Burnt Orange Report

Andrew,

I understand you concerns, but I think we can look at California's experience to allay most of them.

I lived in California before, during, and after the smoking ban was enacted to include bars.

At that time, similar reasons were put forth as to why it was a bad idea (bad for business, govt getting involved where it shouldn't, smoker's rights, etc.)

In the end, California allowed for an exemption for Cigar bars, but most other bars were smoke free almost immediately.

Did whole groups of people flee the bars, bringing them down? No, in fact, folks like me (unfortunatly, not the sanctimonious type) found a comfortable environment to enjoy a drink and for once had the pleasure of going home NOT having every garment smell of smoke (not to mention hacking up unsavory substances for the next few days).

What did smokers do? They either went outside or to a designated patio area, or started frequenting the cigar bars.

I hope the ban passes, but I also hope there are provisions in place to allow for both smokers and non-smokers to enjoy the atmosphere of their choice. Bottom line, not only do the bars on sixth street allow smoking, but most, if not all of the bars in the warehouse district, etc. I'd like to be able to go downtown and have a choice.

Cheers!

Thanks for your input Pat K.

The problem with the current ordinance is there is absolutely no possibility of "provisions" to allow for any kind of choice in bars. If it passes it will be a minimum (statutorily) of 2 years before it can be changed.

And if you want to have a choice of smoking or non-smoking bars, guess what? You have that now. 2/3 of the fully stocked bars in Austin are 100% smoke free. If the ban passes, there will be no choice.

Finally, something I meant to put in the post but forgot is that comparing Austin to Boston or California or NYC is like comparing apples to oranges. Austin is uniquely dependent on bars for its atmosphere and economy, and small bars in particular. It really doesn't have many parallels and if the ban passes, we don't know for sure what will happen. All we know is that if we miscalculate and everything goes wrong for Austin, we'll have to wait 2 years to fix it. That is too big of a risk.

I agree with most of your arguments. I too oppose the smoking ban in Austin. However, I do wish you would re-consider statements such as as this:

"The people behind this effort are dishonest, uninformed, contemptuous fuddy-duddies more interested in legislating my morality than they are checking their own hypocrisy at the door."

It seems pretty clear to me that the people behind this ban are less interested in legislating morality as they are interested in legislating measures to increase public health. There is no question that this ban would benefit the public health- by reducing exposure to the harmful effects of tobacco products, and by further isolating smoking from the environments in which it spreads the most effectively.

Simply put, proponents of the ban believe that the public health benefits would outweigh the possible economic and cultural damage done to the city of Austin.

You and I disagree with that belief, and you were arguing our position very well- before you descended to the invective.

"The people behind this effort are dishonest, uninformed, contemptuous fuddy-duddies more interested in legislating my morality than they are checking their own hypocrisy at the door."

I have to agree with anonymous coward, Andrew. I think we can all stay away from the name-calling and castigating statements. When used in blog entries, I feel it really cheapens the blog. Comments are more of a free-for-all, but entries are different. FYI, my dad is a smoker (he wants to quit), and when we lived in Austin, he was in favor of the smoking ban 100%. In fact, if there is a smoking ban here, he will support it. He has always gone outside to smoke--whether at home or in a public place. And he is certainly not dishonest, a fuddy-duddy, nor uninformed, nor a hypocrite. I support a smoking ban as well, and I was never aware that any of the aforementioned adjectives applied to me. Please consider that there are readers who support the ban for a variety of reasons before making vituperative blanket statements statements such as these.

Since I was so rude about that pope post, I want to be balanced and say how well this post is written. Though its by a different author, it brings up the average. I disagree with what you are saying Andrew, but I love the way you say it.

Even though I'm a democrat, how about we let free markets decide whether or not a bar be smoke free or not? If you really hate it that much, then don't go to that bar. If enough people decide not to go, then the bar will lose business. The bar can then independantly decide to go smoke free, which they can already do. Problem solved.

