Damned straight.

Been there, done that. I was still in College, and could support myself with the tips (never mind the wages). My lungs say I shouldn't have worked there now, though.

One way to deal with the fallout of uninsured drivers, legal residents or not, is to implement pay-at-the-pump minimum liability and uninsured motorist coverage for everyone while they are driving in the state. If you have more assets to protect, you of course could still pay usuary rates at Farmers, Allstate, etc.

I am very happy to see the smoking ban go into affect. It is good for the employees. In the long run, it will be good for employers, since smoking is a very good way to get sick and miss work as a consequence. From a personal standpoint, my wife and I can got out to listen to good music and not fear the second hand smoke. This is great.

Nice coverage.

Personally, I would like to see everything implemented with a public service promo bit attached as well. You have to sell these ideas; it's a consumer culture. Sure, you may have more rights as a non-smoker, now, but you have to be a jerk to exercise them.

I noticed the situation with Tri-Met bus stops being non-smoking earlier. I moved to Gresham last year, and, basically every one in Gresham smokes. Except me (sorry, Jenni, haven't seen you, but I'm sure you don't smoke). That's their business to me. The prob. is that I live on the third floor and the walls are thin. The light constituents of the smoke come through the walls and collect in my place. No, prob, open the windows. Except then, you have every single neighbor, 8, count 'em, also going outside to smoke. Every time I open a window, there is someone standing within a few feet of it, directly below, blowing Marlboro smoke in.

My point is that if I say anything, it's my prob.; I'm the odd one out. You can't expect people to get it naturally. For what ever reason, few Americans can or want to look at things from a third person point of view. What else can I conclude when they position themselves so that no smoke goes back into their place, but you can see a very well defined stream going straight into my window, and they're staring at it? So you have to explain it to them. Have authority figures explain it to them. It's stupid, but without it, I can't reasonably expect to bring it up without it being my problem or getting blow-back. Yeah, I know, I'm supposed to play the victim, throw a drama fit, move and get a lawyer. I'm supposed to mention that I stopped smoking just before moving here, so I'm entitled to special treatment. Grow a goatee and yell. Until you promote it, it's "special", a legal technicality.

Long rant, but I think a recurring prob. with our progressive legislation. At least always having an education component of legislation would focus attention on enforcement, which is usually not thought through at all. As written this requires a peace officer to make a complaint, no? Anytime you call the Police Bureau you have a second problem. It's not thought through. People will just get it, want it, and call the cops on those not complying? That's not a plan. It is positive in one respect. In more than one instance I wondered aloud if anyone in Salem thinks about how far from ventilation systems the person stands, and I guess the answer was "yes".

Oh, and having done the measurements and having a very practical take on the issue, Kari is spot on; the diff. between 10' and 25' is light years. New math.

I'm sorry Kari, not trying to be snarky, but I really hate that "it's for the employees' good" meme. The smoking ban certainly does make sense from a health standpoint. There's absolutely no doubt that I (and everyone else) will be breathing in less second hand smoke.

But I've been working in this industry for 25+ years, and I'm a smoker. If it bothered me that much, I'd find work elsewhere or in another field. Almost everywhere Ive worked, 90% of my co-workers also smoke. None of us is happy about this.

How am I to watch the bar when I'm huddled outside 10' from any door? How do I watch and control what my customers are up to when they're outside? Many taverns have a policy that if you leave once, you can come back in, but if you leave twice you can't. It's to control drug use and other unruly or potentially illegal behavior.

I'm most concerned about my tips. Like it or not, video poker is keeping many businesses afloat right now. About 50% of my tips come from the gamblers - a huge portion of whom also smoke. If the lottery really does lose business the way they are projecting, I see a significant drop in my take home pay and perhaps even some places closing due to the loss of their lottery revenues.

I may be healthier, but that significant a cut in business/tips could be devastating for those of us subsisting on minimum wage.

Just got back from Roosters Pub on NE Columbia. Without the clouds of blue smoke, some of those naked dancers look somewhat less attractive. Nothing that can't be cured with a few extra drinks, but an interesting observation nevertheless.

