Bar owner loses court battle against smoking ban
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:36 PM PDT
By The Associated Press
Printable version
E-mail this articleOLYMPIA — A bar owner in Olympia who opened a smoking area has been found in contempt of court for violating the state ban on smoking in public places.
The owner of Frankies Sports Bar and Grill, Frank Schnarrs, had opened an area on the second floor of his bar where patrons were allowed to smoke for a $1 charge. He argues that a provision in the law allowed the exemption as a members-only club.
But Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks says anyone can walk into the smoking area.
Hicks gave Schnarrs a 10-day window on Monday to see whether an indoor designated smoking area could comply with state law. No smoking will be allowed in the appeal period.
longview citizen wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:38 PM:
" This bar owner is sadly mistaken. The law does not allow for a members only provision or every eagles,moose etc would have smoking. However it does allow for an area not accesible by the general public, and with NO PAID help (which includes tips). So his theory may work if he tends it himself and does not allow paid staff to assist. Also he can have a jar for charity donations and charge a fee for administrative costs to get around the no wage/tip area of the law. "
LongviewRez wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:26 PM:
" So, doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of the no smoking ban? Believe it or not, there ARE people who go to bars the actually don't smoke. Go figure. There are already places that bend the rules (a back deck with the door open all the time and smokers right by the door) so then patrons get to breathe smoke AND be cold at the same time. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:42 PM:
" This is a moronic law to start with. Nanny state at its worst!!! "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:44 PM:
" What is it going to take for the smokers and the people who want to make a living off this disease-ridden, filthy act to get the message. THE MAJORITY DO NOT WANT SMOKING. WE WANT TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR. If I were the state, I would seriously consider pulling this guy's liquor license. Maybe then he and others like him would get the message. This initiative passed by more than 60% of the vote statewide. He doesn't get to make his own interpretation of the law. WE, THE MAJORITY, do. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:58 PM:
" This is private property rights versus the state. Who cares if the vote passed by 100% of the vote?? you have no right to tell a private business what they can or cannot do with regards to smoking. Yet the nanny state mentality has made mush of most of your brains. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:14 PM:
" Gondolapete you couldn't be more wrong. Any business that is open to the public in the state of Washington operates with a state business licence. That license requires the business to follow the laws of the state. In addition, the bar owner has a liquor license through the state that require the owner to follow state law. It is your brain that does not understand the law. This guy chooses to do business in the state of Washington, therefore he must operate under the laws of the state of Washington. And the law that the more than 60 percent of the voters passed is a ban against smoking in establishments that are public in nature, i.e., that require a state business license to operate. So pull your head out of your ... and accept the fact that the majority gets to make the law. The state government did not make this law, the citizens of this state. Enough said. "
Rosey Glasses wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:18 PM:
" I think that it is "Big Brother & Sister" telling us all what is good for us. I believe that a business' owner should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking in their establishment. And those who do not want to be around smoking, go somewhere else. I am getting real tired of being told what I can and cannot do by people who don't even live near me. In other parts of the country there are still smoking sections (or in some cases the whole restaurant is smoking) and yet the people that do not smoke find places to go that are smoke free. Get a clue folks, not everyone wants to stop smoking for your selfishness. I respect those people and establishments when they post no smoking signs. However to tell an establishment that they CANNOT let people smoke is more of being told what to do by those that don't pay the bills. I don't frequent bars anymore in Washington, and the list is getting longer. Even in Nevada they have taken the smoking out of restaurants, but still allow it where children aren't allowed, such as the casino and bar areas. "
sparky wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:24 PM:
" Only about 1 in 4 adults in our state smoke. Bars that cater to only 25 percent of the general population are not practicing very good business sense. Historically the smoking laws have had no significant effect on the revenue of bars. People will always like to go out and drink and socialize. No one can argue the fact that second hand smoke is harmful to the bar patrons, not to mention the employees. "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:26 PM:
" Son of a gun TDN Bad Boy I agree with you 100% on this issue. Smart business owners would cater to these customers with nice outdoor smoking areas; but within the current law, include seats, radiant heat, etc. I've no patience for the scoflaw in the article. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:33 PM:
" RE: Rosey Glasses ... as a voter of this state who wholeheartedly supports this law, may I extend the invitation to you to MOVE TO THE PART OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SMOKING IS PERMITTED. It will never be that way again in the state of Washington. In fact an initiative is already being discussed that will make illegal to smoke outside of any private property that does not require a state license. In case you can't understand that though your smoke stained glasses, let me explain. If that initiative goes forward (maybe in 2 years) you won't be able to smoke away from your own private property. I don't care what you do in your home. Poison your kids with secondhand smoke for all I care. But when the next initiative passes I will be one of the people who will be supporting officials who write up misdemeanor tickets starting at $100 for first offense and going up. The era of you smokers blowing your poison in everyone's face or putting out a cigarette butt on the ground so we have to walk on it, is just about over. "
sparky wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:36 PM:
" Rosey Glasses, you have some nerve calling non smokers selfish! Lighting up a cigarette around a non-smoker is the epitome of selfishness. You can choose to expose yourself to all of those cancer causing chemicals if you want to, but to expose the rest of us to it so you can get your precious hit of nicotine is extremely selfish. I am someone's wife and someone's mother and someone's daughter and I don't want to breath in your pollution! Go ahead and smoke all you want, but do it in your own space. No body is taking away your rights, but even if they were, you seem to think your rights are more important than those around you who choose not to smoke. Talk about selfish... "
Teresa wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:36 PM:
" I agree Gondolapete. I stopped smoking 7 years ago and I wish everyone could quit and be healthy. But each business should have the right to decide for themselves. If people don't want to be around smoke, don't go in. If they don't want to work around smoke, work somewhere else. "
Rosey Glasses wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:04 PM:
" Mr. TDN BB: that plan is already in the planning stages. This isn't the only law on the books that has discouraged me to continue to live here. The schools want IEPs on all its kids, they get more money for kids on these programs, including kindergarden kids. In the early 90s I was told by Longview PD that they didn't have a gang problem when I told them there were gang type writings on buildings near by and kids drinking and doing drugs, along with running between houses in the wee hours of the morning. I have lived here for a long long time, all the while watching more Californians move in and want things the way they had it there. I am throwing my hands up and selling my home. No more of my tax dollars will be spent on a task force that can't seem to get the meth off the street, even when they are told which houses are being used to MAKE the fowl mix. (yes I told Kelso PD of such a house about 6 years or so ago). I find it offensive that the owner of an establishment cannot accomidate those customers, yet it is ok for the government to tell an individual what they can and can't do with their establishment. This is not the America that our founding fathers invisioned. Again I say... wake up America before all our rights given by God and recognized by our constitution. "
Rosey Glasses wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:09 PM:
" And Sparky: I do respect those who do not smoke, I do not smoke in their yards, homes or establishments that are thus posted. I follow the current law. I do not leave my butts on the sidewalk or parks, those beling in the garbage once put out. Our kids are grown so there is no chance of them getting sick from my second hand smoke.