As it stands right now, i believe, all bars are smoke free unless they apply for a permit to allow it. It just so happens that the bars feel that the customers want that option to smoke there, and therefore buy the permits.

You don't get it.

The history is clear.

Where smoking bans in bars are passed, profits go up.

It won't destroy a single bar, though it might inconvenience you.

I don't care about your being inconvenienced, since it's better than giving a single mom waitress lung cancer.

Take it to the curb.

It's not about business, because this is a classic race to the bottom scenario, where bad actors, bars that expose their employees to carcinogens needlessly, force competing establishments to do the same.

It's the Wal-Mart effect written in Cancer.

There's this great place just right by my apartment and workplace called "The Hole in the Wall." I decided to go in one night out of impulse, but as I headed towards the door, it was like a wall of smoke came at me. I didn't go in. I can't stand the stuff. I won't go back in there until it's either smoke-free or the smoking ban passes.

Forget public health and business. Cigarette smoke stinks. I mean, literally stinks. I'm for a cigarette smoke ban the same reason that I don't think people should be allowed to carry skunks into bars. This is the classic case of "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

I'm willing to support exceptions for open-air bars and open-air areas of bars. But smoking in an enclosed area is just nasty.

"Having noted this, one of my pet peeves is that every supporter of this referendum throws one line into their speech- "this is a public health issue." But the more you think about it, the less sense that the statement makes. If city government is going to lay down the law in regards to bars in the name of promoting public health, the only sensible thing to do would be to close them all down. Nobody goes to a bar to be healthy- you go there to drink, smoke, fuck and fight. All of those things are bad for you (not to mention listening to very loud music, which can damage your hearing). So either shut down the bars, or leave them alone."

It's not really fair to throw all those things into one pot and call it a public health issue. Smoking the one thing, out of all of those "unhealthy" bar activities that 1) will most assuredly kill you and 2) directly contributes to a decrease in health of those around you. Sure drinking sometimes leads to death (drunk driving, alcoholism), but all the things that harm other people from drinking (drunk driving, assault, etc) are already illegal. I'm not a smoker, and I know this probably means nothing to you, but it's for your own good. The government has an obligation to discourage the citizenry from harmful practices, and smoking is one of them.

Andrew:

The ban is stupid for Austin as you've stated so keep fighting the good fight and when it passes, which it probably will, quit smoking and then it won't really matter, will it?

Brian-

You are right, I don't have the right to punch you, but nobody has a right to be protected from being annoyed. You made the right decision- not to frequent the club. Unfortunately for you, a whole lot of other people (including your's truly) go to the Hole in the Wall, and all of them are okay with smoking. But when the market doesn't work in your favor, you decide that you will annoy me in order to prevent your own annoyance.

Mike-

You make some interesting points, but allow me to make mine. You are ignoring the fact that if people choose to be around second hand smoke, such is their choice. No bars that allow anyone under 18 can have smoking. Nobody is forced to go to a smoking establishment. Austin is full of non-smoking bars. How can you protect people from something they freely choose to be a part of? Furthermore, one exposure to second hand smoke every week or two will not kill you. Period. I suppose the argument about employees can be made, but once again, nobody is forced to work at a bar. They choose to work at these establishments, even though dozens of non-smoking bars are also available, and they are the ones who will deal with the consequences. You have no right to protect people from legal, if unhealthy behavior they wish to engage in.

Finally, the government does NOT have a duty to discourage or protect us from harmful practices. It has a right to protect us from invasion from foreign powers, violence and fraud directed by one person towards another and to provide us with the framework for a strong economy. If I choose to smoke cigarettes, its not the government's business. If I choose to habituate a business that allows smoking, the government shouldn't try and be my mommy and keep me from getting hurt. I'll make the decisions, I'll live with the consequences.