Have you seen the new "outdoor smoking area" at the Sextant on Marine Drive? Not sure how the OLCC or "smoking police" are going to interpret or enforce the law, but some bars are constructing "outdoor" smoking areas that look like - indoors! Roof, walls, windows, heaters, chairs, a place to put your drink, the whole deal. I am told that the cigarette companies have sponsored the construction of some of these outdoor - indoor smoking rooms. Now if they can only figure out a way to get the video poker machines outside.

The bartenders at both the places I visited today were outside - on their breaks - smoking. And complaining about having to go outside to smoke. An interesting social experiment.

Zarathustra:

I know what you mean about the smoking - makes me sick. One of the best parts about moving to Oregon was getting away from everyone in the family who smoked. It's definitely a problem in apartments... here at ours much of the problem is actually more of smoking pot than it is cigarettes.

It really annoys me when I'm at a TriMet stop and someone's blowing smoke in my face.

I'm glad places are smoke free.

If it is any consolation to the bartender who posted here.....I am a big tipper and so are my friends. We appreciate how hard bartenders and servers have to work. We only visit non-smoking bars, so as of yesterday your establishment may be on our list to visit. Can't say I'm a big gambler, but there may be a lot of those folks who have stayed out of your place because of the smoke as well. I will be saddened and surprised if you suffer any revenue loss in the long run. So here's a New Years toast to you and the other tenders, knowing that you will likely earn more and live longer.

Well Mr. McAvoy, I certainly do hope you're right and I thank you for the sentiment. I greatly appreciate and cater to my big tippers though I strive to provide excellent service with a big smile and friendly words to all. You don't necessarily know, right? Anyway, thanks for taking good care of your bartenders and servers!

My home state of Ohio adopted a smoking ban in bars and taverns a few years ago. When I was back in Columbus for Thanksgiving, my partner and I went to a favorite place to grab a burger and a beer. We had not been there for years since she is and ex smoker and the smoke was horrible in there.

Our server turned out to be the grandson of the founder and his parents, aunt and uncle now run the place. Thinking about our upcoming smoking ban, I asked him how it affected business. He told me that it has actually helped business - which surprised them. Even with the hard economic times their business is up. He said that there were a lot of people like us who wanted to come in before the ban but didn't because of the smoke. Now we are going in along with the regulars who smoke. Since everyone cannot allow smoking it also provides them with a very level playing field in that regard.

So Bartender I don't buy the line about it will hurt business and tips. Yes, you might have a hard time smoking on the job but I don't think your tip jar will be any less full.

Kari:

Almost all Oregon workplaces are now smokefree - in particular, bars and taverns.

Bob T:

Hey Kari, just wondering here: if Amsterdam-style mj bars were made legal here, would you demand that they be smoke-free? I'm a drug legalization guy as some of you all know, but I can't help but wonder about this sort of thing. Or if tobacco is pretty much banned will there be a market for T-shirts with a big tobacco leaf on them?

How's David B doing? At least he understands the jobs and quality of life connection.

Bob Tiernan

It's really awesome how many changes there are even in a month! Without a lawyer you are really lost. Happy new year by the way to all readers. Regards, L.R.

Hey Kari, just wondering here: if Amsterdam-style mj bars were made legal here, would you demand that they be smoke-free?

There's a very strong push there to make them alcohol free. There's only a very few in Am*dam still permitted, under grandfather clauses. They would tobacco, except it means something different there. Hard to explain until you've cleared muck on a polder for 12 hours in this weather. Very few things take the chill off and keep you alert. When I worked at DEC in Utrecht the whole office smoked- worse than any bar you can imagine- and I got dirty looks if I tried to crack the window in winter. Ended up having to quit and return here. At the time, more than 50% of Dutch men smoked, after heart bypass surgery! Government funded. Point being, you can get off on tobacco rants much better there, and they know better!

