ban smoking, but it's not beyond reason that some individual municipalities or counties may think about going that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparantly, Shelly's can meet the 10% test by including the revenue from renting on-site humidors. Here is a link to the Act.

With my lazy-ass colloquial understanding of English grammar, this looks an awful lot like a case of ambiguous commas. Is humidor rental part of the "excluding" statement, or part of the "generates from" statement? Because that could make quite a difference.

One hopes that those in the legal profession here have a well-established tradition of operator precedence. Unlike those wacky Canadians.

I don't disagree that it could have been drafted more clearly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious what restaurants near Metro you have found so far that let you light up at the table?

Not at the table but at the bar. I've enjoyed quite a few good meals at the bar.

Here is what I found:

Bistro Bistro

4021 S. 28th St.

Arlington, VA 22206

(703/379-0300)

South Arlington

Arlington

Burgers/Bar Food

American

Clare and Don's Beach Shack

3014 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201

(703/465-7873)

Arlington

Clarendon

Seafood

American

The Front Page Restaurant & Grille

4201 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22203

(703/248-9990)

Ballston

Arlington

Steaks

Seafood

Hard Times Cafe

3028 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201

(703/528-2233)

Clarendon

Arlington

American

Matsutake Sushi & Steakhouse

4121 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22203

(703/351-8787)

Ballston

Arlington

Sushi

Japanese

Mister Days Sports Rock Cafe

3100 Clarendon Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201

(703/527-1600)

Clarendon

Arlington

American

Pines of Italy

237 N. Glebe Road

Arlington, VA 22203

(703/524-4969)

Ballston

Arlington

Italian

Pizza

Rock-It Grill

1319 King St.

Alexandria, VA 22314

(703/739-2274)

Old Town

American

Seagars

Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King St.

Alexandria, VA 22314

(703/837-0440)

Old Town

Alexandria

Seafood

Steaks

SoBe Seafood Co.

3100 N. Clarendon Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201

(703/528-0033)

Clarendon

Arlington

Seafood

Stars & Stripes

567 23rd St. S

Crystal City, VA 22202

(703/979-1872)

Crystal City/Pentagon City

American

Burgers/Bar Food

Two-Nineteen Restaurant

219 King St.

Alexandria, VA 22314

(703/549-1141)

Old Town

Alexandria

Seafood

Cajun/Creole

Zig's

4531 Duke St.

Alexandria, VA 22304

(703/823-2777)

Alexandria

Pizza

Burgers/Bar Food

Extrapolating wildy and irresponsibly from the fact that you haven't yet actually made it across the Potomac for that burger and smoke

No, I haven't made it across the river since the DC ban; it's been less than 10 days since the ban and I have yet to have my monthly red meat craving. And, from the times I have ventured into the Commonwealth, Freddy's at Crystal City and Ruby Tuesday's at Pentagon City did allow smoking.

For now, let's agree to disagree. As I said, I was reluctant to jump into this conversation. The sentiments on this board are quite obvious. Yet I felt obligated to add my $0.02 and an alternate point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely! As someone who both works at and attends a lot of concerts its making my nights out much more comfortable.

I attend a lot of concerts and I'm hoping that the DC Council, in their concern for my health, will ban loud music next. I know when I walk out of a club with my ears ringing that I'm one step closer to a hearing aid -- I think I should be able to hear rock and roll without risking my ears.

But it's not really about me. It's about the poor employees of these places. Sure, maybe I could choose not to go, or even wear ear plugs -- just as nonsmokers could have worn filters -- but you can't really take a beer order without being able to hear what people are saying. I don't care if the bands want to deafen themselves, but their second-hand noise is causing hearing damage to innocent employees and I want it stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attend a lot of concerts and I'm hoping that the DC Council, in their concern for my health, will ban loud music next. I know when I walk out of a club with my ears ringing that I'm one step closer to a hearing aid -- I think I should be able to hear rock and roll without risking my ears.

But it's not really about me. It's about the poor employees of these places. Sure, maybe I could choose not to go, or even wear ear plugs -- just as non smokers could have worn filters -- but you can't really take a beer order without being able to hear what people are saying. I don't careif the bands want to deafen themselves, but their second-hand noise is causing hearing damage to innocent employees and I want it stopped.

Sarcasm noted but sound levels have been regulated for awhile I believe. Occupational Safety & Health Administration has decibel caps for places of employment. So don't worry about your ears or the poor employees. And it isn't just some small potatoes local regulations, we are talking federal here. Interesting the federal government has actually stepped in to regulate levels of sound waves but done nothing to regulate the emmission of a known carcinogen. Maybe the federal government will eventually start taking as big of a role in smoking bans as they have in decibel control but I doubt it. I don't think the death metal lobby carries the same clout as the tobacco growers around the Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's up with the hardship waiver? If a restaurant/bar shows that their business drops 5% "cigarette prohibition" is repealed for them??

Section 4919 of the implementing legislation authorizes the mayor to grant exemptions in limited cirucmstances. I don't know if regulations have been promulgated yet. I don't know where the "5%" figure comes from; it's not in the legislation.

"Sec. 4919. Economic hardship waiver.

(a) The Mayor may grant an economic hardship waiver from the requirements of this part; provided, that prior to the granting of a waiver, the applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the Mayor, that compliance with the requirements of this part has caused or will cause undue financial hardship. An economic hardship waiver shall be based on regulations issued in accordance with section 4921.

( :lol: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, places of employment and public places where smoking is permitted pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall:

"(1) Have been in existence on or before January 1, 2007;

"(2) Not permit smoking in an area that exceeds 25% of the total area, if the place of employment or public place is a restaurant as defined in D.C. Official Code § 25-101;

and

"(3) Be subject to conditions or restrictions as may be necessary to minimize the adverse effects of smoking and shall be consistent with the general purpose of part B of this act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarcasm noted but sound levels have been regulated for awhile I believe. Occupational Safety & Health Administration has decibel caps for places of employment. So don't worry about your ears or the poor employees. And it isn't just some small potatoes local regulations, we are talking federal here. Interesting the federal government has actually stepped in to regulate levels of sound waves but done nothing to regulate the emmission of a known carcinogen. Maybe the federal government will eventually start taking as big of a role in smoking bans as they have in decibel control but I doubt it. I don't think the death metal lobby carries the same clout as the tobacco growers around the Hill.

I have a great deal of anecdotal eveidence that federal regulation of concert venue sound levels is either non-existent or unenforced, though I do know that in factories etc. regulations are in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a great deal of anecdotal eveidence that federal regulation of concert venue sound levels is either non-existent or unenforced, though I do know that in factories etc. regulations are in place.

Noncompliance aside, I am just trying to point out that there are a TON of regulations out there to protect patrons and employees at restaurants/bars yet no one ever cried "nanny state" until this one. This just happens to be one of the only ones that is trying to regulate use of an addictive substance. Obviously there is going to be some backlash from addicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...