Everyone else-

As for the criticisms of my "vituperative" statement, let me defend it. These people encouraged petitioners to sign the dotted line by saying "Help Lance Armstrong fight cancer!" and "make your workplace smoke free!" without telling them the nature of what the petition would do. That is dishonest. I doubt that Rodney Ahart and co ever throw back dollar Lone Stars in a seedy dive on Red River- that makes them uninformed about the true nature of our downtown culture. They do not trust me to make my own decisions, and do not respect me enough to let me deal with the consequences, thus they are contemptuous. They are terrified of smoking and the other things that go on in bars because they are fuddy-duddies, people that want to legislate morality. How any liberal can give in to the same impulses that inform the wisdom of Jerry Falwell and his ilk is beyond me. There is little difference between Onward Austin and the Christian Coalition- both seek to tell me what I can do with my body and who I can associate with. This "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy highlights their hypocrisy. The entire movement is faulty, short-sighted and wrong. To vote for this ballot initiative is to give a middle finger to this city.

Lauren-

Thanks for the input.

I love you and stay safe at school.

Your Brother,

Andrew

Just for some clarification: I passed by Hole in the Wall and they put up this no-smoking sign on the front door, written in felt-tip marker on white paper.

Actually, Andrew, you're right. I don't have the right not to be annoyed. Were you to wear an annoying t-shirt, talk with a squeakyvoice, even say "blood, blood, blood, blood, blood," in a monotone voice to me, then yes, you're right.

The smell of cigarette smoke is nasty, though, but there is a physical component as well, and I'm not talking about lung cancer. Cig smoke makes me cough, it makes it harder to breathe - is is very much a physical thing, and not just some trivial annoyance that can be ignored, like an insult or speech I find offensive.

Again, you have the right to smoke in residences, private property, and open-air. But public houses don't qualify.

Thx for your comments, Andrew.

You keep mentioning that 2/3 of bars are non-smoking. I've been to sixth street, the warehouse district, south congress, etc., etc. and can't remember ever being in a non-smoking bar.

Are you including restaurants with fully stocked bars in this number? If so, I think the 2/3 number is a bit misleading...

The "public health" rationale concerns the workers in the bars, not the members of the public who voluntarily choose to go there.

And it's no good saying those workers could work somewhere else. Well, it's hypocritical, at least. What if, say, Applied Materials required their employees to work in a roomful of secondhand smoke. I doubt we'd just say hey, if those people care about their health, they can just find jobs somewhere else.

Or maybe we want to allow that rationale, but there are a lot of companies paying a lot of money for workplace safety. In nearly every industry. Do we want to give them ALL that rationale? Why the hell should they pay for safety equipment and training classes and environmental remediation when the workers could just . . . work somewhere else?

Andrew -

One more perspective for you - I lived in Austin for years, moved to New York shortly after their smoking ban passed and then spent a good deal of time in Dublin (one of the first European cities to pass a ban).

Let me say that I love Austin in the same way as you and I having seen the smoking ban in action twice, I believe nothing would be better for the city than to pass this ordinance.

Furthermore, when I moved to NYC, I was totally anti-smoking ban too;now I think EVERY progressive city should have smoking bans. And I am willing to bet that within a year, if the ban passes, you'll be whistling a different tune.

As I said, I have seen it in action twice and I am so ready for the day when all three of my "home towns" have wised up and banned smoking in bars.

Andrew says that Austin is unique and therefore the experiences of California and other locales with smoking bans are irrelevant. I lived in Berkeley for a few years after the smoking ban was in place. Now, Berkeley is something of an odd duck, but it's bar scene is similar to Austin's in that it has smallish, locally-owned bars that are unique in their own ways (not to mention an overlooked live music scene). If the smoking ban hurt these bars, I couldn't tell it. In fact, the ban made my wife (who hates being surrounded by cigarrette smoke) much more ammenable to going out and hitting the bar scene.

On the other hand, your points about the market taking care of this are well-taken. You're right to oppose the ban, but I doubt you'll see things get worse for the bars; in fact, I bet they become more popular as the total number of bar-goers increases. Unfortunately, live will be a little more difficult for smoking bar-goers.