All that said, it is sad that regs like this get so much attention and behaviors that are far worse for the public health get by with a nod. In low concentrations, like I was complaining about with the neighbors, it is a huge nuisance, but there is little good evidence to support the disease link. I would like to see people take things in the order of the probability of their happening, but then, we would have no lottery money (hey, "billy", tell those free-loading kids to let the school system serve the gamblers and smokers). There's an element that is purely about social control too. Last night I had dinner with a friend that went home to visit during the holiday (Sydney, Oz), and he related a story about going to a Sydney park and coming across a park bench on the harbor with a sign that read, "No Alcohol, No Eating or Drinking, No Loitering", and was absolutely serious.

When all is said and done, some people are more interested in regulating behavior than accomplishing some positive goal. Back to the point about smoke in MJ bars, there's another side to that coin. Most municipalities there require massive air cleaning systems, usually using ozone producing devices. The alcohol bars are not required to do so. Many end up going into a MJ bar for the clean air and a game of chess, rather than a "brown cafe", so named because the walls have literally become stained over the centuries. Always wanted to see a short of one of those games of chess with the caption cutting to "This is Your Brain on Drugs".

Hate to indulge the crosstalk, but it's become such a recurring theme... Maybe add after "progressive" in the blog statement, parenthetically, "however you define that". More than half the posts since October have featured progressives telling other progressives that they don't know what the term means (followed by wonderous elucidations) or that the other person isn't one. I totally empathisize- when I first read it and then saw a defense of some business-as-usual Dem policy, my eyes turned purple and started to ooze puss. In terms of setting expectations- and I think that's the entire issue- at present it only sets the expectation that we can constantly expect an injection of "you call this progressive?" from PO'd progressives. Or maybe say "desire progressive policy". Put another way, "progressive" is kind of like a twisted version of "porn". Very few recognize it when they see it, but most think they recognize when it isn't there. Neither actually make one a progressive, though.

Kari, I'm not sure I agree about the illegal aliens and the insurance. From what I've been able to see, they don't get insurance or register their cars to themselves anyway, so I'm not convinced that taking their driver's licenses away from them will make any difference.

Bob -- that "tobacco leaf" t-shirt is a great idea. Wish I'd thought of it.

Curt

After seeing the movie "Valkyrie" it's easy to see why Germany repealed their ban, a law that depends on friends and neighbors snitching on each other.

I love how anecdotal "evidence" such as one visit to a now smoke-free establishment trumps my decades of experience and the state's own projections, Sara. Just because some places might be doing well does not translate to success for all across the board.

I am not arguing that the ban might actually be good business for some places. But not all drinking establishments are created equal. The trendy club downtown and the family oriented restaurant/pub will probably benefit. But I work in a local, blue collar bar where the majority of my customers smoke and a good deal of my tips come from the lottery players. We also have a non-smoking restaurant connected to the bar where those who prefer to escape the blue haze can go. Anecdotally, my bar customers are telling me that in these tight financial times, they'd rather get a bottle and smoke at home than huddle outside in the rain and snow this winter.

I don't know. But neither does anyone else. We shall all see what happens. But if I lose my job cuz my bar goes out of business (the lottery is supporting the place right now) or I go broke from lack of tips, it'll be a bit too late for me - and others like me.

Oh, and it's kinda hard to talk to those who might not have survived the smoking ban, right? Since they're not in business anymore, I mean.

Kari:

Well, one of the few exceptions under this law is cigar bars. You can still smoke in a cigar bar. Presumably, that same exception would apply to marijuana bars.

Bob T:

Well then, seems to me that an owner of a tavern or other similar establishment should have the right to declare his place a smoke tavern. Like with the cigar bars, no one is forced to go there.

Bob Tiernan

Call it a cigar bar, offer some cigars and they will come. Fear of second hand smoke - does it apply to all smoke which presents a health hazard? Stand downwind from a pulp mill. Is that offensive? Do you fear it? Just wondering. A cheap fan directed through the entry way will prevent smoke from entering. Ten feet is certainly sufficient with a blower. Donate an umbrella to your neighborhood social club for those unfortunate addicts. Club owners: consider outdoor heaters where appropriate. The times they are a changin.

