desh | (no subject)

(no subject)

After long delay, Philadelphia city council suddenly passes smoking ban legislation

I practically jumped out of bed when I heard the news. Finally! Assuming the mayor signs the bill (and smart money is that he will), then starting in 2007 I'll be able to go out with my friends without feeling sick for the rest of the day! Congrats to city council for doing the right thing, and congrats to Michael Nutter for finally getting this through, and probably earning a few thousand votes for mayor at the same time.

I know some of you disagree with this, or think it makes me a bad liberal or something. And you're probably right, but dammit, I just want to be able to go out at night without spending the whole time counting the minutes until I can jump in the shower. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

congrats! i too hate to go out where there's lots of smoke

It's one of those laws that I don't agree with (at least for private businesses), but I'm glad it exists for personal reasons.

Yeah, exactly.

Thinking about it, I think the ideal way would be financial incentives permitting smoking. That is, every bar is given X shares of smoking per month (I'm thinking around 5, but it's negotiable), with each share permitting them to allow smoking in their establishment on one day. The shares would then be bought and sold on the open market. (In reality, it would probably be more complicated, based on square footage or something.) But I think this would suck in practice, because I can't imagine the bar owners would want to deal with that stuff.

Though to be clear, I think it's perfectly legit for the city to regulate this, as long as it's under the guise of workplace safety. I'm just not sure if, philosophically, it's the best way to handle the situation.

This expands my range quite a bit. One of the biggest obstacles for going out to see local bands is smoke. If I stick around too long in a smokey place, my asthma kicks into high gear.

Wow. I'm kind of amazed that Philly didn't already have a ban in place.

And isn't it more liberal to support smoking bans? Smoking bans hurt local business that cater to smokers and they hurt the tobacco companies who see a sharp spike in people quitting once they have to go outside to smoke.

Smoking bans are considered a preventative health care measure -- like birth control. And things like Wellbutrin to help quit smoking, neither of which my insurance company pays for. And we all know which side of the aisle the insurance companies generally live ;)

All good points. Maybe I've been drifting libertarian, if I feel like this is a law I shouldn't get behind. Or maybe I haven't been drifting libertarian, since I still support the law in the end...

I think the indecisiveness makes you a liberal ;)

I was going to say, government regulation of something that some people would think of as a private decision sends awful like a "liberal" position to me.

At least a left-wing position, anyway. :)

10 years ago I'd have agreed with you, but that doesn't seem like the way the left wing is defined in the U.S. these days. Things are all backwards.

I saw this too, and at first was happy about it. But then I read about it some more and found this

"The partial ban allows for private clubs, sidewalk cafes and “neighborhood bars” to apply for exemptions that would give them the right to allow smoking. The bill defines neighborhood bars as those having less than 10 percent of the total revenue comes from the sale of food."

So band venues will probably still allow smoking. I'm also not clear on what defines a private club.

A private club is one you can't just walk into. You have to be invited or pay membership or something. I'm pretty sure that in practice, there are places that have a nominal membership just to get around other rules (having to close at 2am, for instance), but most places don't count as private clubs.

With regard to the "neighborhood bars" thing: "The exemptions are available for bars that make at least 90 percent of their revenue from the sale of alcohol. In 2005, according to the Liquor Control Board, about 1,500 of the city's 1,950 licensed establishments had Sunday-sales permits, which require bars to earn more than 30 percent of their income from selling food or nonalcoholic drinks. None of those, then, would be eligible for exemptions." So I really don't think this provision will have that big of an impact. It certainly shouldn't exempt venues that sell tickets to hear music, since they must make at least 10% on ticket sales alone.

Except the bill explicitly says
"less than 10 percent of the total revenue comes from the sale of food"
Nothing about non-alcoholic beverages or tickets. I guess we will have to wait and see

This provision applies to "[a]ny Food or Beverage Establishment whose on-site sales of food for consumption on the premises comprises no more than 10% of gross sales of both food, non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages on an annual basis". [Philadelphia Code §10-602(2)(a) as amended by Bill 050063-A, Section 2.] So you're right. I guess we'll have to see how it's enforced.