People! Get with the program - IT'S NOT YOUR BAR! It belongs to the bar's OWNER, and is his/her right to decide what goes on there! If they chose to allow smoking, don't f-ing go. These aren't "public houses," they are PRIVATE BUSINESSES. This ban is a terrible idea, it's anti-free market, it's excessive gov't regulation, it hurts the Austin economy and atmosphere, and it's not your choice!

Napoleon Dynamite: "Idiots!"

People! Get with the program - IT'S NOT YOUR BAR! It belongs to the bar's OWNER, and is his/her right to decide what goes on there! If they chose to allow smoking, don't f-ing go. These aren't "public houses," they are PRIVATE BUSINESSES. This ban is a terrible idea, it's anti-free market, it's excessive gov't regulation, it hurts the Austin economy and atmosphere, and it's not your choice!

People! Get with the program - IT'S NOT YOUR COAL MINE. It belongs to the coal mine's OWNER, and (it)is his/her right to decide what goes on there! If they chose to EMPLOY CHILDREN, don't f-ing buy coal from them. These aren't "public houses," they are PRIVATE BUSINESSES. This ban is a terrible idea, it's anti-free market, it's excessive gov't regulation, it hurts the West Virginia economy and atmosphere, and it's not your choice!

BTW, same thing for minimum wage, and OSHA.

You are arguing the right to a private contract, which the Supreme court used to try to overturn the New Deal in the 1930s.

Feh!

Nice empty analogy Matthew...except for violating the minimum wage, OSHA, and child labor laws are all illegal, whereas smoking is NOT.

This is a choice and property issue.

- How much choice does a business/property owner have in the legal use of their property?
- How much choice do smokers have to pursue their leisure activity (smoking)?
- How much gov't regulation do we choose as a society for the "greater good?"
- What is more important: public health, or freedom?

What is so wrong about letting the market decide? If smokers want to go be around other smokers, in a bar that caters to smokers, with employees who knew when they were hired that they would be working at a smoking bar - they should have that right. Non-smokers would choose not to frequent that establishment, and then the smokers would die of cancer, the bar would go out of business, and balance would be restored.

This really is a power grab by non-smokers who have decided that their rights are more important. Smoke avoidance in sealed areas (airplanes, etc) is one thing - but passing ordinances like this is way overkill. The non-smokers have decided that they want the bars to themselves, and have wrapped themselves in the public health banner to make their cause right.

That brings us back to the original point - the bars don't belong to the smokers, or the non-smokers. They belong to the bar owners. Bars aren't operated as a public service; they are a business in it to make a profit. Going to your favorite bar is a privilege, not a right. People go to bars voluntarily. People smoke voluntarily. Smoking is 100% legal. It should be the choice of the bar's owner to allow smoking or not. Just like it is their choice on what kind of crowd they want to attract, which kinds of beers they stock, and how good/poor their service is.

For the record, I don't smoke. I do believe in personal rights.

To you supporters of the smoking ban:

I am reading your comments and if I substitute a few words an argument could be made on the same reasonings: We should close gay bars and bathhouses. They do not promote a healthy lifestyle. You could get something that would kill you quicker than lung cancer. Since Lawrence it is a 100% legal activity.

My point is we should let people choose there lifestyle. If you don't like smoke, don't go where the smoke is.

Everyone has a long-standing RIGHT to smoke-free air! Only the tobacco people are still fighting this (but they work under a LOT of different names).

Toxic tobacco smoke has no rights, but kills 65,000 INNOCENT Americans every year. Anyone who still supports toxic tobacco smoke supports murder. It's that simple.

Lethal tobacco smoke should rightfully be banned in ALL public places and workplaces - indoors and out - no exceptions or exemptions.

Smoke-free air has ALWAYS been good for people and for business (well, except the tobacco "business", which is illegal anyway).