I believe that the cigar bar exception is limited to establishments that were cigar bars at the time the law was passed.

One thing that hasn't yet been mentioned here is that the musicians union were big proponents of the smoking ban.

Sure, a bartender can choose to work in a smoking or non-smoking establishment, but it's much tougher for musicians, who don't have a single place of business.

Furthermore, certain musicians, such as singers as horn players, breath heavily in the course of their work. It's like exercising heavily in a smoke-filled room.

genop,

It used to be that the drive from Portland to Eugene had a notable landmark--the windows had to go up and the vents closed while approaching the Albany area (Millersburg is where the pulp mill actually was). Camas similarly had a bad reputation.

But those plants have been forced to clean up their discharge, and it's a much different experience these days.

Perhaps we could get rid of the ban if all smokers would be willing to carry with them scrubber devices that eliminate discharge of smoke.

Musicians can choose where to work just as well as anyone else. It may affect their bottom line, but few seem to be worried about the potential effect to my bottom line right now. Besides, there are hundreds, if not thousands of establishments that will never have a live musician or performer within. Like mine.

Illegal aliens and insurance...Kari, take this from a guy in the insurance biz with many friends who are also, Illegals do not buy car or medical or any insurance, how else could low paid "poor" workers afford to send over $2 Billion a month to Mexico, they have nothing deducted from their paycheck (including taxes by claiming 6 kids, I have C.P.A. friends too) so these remittances can continue and remember a License IS gov't issued photo ID, a key to get on a plane or rent a U-Haul and buy fertilizer.

Reminder to Illegals in Marion County, get pulled over without a License and your car is impounded with fees charged and additional daily storage fees until you get a License to claim your car and if you can't get a license...

bob t: I thought there was a thread extolling that libertarians are just a stripe of progressives and now you expose that "logic" but exposing the fatal flaw of progressives - they ultimately evolve into government bureaucrats (progressives?) controlling individuals and private entities based on what they indiviudally like. Cigar smoke = good. Cigarette smoke = bad. Weed = good.

For what it's worth - I don't think I saw a college youth with an Obama button/sticker etc. without a pack of cigs.

Good thing Oregonian progressive are keeping smoke out of taverns.

Why not just take it a step further and purify taverns by having the State take them over completely? Kind of like the puritan laws Oregonians have with the distribution of liquor.

Sometimes I think that there is really little to no difference between an evangelical christian and a true progressive. Just different avenues to get to the same controlling solution.

Bartender,

That's simply not true. Some musicians have chosen to perform only in smoke-free locations, but it severely hurts their ability to make a living. As I wrote in my earlier post, most musicians play at many different venues, so they don't have the ability to choose one employer who has a non-smoking establishment.

Tell me, do you have evidence that bars closed at a faster rate in California and Washington after they banned smoking in bars?

I'm sorry, but you simply don't have a right to feed your addiction to the detriment of others. What other drug is there that addicts feel that they have a right to force others to consume the same drug?

johnnie,

There's an old saying that the right to swing your fists ends at my nose.

A corollary of that is that your right to pollute your lungs ends at mine. It is not an infringement of your rights to protect me from your life choices.

By the way, I think that marijuana should be legalized, but smoking of it should be restricted the way that smoking of cigarettes is restricted. Besides, there are ways other than smoking to consume it (as there is with tobacco).

fbear: "There's an old saying that the right to swing your fists ends at my nose."

Then why do you keep hitting my nose?

No one forces you to go into a bar that allows smoking or one that bans smoking. Instead you'd rather ban all smoking and when Bob T. points out the 180 degree turn progressives would have with "coffee shops". I know you said you'd ban "coffee shops" just like smoking establishments, but you'll understand my cynicism when progressives are fighting seating Burris despite having not trying to unseat 'sweetheart mortgage' Dodd while on the banking committee(!).

Sorry, johnnie, but you don't have a right to inflict your addiction on other people, and restricting where you can indulge your addiction is not "hitting (your) nose."

As a patron, yes, I can choose not to go to smokey bars. Working musicians have a much tougher time pulling that one off. You seem perfectly happy to inflict your poison on musicians.