And for Teresa, Bravo, I couldn't agree with your response. I will quit, as soon as I can get hubby to quit smoking in the house and vehicle. It is the hardest thing I have had to quit so far.
It is sad that so many people want to tell some of us what we can and can't do; I am just real tired of it. "
And for Teresa, Bravo, I couldn't agree with your response. I will quit, as soon as I can get hubby to quit smoking in the house and vehicle. It is the hardest thing I have had to quit so far.
It is sad that so many people want to tell some of us what we can and can't do; I am just real tired of it. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:46 PM:
" TDNBB I dont smoke. Having said that, it's not about "the majority" it's about private property rights. Which are becoming less and less. I could not care less what "the mejority" voted on, it worked well before. If you did not want to patronize a business that allowed smoking, you simply left. Now we let public votes dictate private policy. What next, is transfats gonna be banned as well??? Oh wait..it already is in New York City...the slippery slope has begun and the lemmings are in full force!!! "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:59 PM:
" I'm looking for a place to open a hog rendering plant. Would anybody like it if I build it next door to your home? Your property rights are limited and always will be. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:14 PM:
" Cheney119, what does that have to do with anything? Smoking is legal, and a bar should have every right to either allow it or not allow it. If you dont like it, dont go there..so simple, it's stupid. And tread on my rights and see how far ya get!!!! Sheep like you and sadly now TDNBB are why this country is heading where its heading. "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:12 PM:
" What is more basic to property rights than zoning? Yah if you don't like my cigarette just stop breathing. Let the majority rule, just get used to it. Property rights arguments and slippery slope argumemnts are the last refuge of a scoundrel. They don't convince anyone. "
Reality wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:33 PM:
" I want a piece of property upstream from where Gondola gets his water. I'll dump all my motor oil, antifreeze and corrosives in (like he has stated he does or wants to do). Property rights? Got that covered....my right to do on my property what I want...drink it up Gondola. So let us say there was some seperation - that business owners could operate as a smoking establishment if they wished. How do you pro-smoking rights folk propose paying for all of the resulting lawsuits and increases to health care costs? Have you not forgotten where, how and why these initiatives (Washington and elsewhere) were first formed? Do you think everyone else deserves or enjoys paying for your habit? The answer is that we do not and we should not. So give up trying to take the rest of us to an early grave and stick to enjoying your deathsticks in those legal places where they won't bother the majority of the populace who has spoken against them in public places. Don't whine here; put your energy to work in an attempt to overturn the ban. And good luck with that! "
Crystal wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:37 PM:
" Using some of the logic of other posters, I could just as easily say, "well, I don't like dealing with belligerent drunks especially those who drive drunk so we should ban alcohol." More people die from drunk driving or alcohol related accidents than all the people who die from lung cancer, emphysema, etc. We don't need the government to baby sit us. We're adults, so quit your whining. "
mommy6 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:57 PM:
" To those of you who complain about "us" smokers and want to breath CLEAN AIR..... You might want to just stay in your house. Cars, Trucks, Buses, Mills all put off some sort of pollution and most of the time it is worse then my cigarette smoke. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 10, 2008 7:13 PM:
" I gave up a long time ago on common sense taking place anymore. Big Brother is here, and welcomed with open arms!!!!!! "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:24 PM:
" Isn't smokers aggravation with this law really just aggravation with their own silly habit. You can't quit, you tried, once. They cost $5 a pack, $35 a week $140 a month, $1825 a year, oh yah your wife smokes $3650 all together. Not to mention you can't climb a set of stairs and you smell like a wet dog. I'd be aggravated too. "
Reality wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:20 PM:
" Hey Crystal: You failed to address who your comments were directed to. Nevertheless, attention paid during a single high school class would answer the "question" posed by your post. If you were unable to understand the education presented by such a class, you could always chance a college or university. Anyone with an education understands the differences between alcohol and tobacco use. Next! "
Commenter wrote on Jun 10, 2008 11:18 PM:
" You have to admit though, the smell of cigarettes is much better than the common smells of the area... Garbage dump, mills, junky cars smoking up the road, sloughs... ahh, the wonderful smell of Longview. "
benniefoos wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:44 AM:
" I have just about had enough of this lecture. I am a smoker, but obey all laws. Now... how many of you non's are more than 20 lbs. overweight? I am tired of looking at, and financially supporting you beacause your weight keeps you from working beacause of health issues. I say put a $100 fine on you, you cannot eat out in public (or let's stick you in your own room away from us non-overeaters.), and no more governmenet tax payer money because you can't work!! Let's be fair on all health issues. "
Pierce Co. Repub. wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:15 AM:
" Doesn't look like any of my inflammatory comments are needed here... I will say one thing though. It sure is nice to be able to go into a bar, have a beer, and not come home smelling like an ash tray. If any of you miss it, come on up and go to the EQC - they still smoke in there - its on the reservation. "
Dylan wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:20 AM:
" will we should not be saying that about the overweight people. i am a smoker. and i think we should have a good place to go. do's wa.state see more bar's going under? yes ..i dont think they care. they are loseing more money then they think. i dont see alot of people who dont smoke going to a bar.. and yes we do have right's. and i think we should stand up for them. any idea's? "
