Smoke-free bars come to Oregon!
Posted by: josh | From: June 28, 2007
Starting January 1, 2009, if you want to smoke, you've got to take it outside.
Since January 2002, all Oregon workplaces were smoke-free except for bars, bingo halls, and other such dens of iniquity. But while Oregon was stuck with smoky pubs, other cities and states have been outlawing smoking in public outright. And by and large, they've found, contrary to tobacco companies' claims, that it doesn't drive bars out of business. In fact, in many cases, revenue improved. Plus, it's been easier to keep employees happy and healthy. Even bartenders that smoke don't tend to enjoy 8 hours a day of secondhand.
Depending on what side of the issue you fall on, you now have a new reason to celebrate or loathe the new Democratic-controlled Oregon Legislature.
Me, I'm just looking forward to heading down to the bar and playing some pinball without my clothes and hair reeking of smoke.
Does this kill cigar bars? This is the only downside to a WA style smoking ban in my opinion. You need to have a permit system in place for established cigar focused places.
Or maybe Brazen Bean could just become the embassy for a tiny Caribbean nation?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007290443,00.html
Posted by: Gene at June 28, 2007 3:55 PM
i very much support this bill, i just wish we didn't have to wait until 2009!
Posted by: matt mc at June 28, 2007 4:00 PM
It's funny -- they hope the law also reduces smoking, makes it easier for people to quit who've been trying to quit.
But they'd also built a budget around projections of tobacco taxes that were computed before this law was passed. So if smoke-free bars means less smoking happens (a good thing!), there wouldn't be as much money in the budget, and they could be in a tough spot.
So they delayed til the next bi-ennial budget, so it could get factored in. Weird, I know.
Posted by: josh at June 28, 2007 4:05 PM
i can't say i felt strongly either way about this passing, but now that it has passed, i'm kind of stoked to go to a bunch of bars i have been avoiding for years. even though it goes into effect in 2009, i bet a lot of bars band smoking earlier.
one thing annoying about the law is that it's called the "indoor clean air act", which is a little bit exaggerated, they should just call it what it is: a workplace indoor smoking ban. there are exceptions for cigar bars, smoke shops, and i think the race track.
Posted by: pet cow at June 28, 2007 5:29 PM
they should ban drinking too, that stuff is poison!
Posted by: adam Forkner at June 29, 2007 10:46 AM
Perhaps someone can find a use for all those soon to be pointless smoke eaters.
Good bye video crack dollars. Sorry Oregon Lottery but it seems the only people who play VC are people who smoke.
Josh, I don't care what the law says, I'll still be smoking you at pinball.
CFF
Posted by: Drew at June 30, 2007 5:33 AM
what a fantasy that only republicans are against smoking bans and only the big tobacco companies care about smokers' rights. There's only about a million smoke free bars and restaurants in this town. Like any of you care about the waitstaff's health. It's just a reason to feel superior to the smokers while you drink your liver green. Yuck.
Posted by: mr g at June 30, 2007 8:53 AM
"Excuse to feel superior"? Yikes, someone's a bit defensive... why would non-smokers need another reason to feel superior anyway? Healthier and longer lives, cheaper insurance, ability to taste and smell, not stinking, they have enough reasons already!
It's pretty common for a non-smoker to head into a bar and be overwhelmed by smoke, to wake up the next day reeking of it and wheezing with every breath. What's the first item on the Smoker's Bill of Rights, the right to poison others?
Heh I love the way you dismiss one of the major justifications of an indoor smoking ban (employee health) with "like any of you care". So what if we care or not the issue is still valid, yes?
You argue like a dittohead conservative-- incoherent yet confident, dismissive of others yet insistant your own opinions are correct.
Posted by: Gene at July 6, 2007 3:14 PM
while we are at it can we ban cars too, because I'm tired of walking down the street being assaulted by people's wretched exhaust.
what bothers me the most about stuff like this is that MOST people screaming for a GOVERNMENT controlled smoking ban, are the first to scream about government "control".
Posted by: Jack Schlitz at July 26, 2007 12:06 PM
Unconstitutional. Soon it will be struck down.
I don't smoke and hate second hand smoke but I do have a choice whether to visit that bar or that restaurant or whether to work there. Hate government control. This country is turning more and more like a communist country thanks to these morons democrats that wouldn't recognize a t-bone unless you shove their heads inside a butcher's rear. Where do you draw the line?
That's bs that you will visit now bars because of the ban. What type of man doesn't visit a bar because of smoke? Chicks might.
All this reminds me the joke of the guy who calls the bartender of a bar he visited the night before to complain about two dudes throwing him kisses from another table and then coming to his table and saying to him "hello stallion, your place or ours?". Bartender responded, "Sir, this is a gay bar".
I'm all for signs informing the public as soon as you enter the place though. Keep that cult follower attitude and the government soon will own your tail!
Posted by: Roy at January 21, 2008 12:23 PM
Huzzah!
Posted by: willow at June 28, 2007 3:48 PM