If by "coffee shops" you mean pot shops, they're already banned. I'm for legalizing use of pot, but that doesn't mean that smoking it anywhere should be legal.

fbear:

What's simply not true? You reaffirmed what I wrote: that musicians had been able to pick and choose where to work though it may limit their income (affect their "bottom line" as I phrased it). My point in referring to your comment about musicians is: where's the similar concern for my ability to make a good living?

And no, I do not have evidence that the smoking ban has hurt - or helped for that matter - bars in other states that have implemented one. I've written here at least twice that I do not know what will happen. But does anyone out there have anything other than anecdotal tales that prove either way? No one's ever referenced any such studies, stats, etc. I'd really like to know and read such evidence. The only thing I've seen is the state's projections that lottery sales are going to take a dive.

My concern is not about being able to "feed my addiction," "to the detriment of others" or otherwise. Though I'm a smoker, I rarely have more than a couple on my shift because I keep myself busy. In discussing the smoking ban with my patrons, a lot of my regular customers didn't even know I smoke.

I began commenting here because I am one of the "thousands of women in our state who've spent decades working in working-class bars and taverns (you might call them "dive bars") paying the rent and raising their children with the tips they earn there." I'm a 48-year-old single mom without a degree, and tending bar is one of the few jobs I can do that has allowed me to raise my children on my own.

As I also wrote earlier, I hope my fears are unfounded and I'm wrong. I sincerely do! My family's well-being depends on it. The alternative is too scary to even contemplate. But you'll have to pardon me if I take some slight exception to those who say they are doing this for my own good (health) without fully considering - or planning for - the potential financial ramifications for those of us living on the edge of poverty.

Greg D called it "an interesting social experiment." Excuse me if I don't want to be a subject in this experiment.

One could also argue then that by working in a smoking (alcohol) bar you're also making the choice to work in an environment of smoke. And there's nothing about a license to serve alcohol that makes smoking an inherent part of the process... unless you consider hundreds of years of history and common sense knowledge of the traditional working conditions of this type of job.

I'm sorry, but if you got into this line of work more than a year or two ago and thought you could find gainful employment anywhere you wanted without being subjected to smoke, you are an idiot. Just like having to deal with obnoxious drunks, it came with the turf.

Look, if cigar bars can be sanctioned and justified, I don't understand why the bar owner can't decide if his is a smoking establishment or not. As I stated before, my bar has a non-smoking restaurant attached to it. This works out great for us. Our non-smoking patrons simply take their drinks next door. No problem. Everyone's happy. Except apparently, those who want to save the rest of us from ourselves.

Incidentally, a quick Google search of "smoking bans in bars" turned up a wealth of info and articles about businesses losing money, laying off people or cutting shifts, and places closing due to bans. Again, more anecdotal evidence, but the gist seems to be that the economic impact of smoking restrictions appear to vary, depending on the community and type of business. Many, many owners were quoted as saying that the vast droves of new non-smoking customers that were supposed to now magically appear, have not. Further, while the smokers may still come in, they come in less and don't stay as long.

Again, I hope and pray I'm wrong.

fbear -

funny, none of the smokers (musicians, waiters/waitresses, etc) who worked at bars I patronized ever talked about banning non-smokers from the tavern, even when some non-smokers complained about the smoke, perhaps they should have.

If marijuana was legalized, why do you think coffee shops would remain banned? I don't see how they could be, although the US version might more resemble a tavern. How can mj be legalize but exclude by private establishments like tobacco shops or taverns from selling mg? Not much of a legalization.

I completely support the elimination of smoking in the workplace, but don't ever expect that those that find some redeeming value in smoking, will ever be persuaded otherwise. Especially where they're making money off the addiction.

The romance of smoking, in dimly lit bars, where the allure of gorgeously undressed ladies is enhanced by cool blue wafts of smoke, will be missed, but not forgotten.