As long as we're on a banning spree, can we ban any mention of religion in any "public places," too, citing separation of church and state or something? And by the definition of "public place" put forth in the wording of the smoking ban -- i.e. "a place open to the public or to which the public is invited," wouldn't that make a 'church' now qualify as a 'public place?' So let's not have any more mention of religion in any public places, including churches, but excluding, as the smoking ban graciously excluded, bingo halls.

To all the posters who think Austin restaurants and bars won't lose any business in the aftermath of a smoking ban: you are wrong, because I can guarantee they just lost one customer: me. How many others they will lose may be a matter of speculation, but I can guarantee that I will never -ever- go downtown for 'fun' again, because it wouldn't be. As if there weren't already enough no-smoking establishments in austin. Any of you non-smokers know how hard it is just to find a restaurant to eat in anymore in Austin? Smokers -had- a choice of only a handfull as it was. Now we'll all be forced to eat and drink and party at home instead, where we can still have an enjoyable experience. By the way, there has been scientific studies showing that nicotine inhibits actually inhibits brain damage by alcohol. So if you are going to drink alcohol at all, you really should be smoking. I guess the notion that only brain-dead people would patronize a no-smoking bar is actually more literal than metaphorical.

Any bar and restaurant owners who want to stay in business, here is my advice to you: move your businesses to a neighboring city NOW, while you still have the money to do it, or stay here and end up declaring bankruptcy

I love Austin more than pretty much any other city in the entire United States, and I've lived in a number of them, but I have to confess that after hearing about the smoking ban passing, I'll probably end up leaving and moving somewhere where I can still enjoy my lifestyle of choice. Thanks a lot, assholes, for chasing me out of my own city, and have fun thinking of more ways to finish it off, because after this weekend's critical hit, it'll really just be a matter of kicking it while it's down to finish it off.

It's fantastic that Austin's ordinance has passed. It's just a shame that it is not more comprehensive. Under the current ordinance it is still possible for businesses to endanger their employees by exposing them to toxic smoke. Not a good thing.

The fact that some people oppose the ordinance (most of them claim that it's an invasion of their rights but are really just so addicted to tobacco that they have trouble going without it for a few minutes, which is pitiful) only goes to show you just how horribly addictive a drug nicotine is. All the more reason to keep the ordinance in place. Public policy shouldn't be set for the convenience of drug addicts. You wouldn't want to allow customers in a restaurant or bar to be exposed to raw sewage, radioactive waste, or other health hazards. Same with tobacco smoke. And it's silly to claim that the owner's private property rights would allow him to shoot, injure, or poison someone just because he or she had walked in the door.

But "Ah," you say, "tobacco is DIFFERENT." Well, sorry, but it is NOT different. Like tobacco, a baseball bat is legal but you cannot just go and hit someone with it even if he or she is in your private establishment. That same establishment is also required to obey child labor laws, not to serve alcohol to minors, and to keep its food and drink sanitary. No one attempts to argue that the government doesn't have the right to regulate these things. By the same token it has the right to say that you can't poison customers or employees with tobacco smoke.

The claim that business will suffer as a result of clean indoor air is also bogus. The University is smoke-free and the students there represent the majority of the bars' and restaurants' business. Students and the population in general, more than 73% of whom don't smoke, will go out more often if they aren't assaulted by tobacco smoke or forced to wash it out of their hair or clothing. It has been true in El Paso and it will be even more true in Austin.

When the ordinance takes effect there will be some bars (the "whine bars") who gripe and moan that business has been terribly hurt. But of course that will simply be because they do not like it, not because it is really true. Few, if any, will be so stubborn or so hostile to nonsmokers that they will go under because they are unwilling to run a healthy business. In other states there have occasionally been owners who were so stubborn that they were willing to sabotage or kill their own businesses. But again public health should not be jeopardized for the sake of a few stubborn fools. I will look forward to cruising Third Street having ingested only those substances I chose to ingest.