I wonder how much of the TLA's revenue is from food. Or Tin Angel's.

Actually, if ticket sales don't count toward the total for purposes of calculating that 10%, then I bet most concert venues do sell enough food to be over the 10% mark. (The Tin Angel especially, if the restaurant downstairs counts.) Good.

Interesting, because I've heard it characterized both ways (90% alc v. 10% food) so I guess we'll see how this pans out in practice.

Oh and thanks for that "Sunday-sales" info. I was wondering just how many bars would be able to be exempt.

I guess the question is if you think it's plausible for a business to be subject to the Sunday Sales Law (30% of profits from food and non-alcoholic drinks) and also make less than 10% of their food/drink profits off food. Which would by necessity mean that their non-alcoholic drink sales would have to be 20% of their business. Somehow I don't see that as likely.

Even if you're not taking the Sunday Sales Law into account, it would seem likely that the sale of non-alcoholic drinks would be insignificantly small compared to food sales, no matter what, so leaving them out of the equation or putting them in doesn't seem to make much of a difference in my opinion.

From my reading, both the Sunday Sales Law and the new Smoking Law specifically talk about profits from food and drinks *only*. Ticket sales or non-consumable sales don't seem to get factored into the equation one way or the other.

Heh, some strip clubs in Ontario tried to pull that to get around a province-wide smoking ban everywhere but in private residences and private clubs. It went to court and I think the court decided that paying a nominal charge wasn't sufficient to consider it a "private club". *looks for links*

Wonderful!

Y'know what, as liberal as I am, I've always subscribed to the theory that someone else's right to live their life as they please ends at the moment it begins impeding on my right to live my life as I please.

Gay Marriage - in now way impinges on my right to live as I please, move about freely, or otherwise enjoy my own civil rights. Even if I were a conservative Christian (which I'm not), I don't see anything in the Bible saying that to be a good Christian it's my duty to stamp out homosexuality.

Smoking - greatly impedes on my ability to live the life of my choosing, engage in commerce at restaurants and bars, and enjoy my civil rights.

I'm glad you got that - we have it in some of the counties around here, but DC is being dragged kicking & screaming, and the county where I live hasn't adopted it yet either.

::shrugs::

I agree with the specific cases you mention. The problem with smoking is that the smoke gets everywhere and is an irritant (I don't have asthma, but I struggle with allergy-like symptoms sometimes when I've been around a lot of smoke). And it's particularly noxious at meals.

Yeah, I think you two are agreeing with each other here.

Yeah, I just didn't want to offer a blanket agreement. I imagine there are instances in which I might be convinced that someone else's right to live their life as they please does NOT end at the moment it begins impeding on my right to live my life as I please.

But when it comes to a voluntary activity like smoking that is truly detrimental to others, I absolutely agree with

xyellowroset.

I wish Milwaukee would pass a ban like that. It's something I've always loved about Arizona-the fact that I can go out at night with my friends and not have to worry as much about having an asthma attack.

Grrr... couldn't they have gotten around to it when I was still living in Philadelphia??

But maybe Pittsburgh will jump on the bandwagon too. Bars complain that they'll lose money - but precedent in New York and California indicate that's not the case. And there have been more than a few times when I opted not to go to a bar because I didn't want to deal with the smoke.

I'm reading this late. And I'm shocked. You and I already have briefly had this discussion. [Reminder: I think smoking bans are disgusting, one of the worst things to have come out of municipal/state elections in the past decade. I continue to have trouble undertanding how on earth otherwise normal people seem to think they're good ideas.] That you feel this way doesn't surprise me. That just about every single one of your friends who commented on this entry also agrees with you shocks me. How? What the fuck is everyone smoking (pun accidental)? How can everyone think smoking bans are good ideas? I mean, I guess that's how they get passed but... What the fuck happened to, well, liberal values? Sheesh!

Don't liberal values generally involve support of governmental interventions? I'm thinking about liberals' traditional support of gun bans, regulation of industry, using taxes to help support people in poverty (rather than relying on charitable donations), etc., etc. . . .

