teh Forum

moveon has this to say:

There were some tough losses, like election reform in Ohio and gay rights in Texas, but in the end progressives carried day.

To be fair, those are a couple tough nuts to crack.

But yes it is true - no more smokey Palmers or smokey Zoo or smokey Alice's. A win for the public health advocates, a loss for the libertarians.
And for ...?

Is this a step in the right direction or is it interfering too much in people's lives? What is more iimportant to you, your personal freedoms, or your health (and the way your clothes smell)? Should "progressives" be for or against a measure like this?

I am undecided, but I can see why some might find it intrusive to say some dude at a biker tavern in Duvall can't smoke on the stool he has been sitting on for 20 years. And don't even think about letting him walk right outside the bar (like the rest of the world) with his beer so he can smoke there.

Thoughts on other ballot measures around the country?

If you don't want to smell smoke don't go to the bar.


If you want to go to the bar but you don't want to smell smoke, go to a non smoking bar.

My thoughts.

I actually wrote a persuasive essay against Initiative 901 for my last class. I think that it boils down to personal responsibility.

I choose to smoke right? I choose to go places where I know that I won't be able to smoke knowing that I will be unable to smoke while I'm there. The same thing should apply in reverse however.

Take this for example. If I went to a concert at the KeyArena, I know that I will not be able to smoke indoors. There may or may not be a designated outdoor smoking area. There may or may not be the ability of patrons to gain re-entry to the event after smoking a cigarette. If the concert were important enough to me, I would go regardless. Same thing with flying, working, pooping, etc!!!

I went to see Opeth at El Corezon not too long ago. That place allows smoking throughout. If a non-smoker wanted to attend a concert at a place like that, they need to know that they will be exposed to second hand smoke. They will need to make a choice about what they are exposed to.

Both smokers and non-smokers have choices about what they are exposed to. Be it the inability to "get a fix", or the inability to breathe clean air, the choice should be in the hands of responsible adults.

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the societal implications of tobacco use. I know that I cough until I gag up green shit sometimes. Not fun. I have a family history of heart disease and strokes that is magnified in smokers. I know that I will quit, and someday soon at that. I know that it is unfair to expose employees of businesses that allow smoking to second hand smoke. These people often work in bars and nightclubs because they are paid better than at other places.

Still, take some responsibility for your actions. If you choose to inhale a deadly but WHOLLY LEGAL product like cigarettes, pick up your trash. Don't smoke around your kids or in public places dominated by non-smokers. If you choose not to, more power to you. You won't have an addiction that's been said is harder to kick than Heroin. Just don't tamp out my choice. If your actions do not negatively impact your fellow man, there should be no problem. Just like responsible adults can drink (like I've been) and not get behind the wheel, smokers should be able to smoke in designated areas that do not harm others.

Oh well. My arguments are pointless now. The voters have spoken. No more smoking at shows. period. I'll get over it. Might even help me quit sooner. Show Washington state where it's tax revenue comes from.

Oh, and I got an A in the class (Mine was the highest.)

cheers, now go smoke





or not

Oh yeah


I agree with BP. I just had a bad case of fingral diarhea