benniefoos wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:37 AM:
" Dear P.R., At least you had a choice even before the new smoking ban. There have been plenty of non-smoking establishments for years. I don't have the option to choose. Now you want me off the streets, and to hide in my home as if I were a demon, or criminal. By the way....You can thank our government for the addiction. Not only did they hook service men begining in WW1 by putting them in their ration packs. Who then went home, and hooked their wives, but still sell cigarette's on our bases. "
Pierce Co. Repub. wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:48 AM:
" I am all for individual rights, dont get me wrong. This smoking ban is too far reaching in my oppinion, just as seatbelt and helmet laws are invasive. A person has a right to make themselves fat, kill themselves with tobacco, not wear a seatbelt, or be healthy and in shape, and safe. But it is what it is I guess. Us snoose chewers are next I'm sure. "
buttrrflyy wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:12 AM:
" Here's what I know. Smoking kills. Period. It's good we don't need to be exposed to it in public places anymore. "
sparky wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:55 AM:
" Crystal: Tobacco kills 450,000 people each year in the United States. Drunk driving accidents kill about 17,000. Actually, second hand smoke kills more people than drunk driving accidents. Of course anytime people start talking about tobacco, there are always those who whine "but alcohol is worse." What exactly is your point? Of course alcohol kills people, duuhh! But how does stating that fact make tobacco any less dangerous? If you are dying from a tobacco related illness, does knowing that alcohol also kills make you any less sick? "
Crystal wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:05 AM:
" Reality, what specific differences are you talking about? I see no differences between alcohol and smoking. They're both unhealthy and cause tons of issues up to and including death. I didn't pose any question, I was just merely pointing out previous posts and their flawed logic. I have no clue how people can think that alcohol is harmless. If you paid attention at college (you did go to college, right?) you'd know flawed logic doesn't fly. "
Pierce Co. Repub. wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:37 AM:
" RE: Crystal What does having a college education have to do with this? That statement was quite tactless.. Tobacco kills. Non-Smokers have the right not to inhale tobacco smoke. Smokers have the right to smoke (Until tobacco is outlawed). Insurance companies have the right to raise their rates. I have the right to drink alcohol, but I don't have to right to drive after drinking too much. It all seems so simple. Unfortunately the state has the right to make invasive laws. "
TheGenius wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:41 AM:
" For what it's worth, the state of Nevada passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, excluding those in the casinos, meaning those directly off the gaming areas, if that makes sense. So the ban affected neighborhood bars, while ignoring the casinos. The results have been about 50-50- some bars have not allowed smoking while some bars have essentially ignored the ruling. How is this possible? A Nevada judge ruled that it is not a law enforcement issue, but rather, a local health department issue, and even then, local health departments have no power of enforcement in regards to the smoking ban. Confused yet? Don't worry; so are all the bar owners and patrons in Nevada. The point I'm making is this: I have a strong hunch that the appeals process for the Washington smoking ban is far from over. In fact, I would guess somewhere along the line, the Nevada case may be cited by attorneys representing bar owners who are against the ban. So for my two cents, here goes: I am against any laws that governments impose on private businesses in regards to what is allowed in a private establishment. Quite simply, that is not the role of elected officials, no matter what they may have you believe. Let business owners decide what is appropriate for themselves. "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:37 PM:
" Yes let business decide! Like no blacks at the lunch counter? How about strippers, that would bring customers in. Strippers are legal in Washington, just not where alcohol is served, yet it's legal in Oregon. I don't really think the Nevada law has any relavance in Washington State. Exactly where would you allow business to draw the line. Not a very persuasive argument. This law is not that envasive, the smoke is envasive. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:53 PM:
" To all you smokers, here's smoke in YOUR face. Fortunately for those of us who believe in democracy, there will be further limits on the obnoxious, poisonous intruding on clean air and health conditions by you. This was the purest form of democracy, a voter-written, vote-sponsored, and voter-approved statewide initiative. And it isn't about private property issues. You can do whatever you want on your private property. But when you do business in this state, you have to follow state law. And this is one state law that I am most proud of. The Liberal Democrats in Olympia were too coward to pass this law. So the good citizens took it upon ourselves to push you a little further back into your putrid-smelling corner. We had to put up with you for decades, blowing smoke, fouling the air, and leaving your cigarette butts on the ground. The good citizens, the majority of voting citizens in this state decided we had had enough. And I promise you Cheney, Rosey, and the rest of you cancer-patients waiting to happen, we will push you further. This is a great law celebrated by all of us non-smokers who no longer have to tolerate your putrid habit in public places and yes that includes all businesses and places that use state licenses to operate. Power to the NON-SMOKERS, the true believers in Democracy. "
TheGenius wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:19 PM:
" Check it out cheney, the point I'm making is there is a good chance that a lawyer would invoke the Nevada law and it's enforcement of said law if an appeal were to take place in Washington. Mind you, this law was passed with 55% in favor of such a ban, so it is not unprecedented for a court to overturn something that has been voted on by citizens, the most glaring example taking place in California right now in regards to gay marriage. Regardless, comparing Jim Crow laws to smoking bans is reaching, to say the least. Jim Crow laws were a violation of the 14th Amendment of the the US Constitution; there was simply never a case that the Supreme Court heard that allowed the opportunity to overturn such archaic laws. Smoking bans have nothing to do with equal protection laws. What they are is a health issue. If a business chooses to establish a smoking ban, they are within their rights. If a patron is upset with someone smoking in an establishment, then the patron can either choose to ignore the problem or walk out. If a business were to lose money because of their smoking policies, then it would not be a stretch to say that they would change their policies, or risk going out of business. Isn't that a better solution than government-imposed bans? "
Rosey Glasses wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:19 PM:
" I am most respectful of non-smokers... but for you mr TDN bad boy... I will be sure to light up and blow it your way. I won't stop there either, I will make sure that you are at the port of longview so that maybe you can smell it over that putred stench. Oh by the way... my household and adult children are quitting, but not because of your stupid law, it is because we WANT to. Laws only help promote things that are illegal. Haven't any of you people gotten that through your heads? example? Prohibition!!! When everything is illegal, all will be confined to jail cells... watch the votes. You must not have much else to do besides read and post to this paper. Too bad that you don't have much of a life... I have to get back to mine. later. "
TheGenius wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:21 PM:
" The ironic thing is we're having a debate about clean, healthy air to breathe in a bar. So we'll put up with drunks and dodgy livers and kidneys, but we draw the line at bad lungs. Huh? "
lucky1 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:57 PM:
" I dont smoke and wouldnt stay in a place that was full of smoke but isnt it everyones right to choose what they want to do. I know the smoking ban has closed many business's. Especially like the bingo halls. Its wrong of the government to get involved. "
longview citizen wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:06 PM:
" The ironic thing is Crystal that the "state" is the only one making $$$$ off both of these killers. They regulate the sales and reap the profits via taxes. Then they turn around and punish those that use their products, sounds pretty ass nine to me. "
JD Hogg wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:09 PM:
" I'm torn on this one....on one hand, I cannot stand the smell of smoke...it makes me sick! On the other hand...I think the state needs to butt out of people's homes and buisnesses....if an owner wants to make his establishment a smoking one, he should be allowed to do so....and I have a right to choose NOT to visit his establishment. This is just another example of what happens when the Judicial branch of government gets out of control.....all brought on by people who sue anyone for anything. "
Huggygramma wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:15 PM:
" Just a little addendum to the posters who mentioned drunk drivers and smokers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Back in the olden days before I was anybody's gramma, I was an EMT. One of the worst auto accidents I ever rolled on was not caused by drunk driving, rather "smoker driving". The person causing the crash took her eyes off the road momentarily to LIGHT HER CIGARETTE, her car hit the median, flew to the other side into oncoming traffic and hit another driver head-on at about 50 mph. The other driver, a young lady of 18, had to have a leg amputated to be removed from her mangled vehicle. Once we got her onto a gurney and were putting her into the ambulance I looked at the back of the car long enough to read her bumper sticker which read "I'd rather be Dancing" and had a picture of a pair of ballet slippers. Guess that dream was as good as dead. The smoker who caused the wreck walked away without a scratch. Her only comment " I don't know what happened, I was just lighting my cigarette". Well, all you smokers, just LIGHT EM UP! After all, Cancer Cures Smoking. "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:21 PM:
" TDN I'm for the ban, are you just too used to arguing with me. I quit smoking in 1990 and I run marathons for heavens sake. 55% is plenty, last I checked 50.0001 was enough, the only laws overturned are unconstitutional and fat chance that the smoking ban is unconstitutional. Nevada laws are simply not pertainent. You say business should be able to decide and there is plentiful examples that businesses are not allowed to decide whatever they wish to do, you cite some excellent examples yourself. What of the business' employees exposed to toxic effects of second hand smoke, only to make a living. Legally OSHA could have made it illegal to smoke as a workplace hazard. When was the last time anybody lit up in the company lunchroom? "
TheGenius wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:16 PM:
" Cheney, I'm just telling you that examples of laws in other states get cited all the time in courts, be at municipal, state, or federal levels. Just a fact. I'm not implying the Nevada law should be implemented nationwide. If anything, it should be repealed on the basis that the law is worded to broadly. I don't know the exact wording of the Washington law, but if someone were to argue that the law was worded to broadly and open-ended, you can bet that they would cite the Nevada law in a court to argue for throwing the law out. I don't agree with going against the will of the people, but this is something that may need to be considered. And just for the record, I am a smoker, and it doesn't bother me to have to step outside to smoke, provided they have an area where I can drink my beer as well. That's not asking too much, is it? "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:52 PM:
" Genius I agree completely about the outside smoking areas, smart tavern owners would build nice ones to attract business, within the existing law. That's what I wrote in my first post. I love it everytime there's a smoking article there's a real food fight. I guess ex-smokers like myself are too viament. Of course you may have noticed I'm pretty viament on many topics. "
Dylan wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:18 PM:
" will i am here to say i am a smoker. and i have the right to stay home and smoke. the taxe are higher on alcohol and smoke's. so if i want to have some alcohol and smoke i will stay home, and save some money. and we all have rights, we should stand up for them.. "
