Smoke Free DC Please

Smoke free DC because I value my health. I swim, bike, and run daily not always because I like it, no I do it for my health (and the looks the girlies give me), my health that you injure when you light up next to me. Lets not be overpaid tobacco lawyers here, smoking = cancer. That and smoke knows no boundaries, no zones, no separate seating. Ever see a pee/no pee swimming pool?

Smoke free DC because the stink of cigarettes is repulsive. It gets in your hair, on your clothes, under your skin, and down your lungs. A night out and you have to wash everything

13 Comments so far

  1. Derek (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 1:46 pm

    Instead of forcing a ban on everyone, why not refuse to spend your money at any private business that doesn’t have a no-smoking policy? If so many people hate smoking, then it would be in a business’ best interests to ban smoking, just as they would require shoes and shirts and disallow pets.

    Let the market decide.

    It also is a poor argument to say that we’re “behind” NYC or LA. Do you consider the District as being “behind” other states for not banning homosexual marriages?


  2. wayan (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 1:53 pm

    Businesses require shoes & shirts & ban pets due to health regulations, not free will or market dynamics. Smoking is a health issue and should be regulated as such – you don’t get to smoke indoors at work do ya?


  3. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 2:37 pm

    Because the market isn’t a good motivator, Derek.


  4. UnusualCandor (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 2:40 pm

    Wayan, we have too many regulations on businesses. There are two good examples of how the market can get businesses to not allow smoking.

    The first is in restaurants. People complained that they did not want to be around someone who was smoking. So what did they do; they created non-smoking sections.

    The second is airplanes. People did not like all the smoking on airplanes. What did the airlines do? They quit allowing smoking.

    Neither case did the government step in and force businesses to do anything.


  5. Derek (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 2:43 pm

    Actually, a guy who loves to go barefoot everywhere has this to say: http://www.unshod.org/pfbc/pfrestuarants.htm

    Apparently, it’s not because of health codes. What’s so unhealthy about not wearing a shirt?


  6. Tiff (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 3:11 pm

    What’s so unhealthy? I don’t want to eat at the same salad bar that some shirtless guy has just been sweating on. Ick.


  7. wayan (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 3:14 pm

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Office of the Secretary

    14 CFR Part 252

    [Docket No. OST-2000-7473; OST Docket No. 46783; Notice 90-5; OST

    Docket No. 44778; Notice 91-1]

    RIN 2105-AC85; 2105-AB58

    Smoking Aboard Aircraft

    AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

    ACTION: Final rule; Disposition of comments; disposition of petition

    for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY: The Department is amending its smoking rule to implement a recent statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation. This rule is being issued in conjunction with a related FAA final rule on smoking that makes its rules consistent with the statutory ban. The FAA rule is published elsewhere in today’s issue of the Federal Register.

    This rule also confirms certain portions of the Department’s 1990 interim final rule that incorporated a statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft on almost all flight segments within the United States. The 1990 rule codified a blanket waiver concerning single-entity charters and made other clarifying changes. Finally, this rule responds to a petition for rulemaking to prohibit smoking aboard commercial aircraft


  8. waya (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 3:29 pm

    “D.C. Smoking Restriction Act of 1979 Amendment Act of 1987” and

    “Smoking Regulations Amendment Act of 1990”

    D.C. Code Ann.


  9. UnusualCandor (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 3:44 pm

    Wayan, The FAA rule was passed well after smoking was restricted on flights. I remember my father in the late 80’s complaining about not being able to smoke while on flights.

    The DC law creating non-smoking sections was also passed after many places created non-smoking sections. The move towards having two sections started in the 1980’s.

    I never said that there were no laws restricting smoking. But the market started creating those restrictions and then the government decided to legislate it.


  10. wayan (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 4:42 pm

    And so now that the market is moving in that direction – there are nonsmoking bars in DC already – its time for the government to legislate it.


  11. UnusualCandor (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 4:58 pm

    That’s fine. I don’t smoke, but enough of my friends do and I am sure that we will stay on the freedom loving side of the Potomac when we go out drinking


  12. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on June 22nd, 2005 @ 5:00 pm

    The ocean-side?


  13. Sigh... (unregistered) on January 11th, 2006 @ 3:37 pm

    Many of the arguments against the smoking ban are ridiculous. Nonsmokers should patronize smoke-free bars? Where? NYC? Montgomery County? I live in Arlington, no way in hell I’m traveling for an hour to go to a bar.

    Also, have you heard bar owners complaining that they’ll lose business because most of their customers smoke? False argument — the REASON that a majority of bar-goers smoke is that nonsmokers don’t patronize bars often BECAUSE of the smoke. I myself am 24 and would love to go out every night, if it didn’t ruin my clothes and my throat. So I stay home and smokers go out. But if there was a ban, I could finally go blow my paycheck at the bars, too. And since about 80% of Americans are nonsmokers, maybe a lot more people would start visiting bars and make up for the small loss of smokers.

    Finally, this is not an issue of personal choice. Personal choice doesn’t harm anyone else — if I want to eat a big steak instead of a healthy salad at a restaurant, people at the next table aren’t going to get cancer. If I want to wear stupid tacky shearling boots, the only person I’m hurting is me. Those are personal choices. But if I were to shove my steak down a vegetarian’s throat, or kick someone in the face with my boots, that’s not a personal choice anymore. When what you do hurts others or takes away their rights, it’s not an issue of personal choice.

    Me? I can’t wait until 2007.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.