desh | (no subject)

Yesterday morning, the top story in Philly was whether Mayor Street would sign the smoking ban that City Council passed a few months ago. (He'd announced that he'd decide yesterday.) So, from Mayor Street's perspective, here were the pros and cons:

Pro: By signing the bill, public health would be improved. (Mayor Street has always been in favor of a smoking ban in theory.)
Con: By signing the bill, he wouldn't be able to screw over Michael Nutter, the former councilman who was behind this bill and whom Mayor Street hates.

And this was actually a point of debate for him! It's amazing how complacent Democratic office holders can get in Philadelphia, openly contemplating taking action that both your constituents and you yourself disagree with, only for purposes of political gain.

Anyway, it ended up not being an issue. Street signed the bill yesterday! It's supposed to go into law on January 1, 2007. Victory!

Except that there was a typo in the bill. Apparently the bill says January 1, 2006 instead, and now no one knows what to do.

I love this city.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Regarding the "pro" of supporting public health...

There is a lot of debate over this. Penn and Teller did an excellent episode of their show talking about this. I can give it to you if you want

But basically, the gist is all of the advocates of second-hand smoke health risks base most of their accusations on this one report done by the world health organization, which had lots of problems. I will let the penn and teller episode do the explaining.

But let's just say that it isn't as clear cut as some people would lead you to beleive

OK. But I'm still allergic, and I still hate going to bars because of how I smell when I get home.

I agree that I don't like smelling of the stuff, and I don't react particularly well to it.
The question is, do you feel that it is government's role to legislate such things?
My answer is I don't know, and I don't know where I stand on this

I'm a lazy bum, and don't want to search for information. What are the parameters? All places of work? I promise not to rant about this one on your LJ.

Not quite. Outdoor cafes and certain "bars" are exempted based on certain sales ratios. Check out the comments from my last post for more info.

I believe there is also a provision for no smoking within 20 feet of a doorway to a building. Which is quite nice in my opinion.

Don't you love politics?

Personally, I'm happy about it. However I have friends who are "social smokers," and they think I have some crazily draconian view of smoking, because I don't like it and will choose not to go with them to places because I know it's too smokey for my tastes--which is not to say it has any smoke at all, but that it exceeds my personal threshold, which granted is pretty low but not rock bottom. And because I don't like situations where I'm forced to walk through smoke, such as when the smoking area is outside a door that I have to walk out of, and for which there is not a convenient alternative door.

Anyway, they also feel that smoking is completely appropriate in bars, because of what I assume is the idea of a "bar atmosphere." And I really don't know what to say about that. I can't deny that bars have as part of their "personality" or "atmosphere" a link to smoking and smokiness. But I still can't bring myself to "like it." They might say to me "oh well it doesn't matter for you anyway since you don't like bars," but the entire reason I don't like bars is because they're smokey, and for almost no other reason.

I guess we'll see how Philly takes it sooner or later.

I think a lot of Philadelphians will have a different opinion of what constitutes a "bar atmosphere" once they get used to frequenting smoke-free bars. I know a lot of New Yorkers now do.