There's some things about smoking that are aggravating, but funny at the same time. I wouldn't mind smoking as much as I do, if smokers actually smoked all, and I mean all...of their cigarette. The 'walking cigarette' is one of my favorites; the ciggy is lit, being held at their side by the smoker between thumb and forefinger as they walk down the sidewalk, alone, or blabbing away with someone beside them.

The people behind the smoker...as much as 50' away, find themselves walking in the polluted slipstream of the smoker's ciggy....that the smoker isn't even smoking. Guess it has to be lit...just in case the smoker stops blabbing long enough to take a hit.

I'm still agile of foot, and independent, so the walking cigarette is a bit of a game for me. I hold my breath, step to one side or the other to get out of the polluted slipstream...pick up the pace and pass the smokers on the long stretch, and so on. For a lot of people following them though, my evasion tactics probably aren't possible, and so, the walking cigarette must be a real inconvenience and discomfort to them.

Frankly the argument that people may choose to work or not in environments that contain toxic fumes doesn't carry much weight since it flies in the face of the way other industries are treated. If you own a business that keeps employees in an environment with toxic fumes it's your responsibility as an employer to provide safety equipment and training. For instance if you use spray lacquer or certain solvents there are regulations on ventilation, spray booths, use of respirators, etc. I suppose the state could have mandated that all employees at bars at which smoking is tolerated must provide respirators to staff, which must be worn at all times, but I'm not sure if that would help business. The fact that some employees might choose to huff solvents or engage in other risky behaviors is no excuse for employers not to enforce basic safety procedures. Period.

I heard Victory Taft on the radio earlier today going off on the smoking ban. She said that although she didn't smoke she enjoyed smokey bars because "it smelled like freedom". I couldn't help but think that the smoke from the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory fire would have smelled like freedom to Victory as well...

Ron Morgon:

I heard Victory Taft on the radio earlier today going off on the smoking ban. She said that although she didn't smoke she enjoyed smokey bars because "it smelled like freedom". I couldn't help but think that the smoke from the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory fire would have smelled like freedom to Victory as well...

Bob T:

But cigarettes, doobies, and cigars are supposed to be burning while factories are not. Try again.

Bob Tiernan

fbear:

A corollary of that is that your right to pollute your lungs ends at mine. It is not an infringement of your rights to protect me from your life choices.

Bob T:

I agree with you 100%. But the issue here also involves the property right of the establishment owner(s) which of course is a place where people go voluntarily (and not for health reasons, that's for sure). We seem to have twisted the term "public" here, as opposed to what it means in Britain.

Anyway, since some smoke molecules can travel from a private home to your lungs, you might as well argue that we should ban all smoking, everywhere, for that reason. That's kind of silly. The issue is also proximity, so stay out of those places like I do (I really hate being near smokers and once went into a place with video poker and smokers wall to wall, looking for an ATM, and it took hours for me to stop smelling like that place). But I never felt that my rights were violated while I was in there.

I hate to draw the connection, but the weak dedication and understanding of property rights, over many decades, which causes people to see no property rights issue with smoking bans, is why we eventually got the dreadful Kelo decision. We needed one more Scalia or Thomas on the court. Too bad. Freedom means being uncomfortable sometimes, but too many people seem bent on achieving a perfect world. Get over it.

Bob Tiernan

More specious nonsense from Bob T., punctuated with his usual ad hominem splat ("get over it") to urge one and all to overlook the predictable dearth of logic.

(1) Property has no rights. People have rights. "Property rights" is a right wing misreading and conflation of parts of Adam Smith, John Locke, and the natural law philosophers. When the corporations and the greedmongers of the second half of the nineteenth century got hold of these ideas, they twisted them into more or less their present form. This accounts for much of our present misery.

(2) In particular, property is simply the limited ability to exercise use of a commodity subject to certain socially agreed upon rules. You remember the social contract, right, Bob? So, even though I own my backyard, I can't build a nuclear waste dump there, no matter how personally profitable it might be, and no matter how safe I personally might feel it would be for everyone involved. It's not allowed. The uses of "property" are properly constrained by society.