Oh my wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:11 PM:
" benniefoos: are you on drugs? you are saying since overweight people overeat, we should face fines? at least the fat people aim to put themselves in early graves, you smokers are helping kill everyone else. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:53 AM:
" Would all you critical of the smoking ban please get your facts straight? State government had nothing to do with the passage of this great law. The state judical branch had nothing to do. The people did it all. And I guess being a minority is something you can't accept. The fact is only 17-18 percent of the registered voters in this state are smokers. Do you ever think you will win any vote on a law against smoking? As for this dumb business owner, this isn't a case of private rights. He is not a private business owner. In Washington there really is no such thing when a business opens its doors to the public. This owner purchased a state business license and entered into a contract with the state to abide by state laws. Well guess what. The citizens said this is the state law -- no smoking in establishments doing business in Washington with a state license. I would love to see our lousy State Attorney General make an example of this guy. Take his business license until he decides to follow a great law written by and approved by the good voters of our state. It is the law because the voters said so. So lite up you cancer patients, take your next drag, and get ready for the oxygen machine you will spend the last days of a very painful death attached to. I can't think of a more appropriate way to die. "
Crystal wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:29 AM:
" I don't have a problem with people who drink or smoke, but I just find it funny that some people can think smoking is the most horrendous thing on earth yet drinking ourselves senseless is okay. I agree w/ genius, leave it up to the bar owners, etc. to decide based on what their customers want. Even before this ban, where I live, there was maybe 1 bar w/ smoking for every 4 or 5 that wasn't. If I had it my way, the smoking ban would be how it is now, with the exception of allowing smoking in bars, casinos, strip clubs, or anywhere else that are adults only...because as adults, if we don't like a place that smokes, we could bug the owner to change their policy or we could leave and go somewhere else. "
Tasha_ wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:17 AM:
" So what I think is going on with these comments is that there are less people that don't smoke then the people that do smoke. If you don't like being around people that smoke, go somewhere where there isn't, its that simple. More simple then whining about having people at a bar with the doors open and the smoke going inside. Crikey you're already poisoning your body with alcohol, whats a little bit of cigarette smoke going to do to you. You're all just to arrogant. Maybe us smokers do have a "problem" with quitting or maybe its that we just don't want to. Whatever the problem be, get over it. "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:15 PM:
" Statistically only about 25% of people smoke of course there are many more in Cowlitz County, we are backward in everything, why should smoking be any exception. I suspect a great many of the smokers don't vote, so I'd get used to the law, it's going nowhere. When you say "if you don't like the smoke don't go in there"; is that what you tell you child when you light up in the car? The kid doesn't have a lot of choice. Does your spouse smoke? If not are you poisoning them in your house? Smokers are so stubborn and wallowing in their nicotine addiction they are willingly poison the people they love the most. This thread is going an third day (I suspect because of a technical glitch) and it is not much of a debate. I already described it as a food fight, perhaps more apt is a tennis match since nobody is even listening to any other arguments and we just keep bashing the ball back and forth. Maybe I'll lower it to playgrond level; this law is settled and not going anywhere so I am afraid the smokers will have to get over it. Do yourself a favor (and the folks that have to breath around you and smell you) JUST QUIT. "
Tasha_05 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:38 PM:
" Cheney119:
I don't have any children to worry about, if I did I wouldn't smoke in the car with them, that is something that people shouldn't do. My boyfriend smokes, yes but what is that supposed to mean? I don't think that smokers are bad people. Thats just like if you drink, and someone trying to tell you that a law is getting passed where you can't drink anywhere in public, what would you do about that, unless you're just as straight as a joke and don't do anything. When and if the law gets passed, I guess we will have to deal with it then, but until then find something else to whine about, and stop making us out to be gross, bad, people that are just posioning peoples lives. "
I don't have any children to worry about, if I did I wouldn't smoke in the car with them, that is something that people shouldn't do. My boyfriend smokes, yes but what is that supposed to mean? I don't think that smokers are bad people. Thats just like if you drink, and someone trying to tell you that a law is getting passed where you can't drink anywhere in public, what would you do about that, unless you're just as straight as a joke and don't do anything. When and if the law gets passed, I guess we will have to deal with it then, but until then find something else to whine about, and stop making us out to be gross, bad, people that are just posioning peoples lives. "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:01 PM:
" I don't have any children to worry about, if I did I wouldn't smoke in the car with them, that is something that people shouldn't do. You say it's wrong in this context; so what is the difference in any other scenario? Your argument is fuzzy at best. If you want to smoke fine, it's legal, but everytime and everywhere you do it and somebody that doesn't smoke has to breath your filth you are violating their rights. No go ahead and contradict yourself some more. Or you could just admit your wrong and try to do something about it, like quit. "
kitten wrote on Jun 12, 2008 5:46 PM:
" Crystal-I can sum up the difference between smoking and drinking beer quite easily. "The by-product of smoking is smoke" "The by-product of drinking is urine" Would you like to partake in the by-product of drinking like many expect non-smokers to partake in the by-product of smoking???? "