The reason I support smoking bans in public places is because, as others have mentioned, second-hand smoke affects everyone in the area, and of course, research has repeatedly found that second-hand smoke is a health risk.

I don't think smoking should be made illegal. (Indeed, I generally believe that outlawing - rather than regulating - drugs creates more problems than it solves.)

But, frankly, I'm sick of dealing with smoke at bars, dance clubs, even many restaurants. Yeah, I know I can stay home - and unfortunately, I've resorted to that option on many evenings. I don't particularly care whether other people smoke - as long as their smoking doesn't affect me & others.

In my mind, liberal values grant individuals and businesses a certain amount of personal rights. The right to have an abortion if that decision agrees with their own values. The right to serve alcohol in their restaurants even if it may go against the religious value system of others.

A restaurant should likewise also have the right to allow smoking on the premise. The owner is sure to be aware that this may decrease business to his restaurant by people who are bothered by secondhand smoke, but the proprieter should have the right to make that decision, it shouldn't be up to the state to regulate.

The state doesn't regulate unhealthy food, at most it requires that food state its ingredients and relevant health values. Packs of cigarettes already have health warnings on them. If the state required restaurants where smoking was permitted to post a sign on the door stating that the restaurant had a smoking section, fine. McDonald's has all the calories/saturated fat/etcetera tables posted and available for customers as well. But no one's prohibiting McDonald's from serving a super value meal that contains more calories, in one fell swoop, than the daily recommended total for grown men.

You said that you support these sorts of governmental interventions. Do you really want the government to start intervening on your fast food menu? Also at nicer restaurants? What about loud concerts, those can be dangerous, should the government prohibit music at outdoor concerts from reaching a certain decibel? Crossing the street is dangerous, too, maybe the government should regulate that anyone who may find themselves in a situation that would necessitate street-crossing should have a helmet with them at all times?

You're right, there are many cases in which "liberal values" advocate protection of individual rights. But I objected to your statement, "What the fuck happened to, well, liberal values?," that seemed to imply that liberal values do not include support of governmental interventions. I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning.

Governmental regulation and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. One might even argue that a number of our "rights" are protected by governmental regulation. In NYC, for instance, women who have been raped have the right to obtain a prescription for emergency contraception - even from Catholic Hospitals. They have that right because it's the law.

Moreover, because I support a number of governmental interventions does not mean I support all governmental interventions. I oppose, for instance, laws that outlaw marriage between consenting homosexual adults. And I would oppose laws that would ban smoking or drinking - I think people should have the right to choose whether to engage in those activities. But I don't think they should have the right to impose their choices on others.

I support bans on smoking in most types of pubs, clubs, bars, and restaurants because they help protect customers who choose to frequent them in order to dance, eat, drink, or enjoy music in public (which, generally, are the primary purposes of such places!), but do not necessarily choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke. Smoking bars and clubs are a different story: they exist primarily as places where people can smoke in public. So I would oppose a law that would ban smoking those establishments.

And that's the difference between the smoking bans I support and the governmental interventions you describe.

I don't smoke, but I don't think smoking should be outlawed. I avoid fast food, but I don't think fast food should be outlawed.

I also think it is necessary (although not sufficient) to consider costs and benefits when considering governmental interventions. To me, at least, it's pretty clear that the benefits of banning smoking in restaurants outweigh the costs. I don't see how the benefits of requiring pedestrians to carry helmets at all times (which probably would have negligible impact on injury and mortality rates for street-crossing) would outweigh the costs.

(Oh yeah - and many cities, counties, and states do have legal decibel limits for outdoor events. Just FYI.)

Gack, necessary but not sufficient? That sounds like lawyer talk to me. I should know. I've been taking LSAT prep tests for the past 6 weeks and it's driving me batty!

Heh. I was just rereading my old posts for no particular reason, and I found this comment.

The state doesn't regulate unhealthy food, at most it requires that food state its ingredients and relevant health values.

Phila. City Council Votes for Trans Fat Ban

I'm pretty sure this only strengthens your argument, but I really don't know what to think anymore.

Insane. America is insane. I leave for a few years and the entire nation jumps off the deep end. That's all there is to it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only