(3) To be even more specific, you have to right to poison me with your carcinogenic property, even if it gives you aesthetic pleasure and/or increased profit to do so. The citizens of California and Washington and now my own state of Oregon likewise declare that you may not use the discredited argument of "liberty of contract" (God, some right wing crap is like living with zombies, it just won't stay dead!) that argues, falsely, that "you didn't have to take this job," as though labor and capital had equal privilege and power in society, in order to force me to get cancer and emphysema. If we still believed this kind of vile reactionary cant, there would be no minimum wage and we'd all be cutting off our thumbs in Upton Sinclair's meat-packing plant.

Oh, but I forget . . . the right wing has always opposed a living wage and OSHA. Probably not a good example.

Well, at any rate, the minimum wage in the tavern down the street is $8.40 tonight, and it was more crowded than I've ever seen it. Over a slice of pizza that I could actually taste, I asked some of the regulars and all of the service people how they felt about the smoking ban. It was all they could do to refrain from breaking into the Hallelujah Chorus.

At the ballot and at the bar down the street, the people have spoken. I guess we're getting a little closer to that perfect world after all. And that feeling of numb frustration, that there is nothing to be done, and things will never get better, even in any small way? We'll all just have to get over it.

"But cigarettes, doobies, and cigars are supposed to be burning while factories are not. Try again."

Why? The owners of the shirtwaist factory had the right to set the conditions of labor for their employees, and those employees voluntarily agreed to work in unsafe conditions. Unsafe industrial working conditions were traditional, and improving them placed an unnecessary onus on factory owners.

The truth is that property rights do not confer a right to an employer to poison their employees, whether the employees agree to be poisoned or not. My guess is even Scalia would grudgungly agree to that, and Thomas would sit there with his thumb up his butt like always.

Bob,

So, do you also actively oppose laws that prohibit the smoking of marijuana, opium, and crack in public places? If I want to cater to people who use those drugs, by your logic shouldn't I be allowed to do that, too?

johnnie,

your argument is absurd. Banning non-smokers is not equivalent to banning smoking--note that it's smoking, not smokers that's banned by the current law.

Coffee shops are not banned. Marijuana shops are, but not coffee shops. Note that the drugs (caffeine and others) contained in coffee can be consumed without forcing others in the vicinity to also consume those drugs.

"At the ballot and at the bar down the street, the people have spoken."

When did we vote on this?

Bartender,

"When did we vote on this?"

When we elected legislators who passed this law.

Again, you're ignoring that the issue for musicians is much different. The number of non-smoking bars that are music venues was very small, in spite of the fact that less than a quarter of American adults smoke. In Oregon the percentage of adults who smoke is less than 20%.

It's a certainty that some bars will go out of business--that would be true without the smoking ban. Some bar owners will likely blame the smoking ban, and it's true that some won't adapt to the changing environment and their business will suffer as a result.

No fbear, I didn't ignore the issue in re: to musicians. I replied to it twice, though apparently you just didn't like my answers. To wit (and more bluntly): I don't care about some musicians' ability to make a good living if it means that in order for them to do so, I will not be able to make a good living. You don't care if some bar owners go out of business, so we're even there, I guess.

You're quick to toss out stats, so tell me, what percentage of liquor-selling establishments (bars, taverns, clubs, etc.) host live music? I'd be really surprised if it were over 10 or 20%. Sorry, but I just don't believe the majority should have to change just to accommodate the minority. If those clubs thought they could do as well without allowing smoking, they would have done it on their own, IMHO. Perhaps the musician's union (what a lovely idea, I wish we food service workers had such a thing) should have lobbied the clubs and boycotted those that were so detrimental to their health. Oh, but that would have hurt their ability to make a good living. Right.

And about those stats. What % of people who gamble and/or go to bars regularly smoke? [Sorry, all, but it is the regulars who are my bread and butter.] I'm not sure how you'd quantify this, but I guarantee you it's waaaay more than 20%. In my bar, it's about 80%.