kitten wrote on Jun 12, 2008 5:51 PM:
" Cheney119, You like to argue don't you? I guess you make some good points once in a while! LOL I'll be watching you. Just curious! Does your license plate read "JUST ADMIT YOU"RE WRONG?" Sorry, couldn't help that one. "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:38 PM:
" I like to argue with intelligent arguements. I havn't heard one yet on this topic. Still waiting but thanks Kitten "What are you doing later?" "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:39 PM:
" TDNBB you are as ignorant as Cheney119. So if it's open to the public, then it's not private huh? Well then based on your outstanding logic, does the govt, pay him as well? You are well aware the "people" also voted to ban hound hunting for cougar and bear? You also aware that now hunters are being PAID to hunt said critters in some cases because it was 100% moronic to let the public vote emotions on a scientific issue?? And furthermore hounds are being allowed to be used again in some instances. So in your world, the public vote trumps personal freedoms does it? YOU are the reason we are quickly heading into socialism. You could easily just not patronize a PRIVATE business that allows smoking, but no, you want the govt to set the guidlines..Call it what you will, but the GOVT. is in the house now!!!! "
cheney119 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:04 PM:
" Argue: is a two way street. I am a very strong man physically and I'd never dream of beating anyone as badly as I beat you simpleton smokers intellectually. DAH is not much of a defense. But I'd really enjoy to hear an argument in favor of public smoking that was persuasive. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE. "
ThereGoesThatTriptoHawaii wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:41 AM:
" 'Nanny State'- what talking head gave birth to that echo? Or am I just behind? Weren't we once a 'Blue State' too? Or are we still? This law inverts itself - it allows for too much gray area. As a result of the state impeding on the individual choices - and legal (you can buy cigarettes over 18 on the open market, right?) - a person makes, what's next: forbidding obese people from eating at buffet's because of the negative lifestyle choice (that's still a tag phrase, right?)? So the obvious reply is, yeah, but second-hand smoke kills too! Right, there's a good chance you could get cancer from second-hand smoke. But non-smokers aren't nearly exposed to the kinds of toxins a smoker does. So really, it's an inconvenience. Just like driving near the paper mill on a hot day after you've been out of town for a few days. What a dumb law. If you're going to outlaw in public places, why not outlaw smoking all together? $$$ "
fiddy6bills wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:37 AM:
" If There were so much demand for non smoking bars why couldn't people open smoke free bars. And people could have there choice of business to go to. That way if there is so much demand for it. The smoke bars would lose business and change to keep open. Seems like fairer way to handle this than to tell someone what and how to handle their own business. I'm a non smoker and don't go to bars, I JUST DON'T LIKE PEOPLE ENFORCEING THEIR OWN WILL OPUN ME. The law of supply and demand should settle this situation. The way a business should operate. "
fiddybills wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:16 AM:
" "To tdn bad boy" You keep saying this law was passed by 60% of voters. That tells me there should but around 60% of the bars smoke free. Wait that'll never happen because of those 60% only 5% probably even go to bars. There so if people had a choice to go to, the latter choice wouldn't survive because most of the people that voter don't even go to bars. So let just enforce our will in another way!!!! "
TheGenius wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:10 AM:
" I find it a bit funny that this is such a fuss over smoking bans. I mean, it started with airplanes, then moved to public buildings, then on to businesses, and now there are even bans on smoking in outdoor parks and beaches (at least in California). So I don't really know why smokers get all indignant over this. C'est la vie, I say. We just kinda have to accept that we are pariahs of society for smoking and adjust accordingly. We don't have to like it, but we gotta deal with it. At least they can't tell us what to do at home. Not yet anyways.... "
Bounder wrote on Jun 14, 2008 4:55 AM:
" Kitten you are very wrong. The by-product of drinking is drunk driving. How many sober people have been killed by the by-product of drinking? I bet there are more deaths by drunk drivers than proven cases of second hand smoke. Don't get me wrong I don't smoke. But you can't say the only by-product of drinking is urine. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:08 PM:
" Gondolapete, you just don't get. The business becomes a public business when the owner takes out a state businss license. The agrees to abide by all the laws of the state. He doesn't get to pick and chose which laws he follows. In that case, he could say it's a private business I can sell to minors. WRONG. It's not private vs. public. It is his agreement to abide by the laws of the state. If he doesn't want to do that that the state has several options. 1. pull his state business license. If the state does that, smoking in his establishment isn't an issue. 2. The state can take action against his state liquor license. Think the smokers will come if he can't sell booze? I don't know. 3. The state can fine him over and over again, raising the stake each time. I vote for the latter. It adds money to the state that I don't have to pay in taxes. You can argue all you want. The people of the state smoke. No smoking in businesses that hold a state business licence. The PEOPLE passed the law. So it's time for the smokers to realize that they will never again be able to take over establishments with their filthy habits. People who want clean air, clean sidewalks, and a healthy life have cast their vote. We win. "
LittleBrownTurd wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:37 PM:
" I think Kitten was right Bounder. The byproduct of drinking is urine. In order to drive drunk, wouldn't you need to drink alcohol? So, the byproduct of drinking is uring, and the byproduct of drinking TOO MUCH alcohol is, at times, drunk driving. Kudos go to original analogy... "
viper wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:34 PM:
" you know if you don't like to be around smokers go find your place it's that easy.