Whatever. I'm done quibbling here. I commented here not to get in a debate about the merits of smoking - it's a dirty, unhealthy addiction. Every smoker I know will agree with that and wishes they could quit. No, I chimed in because, again, I AM that long-term employee of the "dive" bar, that single mom raising her kids on her own, the one ekeing out a living on minimum wage and tips that Kari referred to in his original posting. You know, the one that so many of you claim you are protecting.

I appreciate the sentiment, I really do. But my health isn't the only thing that's going to be in jeopardy if I lose my job or my tips go in the toilet. What is so hard to understand about that?

Bartender,

I didn't say that I don't care if some bartenders go out of business. I did say that, inevitably, some will, just as some would whether this law was passed or not. Some will use it as an excuse.

But businesses are always having to deal with changing conditions. If the bar where you work is incapable of adapting, perhaps you should start looking for a different place of employment.

Sorry, but I just don't believe the majority should have to change just to accommodate the minority.

Ah, but you do believe that, you just think that when it's you that's the small minority, you're the one that shouldn't have to change.

You're assuming that your business will go in the toilet. If the place where you work has the attitude that they're resentful in the change in the law, it probably will.

Again, you and your customers are free to pollute their lungs in the privacy of their homes. You, and they, are NOT free to pollute the lungs of others.

Bartender, thus: "I don't care about some musicians' ability to make a good living if it means that in order for them to do so, I will not be able to make a good living."

This is a category error. Working in a toxic, carcinogenic environment imperils a musician's life, not only his or her livelihood. These two categories (life and livelihood) are neither the same nor equal, so far as the law and ethics are concerned. Presumably we all care about one another's lives, on some level.

"Sorry, but I just don't believe the majority should have to change just to accommodate the minority."

Only 20% of adult Oregonians smoke. Bars have catered to this minority and become dependent on it, but it's a shrinking slice no matter how you look at it.

I lived in California when they went to smoke-free bars and noticed no significant drop in people boozing it up. Just a lot of folks standing out in front having smokes.

Enjoy the drop in health care costs and increase in productivity that is headed your way, Oregon!

Indoor smoking bans drop heart attack rates drastically after implementation

Like you all give a fuck about the workers. What hy6poicrites. Give some more shit to "Bartender" above; maybe you can guilt her into feeling ok about losing her job. A lost job is potentially more fatal than any second hand smoke in this society you idiots.

Eugene has had the smoking ban "since forever" and from my personal observations it is not going to be the undoing of all the "blue collar" bars in the state. Will there be tons of moaning and bitching at first? Yes Will some people opt to stay home? Yes. But in the end people will adjust. They will flock to the dive bars in the winter where the owner has taken the time to buy a propane heater or two. And again flock to the bars where there that has a covered area to keep out of the hot sun (or uncovered area so you can get some sun).
People run out have a quick smoke and then come back in. And you will probably start seeing a new crowd of non smoking blue collar folks who now want to go to your bar that will make up for any small amount of lost business that you have (and maybe recoup some of that propane heater and canopy cost)

fbear: "johnnie, your argument is absurd."

You are first. Sometimes the best way to point out absurdity is with....absurdity."

johnnie, you still don't realize that there's a difference between banning an activity, smoking, and banning people, non-smokers.

As for the "it's private property, the owners can make any rules they want" argument, does that mean they could also decree that laws against assault will not be enforced on their property?

There's no excuse for Israel's handling of this so-called counteroffensive.

Lame

Oops. Meant to post elsewhere...

In a auto painting shop workers can wear gas masks to protect themselves. If a bar is smoky pay the workers a little more for the hazard and hassle of wearing a mask. Dangerous workplaces deserve more pay-not big mother government. Government dictating how we should all live is a slippery slope....we are sliding down it now. GPS car "black" boxes, fat taxes/food police, welcome to Orwellgon.

<h2>How about having 25 foot set-back laws for SUVs since they're huge air polluters? (Or propose a pollution tax rather than a road usage tax.) Cig smoke don't amount to a hill 'o beans when compared to all the hydrocarbon particulate spewed into the atmosphere from an idling SUV. Lets blame SUV owners for all the ills in society rather than constantly relying on a group of pathetic addicts to finance everything under the sun...</h2>