no body is making you go there !if you chose to go there then deal with it. it can't be any easyer then that if you don't like smokers don't be around them as they probably don't want to be around you.why should everyone kiss your a__ I don't smoke but I beleave everyone has the right too "
no body is making you go there !if you chose to go there then deal with it. it can't be any easyer then that if you don't like smokers don't be around them as they probably don't want to be around you.why should everyone kiss your a__ I don't smoke but I beleave everyone has the right too "
viper wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:53 PM:
" well what this calls for is a test > let's see what can do for a test .oh I know
we well go into a garage and everyone light up and smoke a pack then it's your turn, you put your car in the garage with you in it all the doors closed and run your car for the same amount of time and see witch is worse please get a report back to me on that when your done . and I really like smelling the exhaust from those diesel pickup trucks whats next can't Fart in a bar or restuant heel it will take all the fun out it "
we well go into a garage and everyone light up and smoke a pack then it's your turn, you put your car in the garage with you in it all the doors closed and run your car for the same amount of time and see witch is worse please get a report back to me on that when your done . and I really like smelling the exhaust from those diesel pickup trucks whats next can't Fart in a bar or restuant heel it will take all the fun out it "
Huggygramma wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:02 PM:
" This isn't about who wants what or what is right or wrong, the article is about enforcing the existing law. If enough people want to get a law overturned, they need to follow accepted channels and do it legally. TDN BadBoy is absolutely right, when the business owner bought their business LICENSE they entered into a contract to uphold the LAWS that apply to that business. To make it simple, if you run a red light at 3 am and there isn't a car anywhere in sight, you will still get a ticket if caught by a cop. Doesn't matter that there were no other cars around and perfectly safe, its still ILLEGAL! Run the red light, get a ticket. Allow smoking when the law prohibits it, get your business license taken away. "
LongviewRez wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:10 AM:
" Am I the only one old enough to remember smoking in restaurants, dept. stores, movie theaters and work places (offices)? You couldn't breathe! Do we really want to go back to that? Get real! If one business gets their special right to have smoking, won't they all want to follow suit (bars especially)? "
LongviewRez wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:11 AM:
" Oh, and don't forget the bowling alleys, where I couldn't take my kids because the air was blue. That wasn't that long ago. "
klb65 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:31 PM:
" And what about the smokers who buy cigarettes instead of food for their family. You can't tell me that with per gallon gas prices competing with the cost of a pack of smokes that someone isn't suffering. Often it is the little ones who don't have a voice or choice. As for the smoking bad..AMEN! Go outside and thank your lucky stars that you are smoking a few less cigarettes a day because of the inconvenience! And by the way smokers, you smell bad! You get on elevators and the odor lingers, you walk by my desk and I can smell the smoke immediately and your breath..argh! So get smart and quit and then there would be no issue at all! If you've ever watched someone you love die of lung cancer, you would see the incentive in stopping..it's no fun at all (for anyone)! "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:04 PM:
" klb65 -- I don't want them outside in public either. What a horrible example. Someone standing around committing suicide by lung cancer. I don't want to see it and I don't want kids to see it. And finally I am so tired of looking at and walking on cigarette butts on the sidewalk and in the streets. Anybody besides me see this filthy garbage. Is it any wonder why the vast majority of Washington residents do not smoke -- more than 80 percent? And an even higher number of the eligible voters -- 87% do not smoke. I say the majority needs to rise up again and push the smokers back to their own property. What they do at home is their business. What they do around me is mine. And believe me, when it comes to smoking I will do everything I can to punish you and stop you. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:13 PM:
" Hey TDNBB how about we let the public vote on logging issues? or more hunting issues? the majority for the most part has proven themselves to be less than smart. So while it is apparent you are not going to see the fact this is just another example of incrementalism, some of us can see it. and I have no doubt you will do whatever you can to punish smokers to get them to stop. Spoken like a true liberal. And on that note..I am gonna light up, and enjoy a Cuban!!! Smoked of course at my place of business!! "
toledoone wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:57 AM:
" I am always amazed when stupid people start accusing other people of being studid. I'm not sure what education has to do with smoking but it appears that you were educated to attack when you don't have any answers for honest concerns. Anti smoking laws do nothing to protect the public. They are absolutely a reduction everyones rights. Your rights are being taken away at an alarming pace all in the pretence of saving you. There are far more dangerous problems that we simply ignor. Governments are taking property away from some people just to give it to other so they can increase tax revenue. Law makers invent new methods of taxation on a daily basis. In Portland, they are going to sell bridges owned by one government to another government because the selling government can't raise taxes enough to pay for the upkeep of the bridges. The new owner will be able to enact new taxes that will pay for the upkeep. It is utter nonsense. But you had better not smoke someplace where I have no intention of going. I don't smoke either. Don't care if anybody does. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:11 AM:
" RE: Gondolapete. I have no problem voting on any of the issues you mention. Here's what you do. Write a legal initiative. Collect 125,000 signatures from registered voters in the state and then let's vote. We don't need the Liberal Democrats in Olympia or D.C. to decide your issues. We can do it, just like we did on smoking. You people who cry about rights disappearing make me laugh so hard it hurts. The majority voted. That's the way democracy operates. We won and now I have the right to breathe fresh air whenever I go into a business. I see that as the rights of the majority expanding, not shrinking. Of course if you are one of the dumb smokers killing yourself I am sure you don't see that way. As for this business owner, I have said it before and I'll say it again. He agreed to abide by the laws of this state when he took out his business license. The smoking ban is the law of this state and many others across the nation. Soon the law will be expanded and the business owner won't have to complain. We will drive smokers back onto their property. That's my right and I intend to pursue just to hear the smokers bitch and complain. And to keep their filthy, disease-ridden habit as far from me as I can. And by the way, you are the first to ever accuse me of being a Liberal Demoncrat. That's very funny. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:29 AM:
" And also TDNBB I accuse of being a liberal, because obviously you are one. You would not know true Conservatism if Reagan himself read the book to you. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Gondolapete what don't you understand how democracy works? Your side gets a vote and my side gets a vote. On this issue 62 percent were on my side, 38 percent on yours. I guess you don't believe in true democracy. And by the way a lot of Republicans like me supported this initiative because it isn't about partisan politics. It's about breathe smokeless air whereever we go. So quit your whining like a baby. You live in country that practices democracy not Gondolapetecracy. You don't make the laws. The majority does. We win, you lose. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:45 PM:
" TDNBB you also do not know how incremental ism works. You can hide behind your "62%" all you want. The fact is, once again, private business has no say. But as long as YOU are happy, that is all the counts. I live in a republic by the way, not a democracy. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:25 PM:
" Gondolapete, you must have a reading disability. I never said you lived in a democracy. I said you live in a country that practices democracy. Once again, I don't see the rights issue like you do. I believe in the rights of the majority. Apparently you think you are special as long as you get to make up your laws we should all be happy we are in your world. How come your parents didn't name you Sun? You think the world revolves around you and you only. Wake up. It doesn't. In America it usually revolves around the majority. And for decades -- maybe because it is a death-inviting habit -- smoking has been decreasing in the U.S. Now you are in a distinct minority so quit your whining. We win. "
culp686 wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:55 AM:
" One day someone will get smart and hire a lawyer over this issue. Because it is discrimination against a minority. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:15 PM:
" Culp go ahead waste your money on a lawyer. Maybe you have less money to spend on your filthy habit. Of course like most smokers intead of quitting, you will just take more money away from kids. Every parent who smokes should realize that each $4 or $5 you spend on cigarettes is $4 or $5 you could be be putting int a for your child's college education. Oh that's right you are pobbably expecting the majoryity to cover you. What a shame smokers don't realize that they aren't just hurting themselves. They are hurting the ones that really give them unconditional love until they are smart enough not to. "
idgybee wrote on Jun 22, 2008 2:45 PM:
" The state makes over twenty dollars of tax revenue per carton. If everyone quits, who will you then blame for the outcome? Face it, states do not want people to quit, they lose to much money, bottom line. As for you bad boy, grow up and do the math. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 22, 2008 9:44 PM:
" The State pays far more for it health insurance of its smoking employees and the diseases they have from smoking. You guys have used this argument over and over and the stupidity of it makes me laugh. First of all the state had no say in this law. It was a voter-written, voter-passed initiative, not something the gutless Liberal Democrats in Olympia voted approved. This is the registered voters saying NO MORE. And we will take it further. We will drive smokers out of the public. I am so tired of looking a sidewalks and streets littered with cigarette butts. I say push them back to their property. They can do whatever they want there but keep them out of the public domain. "
Lexington wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:01 PM:
" Really uninformed and simplistic argument. The state spends much more in lost job time, medical care, child care etc due to the damage caused by smoking than it ever collects from tobacco tax--you do the math. "
buckleyone wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:43 PM:
" This crap makes me want to start smoking again so I can blow it in your face. I'm pretty calm until I hear all this idealogical diatribe about smoking. The simplistic argument is that it cost you money for other peoples smoking. You do the math, it all smoke no mirrors. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:49 AM:
" Nothing simplistic about it buckleyone. It's not just about the money I have to spend to pay for the medical damage done to those who smoke. Nonsmokers do have that burden to carry. No, that's no longer the big issue. The vast majority of nonsmokers simply do not want to be around this dirty habit and have its effects forced upon us. And since we are the majority, we can make the laws. And it is not even close. Everytime there is an anti-smoking initiative put forth in this state more than 60% of the registered voters approve. That is a shing beacon of signal that smoking, smokers, and all the dirty habits that go with it are in the minority. They should understand that, quit their crying, and know that we just began the fight to rid them of our presence. I don't need to see smoke, smell smoke, walk on cigarette butts or look at them in ashtrays or anywhere else. And I have every right to go places where the public is allowed, stores, restaurants, bars, the streets and the parks. And when I go there I don't want to see that nasty, filth, death-inviting habit. So stay home and smoke. Then we don't have to vote on it. But you won't and we will eventually. And once again, maybe finally the smokers will lose. "
beenaround wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:01 PM:
" Let's be clear of one thing. A majority of the people that voted approved this law. That does not necessarily mean it was approved by a majority of residents of this state. It is very popular right now to "trash" smokers. I fervently wish the same vendetta would be exercised against alcohol and drunk drivers and people talking on cell phones and driving. The answer, "bill them, bill them all". And, pretty soon, when you are cowering in your abode and afraid to come out at all, you will understand what you have wrought. But then, I doubt it. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:52 PM:
" Beenaround, last time I looked all it took was a majority of the registered voters in this state to pass a law. The fact that 62 percent did statewide says it all. Smokers are the trash that is getting heaped on them. They are dirty, stinky, disease-carriers for the most part. Everytime I see a smoker I think "Dead man or woman walking." They are executing themselves and thanks to this initiative they are done exposing us to their toxins. And we will drive them back to their homes so they don't have to force us watching them kill themselves. Man is smoking a smart decision or what? "Oh, I'm cool. I can kill myself if I want." Go ahead. Just leave the rest of us alone. "
Oh my wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:30 PM:
" Im not a smoker. I have nothing against smokers. I also have 4 children that i do enjoy taking out in public and doing things with them and i think its rude and disrespectful that other people who do smoke, feel that its ok to pollute the lungs of innocent smoke free households with their nasty habits. this isnt a matter of "if i want to smoke im gunna" its a matter of "come on people, have your habits but have some respect also". i shouldnt have to keep my children in the house or try to inconvienience my family by limiting our activities all for the sake of a group of people who feel the need to light up their habits in front of everyone and subject everyone to their hazards. theres enuff risk in this world and quite frankly im glad that WE passed this law (yes i voted). Cry baby all you want about how unfair it is blah blah blah. you should be ashamed. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:20 PM:
" TDNBB is just very misguided here. He is letting emotions dictate his responses. He has a long way to go before he is a true conservative. Which I concluded about 7 of us live here in all of Cowlitz county. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:27 AM:
" Well I am a conservative Republican, Gondolapete, I just don't smoke, don't like it, and I don't view smoking in my presence as any right that is guaranteed you. I believe I have the right to breathe air that isn't fouled by the stinky toxins of cigarette smoke. Like I said, go home and smoke. What you do in your home, on your property is YOUR RIGHT. What you do in public is the right governed by the MAJORITY. In this case, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, have spoken. You need to respect the right of the majority. "
Gondolapete wrote on Jun 26, 2008 2:49 PM:
" I cant stand smoking either...I cant stand govt. telling us what to do even worse. This was not a issue that should have ever made the ballot. A bad precedence is set. Look how many cities are now banning transfats. You have a long ways to go TDNBB before you can wear the conservative hat. "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories