http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/ban_on_workplace_smoking_in_or. html#post

"Businesses can be fined as much as $500 a day and $2,000 a month by the state Department of Human Services for violations. "

That's actually poorly worded, because the law says the fine is $500 per day, with a MAX of $2000 in a month. But here's my question. Does that mean The Department of Human Services has to send somebody in to assess the situation and give out fines? It sounds like it's not a ticket that a police officer can issue. It seems unlikely to me that any bar would be visited and fined four times per month. I mean, how many DHS "inspectors" are there? Some large bars may find that it's worth the fine if it brings smokers in from other places. Does anyone know anything about the DHS and it's method of inspecting bars?

I have a feeling that any bar that repeatedly flouts the law will get visited by inspectors more often. If bars find $2000/month in fines "affordable" (I doubt it) then the legislature would just raise the fine amount. I assume Oregon's law was written based on the experience of other states (like Washington) that have had smoking bans in bars for years.

Andrew

Hey, just tack on a buck to the cost of the meals, pay the fine, and have a smoking section.

You just know there will be paying customers!

(somebody had to say it)

I'm cool with the ban, just making fun!

This is another reason I left Oregon. The day you can't smoke in a casino. The dessert down here will be littered with anti-smoking advocates. Regards to all my friends back in Oregon.

..and up in Ski-attle too!

Being an Ex-Smoker I can sympathise while at the same time being thankful that now I can go into a bar in Portland and not wind up smelling like and ashtray!

Are Tribal Casino's exempt from this?

So for the sake of arguement, If the President elect lights up in a NY, OR, or OH place of business, who makes him put it out? Who throws him out if he refuses? Will the business owner still have to pay the fine?

According to Nixon, when the President does it, it's not illegal!

Casino's are exempt.

This is a welcome change in the workplace. Everywhere this has been implemented has resulted, overall, in increased business (not to say that some smokey joints may go out of business).

There is no valid protest about "smoker's rights" or "government overstepping bounds" on this topic. None. It's just like speed limits on the roads, stop signs, having a working exhaust system on the car, etc. Just because it is legal to buy and inhale tobacco products doesn't make it legal to discharge the waste products from your lungs and burning ciggie in your hand into a public place.

This is the best thing that's happened in regard to public health in a long time.

No longer will you have to sit in a bar or restaurant and suck in the fumes from folks who light up and hold the cigarette to their side and slightly behind them (so it's not in their own face).

To the protesters: GFY.

Andy,
Most OLCC licensed establishments were smoke-free prior to this ban (remember this includes some restaurants and places like hotel bars that almost always banned smoking). You could go grab a drink somewhere, and odds were more than 50% that it's smoke free. And once you learned your favorite smoke-free places, the odds were 100% that they would be smoke free when you walked in! But that's not good enough. You need it to be GUARANTEED by law. Good god, what ever happened to the art of compromise?! No one knows how to do that anymore.

I say avoid the lottery, and spend your money on a meal at the bar instead. Once the legislature sees the revenue drop from would-be lottery players pausing to step outside, they'll come up with a compromise.

It's not about the customers. It's about the workers. The customers benefit as a result.

Compromise? NFW. What for? No waivers. No exceptions.
Smoke in your own space, not a public one. Period.

You're characterization about "grab a drink" is not accurate, but more importantly it's not what this law is about. Again, it's about providing a healthy work place which will return to the society as a whole huge health care cost reductions in time.

Shane, you do realize that Oregon is far from the first state to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, right? California has had it for years. And whenever smoking is banned, bar and restaurant owners always say the same thing: our business will drop, we'll go out of business. It may dip at first, but it always recovers. Look at every other state that has done this. The threat of lost business was hollow. Oregon isn't exactly being bold in taking this step after so many other states have already done it.

Pennsylvania, where my folks live, enacted this ban just a few months ago. My folks have a favorite watering hole they've frequented for years, despite the choking fumes of smoke. They said that after the smoking ban went into effect, things did slow down - for a short while. But just a few months later, the place is already at least as busy as before. You can't even find a place to park half of the time anymore. Smokers are making due and some non-smokers are becoming new or more frequent customers.

I myself may finally venture out to see some live music again this year in a smoke-free environment.

Andrew

In my opinion, there was a fairly good selection of smoke-free places before the ban went into effect. For instance, O'Brien's Pub here in Hillsboro was divided into two sections, separated by a wall and a glass door. I don't remember ever being able to smell cigarette smoke wafting into the non-smoking section. Forgive me if I sound like an ideologue on this matter, but I believe that the marketplace was working just fine. If you wanted to stay away from the smoke, you could stay in the non-smoking section and you could easily avoid the businesses that catered to smokers, such as Richard's Deli.

If this were about the health of employees of those establishments, then I think that other risks need to be considered as well, such as exposure to loud music. Many times that I've been out for Karaoke, for instance, I've noticed that the KJs love to turn up the music way up. Being exposed to those sound pressure levels for hours at a time, the waitresses and bartenders that work at those places must be suffering hearing loss after working there for just a few months.

There are already rules in place about sound pressure level.
Clearly, some people are more sensitive at lower levels of too loud, but it's frankly a lame comparison to cigarette second hand smoke that has deeply documented negative implications.

Again, there is no counter argument that is valid.

What people are missing on this is, the law was enacted mostly for the benefit of service workers (wait staff, bartenders, etc) and musicians who work in these places. They should not have to be subjected to health hazards in their workplace. Pretty basic common sense.

Whether you like to smoke or do not like to smoke, you ought to have a choice as an adult in a bar. Children deserve protective measures, but with wisdom and maturity comes the responsibility of choice. Nobody is allowed into a tavern until they are old enough to make that choice for themselves. A bar owner has a choice, an employee has a choice, and a performer has a choice between working in either a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Taking that choice away is undemocratic.

Industries across the spectrum are grateful for the cigarette meme because it absolves them of responsibility for other even more concrete causes of injuries and illnesses in the workplace. Regulations have been dangerously eroded across the board for safety, health and wages, but tackling those problems would take far more thought than a politically expedient smoking ban in an adult only environment.

This law will not change the fact that most lung cancer in work settings is still due to exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials. These establishments often occupy older buildings. Bars were designed and built for decades to be fireproof in the wake of fatal blazes. Also, where liquor is served, real food must be available at all times. Without a peep from regulators, restaurant workers will still continue to breathe a staggering amount of animal and vegetable fat, cooking smoke, cleansers, flour, plaster and other food and facility related chemicals, dusts and fibers.

This law will not change the fact that many people are still maimed and killed due to drinking and driving. Cars kill far more people than second hand smoke. Banning parking lots near bars, checking car keys at the door and insisting on cab rides after three drinks would no doubt be viewed as "trampling" on the rights of drivers. The fact that these simple measures would have a far greater impact on the safety of the children outside the door is apparently not as important as strictly regulating the lungs of those grownups who have chosen to go inside the establishment.

This law will not change the fact that after a decade or so, the knees of barkeeps and wait staff are every bit as bad as a retired NBA center. Their skin is often permanently damaged by cleaning products and sometimes it even affects their nervous system. In addition, veteran workers suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome, severe arthritis, crippling feet ailments, and chronic back problems. The previously mentioned long term hearing damage is also worth noting.

This law will not change the fact that there is still a far greater risk of being shot, stabbed or assaulted in a tavern than getting lung cancer second hand. It will not make the jobs any safer for women who have to commute late at night in lousy parts of town. It will not bring down the number of verbal, physical and sexual attacks on patrons, employees and neighbors of strip clubs. It will not stop the flow of drugs in shady watering holes. It will not reduce the number of lottery related robberies. It will also not ensure that organized crime is out of the tavern business.

Our smug leaders are so smart. Diabetes, heart ailments, liver disease and obesity are irrelevant. The links between intoxication and violence are tenuous in their view. The long hours, poverty and lack of medical access for large workforces does not faze them a bit. Their collective wisdom dictates that booze does not kill or injure people, cars do not kill or injure people, crazy drunks do not kill or injure people, high calorie diets do not kill or injure people, and working decades without health care does not kill or injure people nearly as much as the curse of Sir Walter Raleigh. Brilliant.

Smoking is bad, but it is hardly the root cause of even a majority of injuries, illnesses or deaths in the pub industry. Before the ban, some bars welcomed smokers and some bars did not. Either way, health insurance was and still is a rarity. Essentially, this law changes nothing at all but the odor of a few establishments, while further reducing the responsibility and liability of all lounge owners for the long-term health of their workers. Tobacco is the greatest excuse that corporations have ever had to abandon workers injured by the workplace. Blaming the second hand smoke of their employees or clientele further absolves them from taking care of their most loyal people.

At the same time, this law ensures that a wide door has been opened to regulate other adult behaviors. Whether that eventually translates into health and liability related bans on drinking alcohol and caffeine, or eating fatty foods and sweets, or gyrating wildly to music is a question for the future to answer. The dance floors have been cleared and the deep fat fryers have been unplugged in other cities. Do not be surprised if it happens here. After all, personal freedom and choices are far less important to Americans now than ever before in our history.

Remember back in the 70s when the airlines had smoking sections on flights. There were little signs about halfway down the aisle which said something like "no smoking beyond this row" or something like that? Of course the smoke went all over the plane, didn't really make any difference except you didn't have to sit right next to a smoker.

Planes in the US had smoking sections well into the 80s. My first flight was in 1982, and I certainly remember smoking sections. I think they had a curtain between the sections. Really effective!

Andrew

Restaurants are not the issue here as smoking has already been banned in restaurants in this state.

IMHO the state government didn't think this one through. It should have always been an issue in which the bar industry should have been the ones to sort this issue out ie let the market sort it out. Some owners will choose to have a no smoking policy while some will allow it.

Lottery Revenues are going to be hurt big time in this state and I am guessing that 2009-2010 will be a very very rough year for dive bars in the state of Oregon.

Think about it how many states have video poker/video line games(slots) in the bars let alone legal?

Nevada? I know that Rhode Island has it but its only limited to two para-mutual race track like venues.

So how will the state make up that revenue that will almost certainly suffer? What are the consequences to business owners and to the state.

One possibility is that our bars in this state will start to eventually look more like gambling halls and casinos as when the state sees the revenue go down they will allow for an increase in the number of lottery machines allowed in single establishments from the current 6 or more you see in bars now. So then the incidences of gambling problems increase as well.

There was a blog on WW that stated that some establishments in Portland have already decided to cut a monthly fine check of the max fine of $2000 a month so that they can remain smoking establishments. That should be fun to watch that all go down.

And I absolutely hate the argument by those that currently don't frequent bars that bars will see an increase in business because of the no smoking. But in all reality if weren't a customer of bars before the ban you won't be now either.

The bar owners that are going to ride this thing out and be successfull will be the ones that have strong entertainment promotions, good quality food, and good quality service.

Otherwise I think that the term "dive bar" will become a thing of the past.

Littlesongs writes:

Lottery Revenues are going to be hurt big time in this state and I am guessing that 2009-2010 will be a very very rough year for dive bars in the state of Oregon.

Right - same claim ("Our business will suffer") has been made in every other state where smoking has been banned in bars. And the business always recovers after a brief dip.


There was a blog on WW that stated that some establishments in Portland have already decided to cut a monthly fine check of the max fine of $2000 a month so that they can remain smoking establishments. That should be fun to watch that all go down.

Yeah, I doubt that's really going to happen. If it does, they'll just raise the fine.

And I absolutely hate the argument by those that currently don't frequent bars that bars will see an increase in business because of the no smoking. But in all reality if weren't a customer of bars before the ban you won't be now either.

I don't think you understand how much some of us hate cigarette smoke. It has most definitely been a key reason I go to a bar maybe 1X a year in Oregon - and then I'm always sorry I did. Numerous times I've ducked invitations from my friends to meet at bars. I know I'm not the only one.

Andrew

Actually, Andrew, you are answering Shyguy, not me, but he knows the industry very well and made some solid points. I still think that "choice" is the operative word.

Let's flash back to the good old days before the law came into effect:

Before the ban, there was a popular street corner that made everybody happy. McMenamins ran an establishment that had something to offer every one of their patrons. Non-smokers were delighted, smokers were delighted, money was made without lottery machines, and all was good with the world.

On the southeast side of 37th and Hawthorne, you could drink a microbrew and eat a meal in a strictly non-smoking environment. Or, you could drink a microbrew, eat a snack and watch a movie in a strictly non-smoking environment that included minors. Or, you could drink your choice of microbrew or liquor and eat a meal in a smoking environment that banned minors.

What was wrong with the diversity of that environment? Were you ever forced to go to the small smoking pub that made revenue from selling high end imported tobaccos? Were you not served by the much larger non-smoking bar with the award winning restaurant? Where you aware that the barkeep in the smoking establishment was also a smoker? Who was not included in these choices?

This is regulation run amok, plain and simple.

Interesting back and forth!

Well, I think if smoking is bad (and it is), and the state wants to have an impact on smoking and second-hand smoking, the very simplest thing to do would be to just ban tobacco sales in anything other than it's natural form.

It would then become the niche activity that Littlesongs is talking about (and frankly does little harm, compared to day to day smoking), with far lower collateral damage.

So, is it indoor only ban?

Outdoor areas permissible?

Well then, easy cheezy! Realize some well designed outdoor areas and call it good.

I don't think you understand how much some of us hate cigarette smoke...

Andrew, I'm with you. I WILL NOT patronize a smoking establishment.

I don't think they care.

If they did, it would have been an economic issue long before now.

I also don't think they should have to care.

That said, I don't like the half-assed implementation. All this does is make some people feel a bit better about things.

The core problem; namely tobacco products being sold and advertized EVERYWHERE, remains unaddressed.

Just fix that!

Oh yeah. Revenue.

Got it. That's what chaps my ass.

andy f u too

"So, is it indoor only ban?

Outdoor areas permissible?"

Not sure how the Oregon law works, in Washington we've had the ban for a while ... one of my best friends tends bar and he told me that it didn't hurt business one iota. What the bars did was make big smoking areas outside, they can be covered by an awning, tent, etc. as long as it's outdoors and has its own entrance (not the front door, has to be at least 25 feet away), it's all good.

I'm guessing that it'll be okay for the bars, etc. in Oregon.

Finally, now I can get drunk and ruin my liver without the chance of getting lung cancer.

Seriously though, I like the ban. Tired of smelling like an ash tray after a night out.

Does this all mean that chewing tabacco's makin' a comeback?

Oh you know it. Big time!

They've got flavored kinds, gum, tablet kinds, cold, you name it.

I'm gonna pass. It's a good thing anyway. Will limit my smoking, and that's good. I would prefer a solution to the core problem; namely, way too pervasive presence of tobacco in our society. Makes quitting very, very difficult!

Makes starting fairly easy.

Both are a problem.

I like the ban. It's the right thing to do. And yes, I smoke.

I'm enjoying this exchange, except for the comments of Andy_Brown. Do you realize that you won't succeed at convincing your opponents if you constantly insult them throughout your argument? You THINK that those who think like me don't have a valid argument. You don't get to make that call for the rest of us. We can all read, and judge the validity of each other's arguments.

If you consider it a personal insult to be confronted with an opposing idea, that's your problem. If the "protesters" I am referring to haven't been convinced that smoking is bad for not only themselves but also the public at large, that's their problem. If all they can offer is a bunch of whining about a law that they don't like, they can continue to rotate on their thumb. I'm not here trying to convince anyone about anything, Shane! I'm just posting my opinion. No personal attack intended, no names were involved.

Andrew2,
Which issue of the WW had that story- I can’t find it on their website. I'll go to those bars. Just 5 new smoking customers per day, each spending $15 at the bar, would more than pay the POTENTIAL max fine of $2000 per month.

BTW, in response to earlier comments, I know about the worldwide bans increasing in the last decade. And I hate it. It's a BAR! A cultural icon of debauchery. If you agree with me, avoid the lottery machines. Atlantic City repealed their smoking ban recently when they saw the gambling revenue decrease. Hey, the pen is mightier than the sword.

Andy,
I don't consider it a personal insult to be confronted with an opposing idea. In fact, I stated that I LIKE this exchange. What I don't like is someone telling others that they "have no valid argument". Let your arguments ride on their own strength instead of marginalizing others by suggesting they have no valid points. Or, do whatever you want to man. I do find it hard, though, to believe that you have no desire to convince people of anything when you make such an effort to state your points strongly. If you don't want to convince anybody of anything, why share your opinion in the first place?

He's just being assertive.

Have a valid one?

Nail him! (heh)

That's how an aggressive and stimulating discussion goes!

Stating the facts is not sharing an opinion. Second hand smoke is deadly. The workplace should be smoke free. Now it is. The fact that many restaurants and bars beat the deadline is not the point. The fact that workers rights are more significant than the special rights of those that wish to inhale tobacco is no longer an opinion; it's a law and the law is factual, not opinion. I wrote "There is no valid protest about "smoker's rights" or "government overstepping bounds" on this topic." So, again, the rights of a special group to do harm to others is greatly outweighed by the rights of the work force. There really is no counter argument. The only reason the casinos are exempt is because of the sovereignty of The Indian Nations. I am hard pressed to think of nor have I seen in the thread a real argument why this law should not be. I think it's just a venting of and by smokers who now have to change their habits. I say it's a long time coming. Tobacco use is in decline and is slowly being legislated out of the public space around the country. In another 50 years, smoking will more than likely be a third world problem and not a moment too soon. And yes, that last part is my opinion but I don't care who or how many believe it. Cigarettes stole my father away when I was young and eventually cut my mother's life short, she could have lived another dozen years easy. So you might say I have reason to hate the smoke, but nowhere in the thread am I proselytizing or trying to change opinion. Just, as I said, stating my own.

Do you realize that you won't succeed at convincing your opponent

While this wasn't directed at me, however in the case of smoking, we've had 40 years of trying to convince smokers about the harm their habit does to non-smokers. Playing nice didn't work. So now we'll just tell them to f off just rely on scientific evidence and enact laws. If they disagree, they can conduct their own research and overturn the findings. Continuing to discuss the matter with smokers is just a waste of one's breath.

> Does this all mean that chewing tabacco's makin' a comeback?

It might. Or, more likely, use of snuff might increase. I remember, in the mid 1980s, when broadcast advertising of smokeless tobacco was still legal, hearing a radio spot for Skoal Bandits. The commercial featured a testimonial from a smoker who said something like, "I can't smoke in a movie theater, but I can get tobacco enjoyment with Skoal Bandits."

Cigarettes are the ONLY product on earth which when used exactly as directed and manufactured KILL at least 50% of those who use the product.

They also kill innocent bystanders, including children.

They create a huge burden on the health care system, which costs every one of us big bucks.

We need to end all taxpayer subsidies of the tobacco industry, which would drive the prices of cigarettes through the roof. We then need to double or triple current cigarette taxes until smoking $100 bills becomes a more economical alternative.

I quit a two pack a day habit 13 years ago New Years Eve. Hardest thing I ever did. Quitting drinking was a walk in the park by comparison.
I know it's hard. I know it's a powerful addiction. But this country (and this world) can no longer tollerate the health care implications of a society of smokers.

Amen Terry. Preach it.

Oh Andy--If i remember right. You liked to gamble in the stock market. How's it going these days. At least when I play cards, I get free drinks. Does your broker do that for you. And when someone returns your f to you. You cry like a little girl.
go figure.

.

My apologies to WW as it wasn't their blog but instead Portland Mercury's Blogtown:

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/blogs/BlogtownPDX/

Its the Jan 1st entry with the drunk lookin' guy in the party hat. Its in this article that he discloses about the bars in Portland deciding to just pay the fine to keep their smoking status.

Andy,
"Smug", I think, is the word for you. Opinions regarding past, current, and proposed laws are exchanged all the time by all kinds of people. It's not up to someone on one side of an issue to claim that there is no other side. It's conceded, and it's ridiculous. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Are you reasonable enough to just leave it at that? You are kind of amusing though.

This is one of the best laws Oregon has passed in a long time. If you want to smoke, do it in your car or in your home. Public airspace should not be violated by smokers who ruin it for everyone else. Workers who work at a bar have a right to not breath someone else's second hand smoke. It stinks and it's unhealthy.

Oregon and ALL states need to pass a law like California did; It is illegal to smoke with someone under 18 in your vehicle.

It needs to be a primary offense, meaning you can be stopped for it alone and the charge should be either child abuse and/or child endangerment and carry with it a HUGE fine.

Start with $1000 for first time offenders then $5000 and double it with each repeat offense.

If you can't pay the fine then put them to work doing something for the community.

Being on a road crew patching all the pot holes would be a good start!

I agree 10,000% with Terry. There should be NO government subsidies of the tobacco industry.

I too lost both my parents to smoking related cancer and disease, so I have absolutely NO sympathy for the tobacco industry. And I don't have much sympathy for anyone who started smoking since the health risks became so widely known.

I also think that since smoking related health issues are such a burden on the health care system, smokers should pay huge premiums to cover it.

OK. I'm done ranting!

using that line of thinking skybill. Should we make all Aids patiants pay for there fun too???Note to board. I'm not for punishing Aids patiants. Just when you punish one class of people for some so called sin. Is it right?

I'd say it depends on how you get aids. If you get it from sharing drug needles or sticking your winky some place it doesn't belong, then yes.

If you are born with it because you have a crack whore for a mother or get it through a blood transfusion then no.

That being said, Steve, you are comparing apples to oranges. Smoking is a choice that you have to make. Nobody wakes up in the morning and says "Hey, I think I'll go out and get aids today"

Not a good comparison.

SMOKERS ARE ALL IDIOTS!! They are stupid, inconsiderate and lazy!
They all deserve to die of cancer because they know exactly the risks when lighting up a cancer stick!
I've seen numerous mothers smoking with little babies near by. I just want to run up to these mothers and SMACK THEM on the back of their heads.

CARE IF I SMOKE????

CARE IF I DIE????

Whats worse is to see a pregnant woman smoking.

I want to tell them; "Even if you don't care about your health, give the kid a break"

Dipsticks.

Skep: "Continuing to discuss the matter with smokers is just a waste of one's breath."

Indeed.

Steve: "Oh Andy--If i remember right. You liked to gamble in the stock market."

Not true. Money I lost in the market was invested in blue chip stocks, not normally a risk. You're so desperate to make some unknown point, you're being led by your own diminished capacity to babble on. Try eating more seafood. It is supposed to increase brain cell growth. Probably won't work for you. Sorry you're stuck with an IQ of 62 forever.

Shane: ""Smug", I think, is the word for you."

smug |sməg|
adjective ( smugger, smuggest)
having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements :

If you mean smug because I'm not a cigarette smoker, you bet.
I'll be proud of that anyday.

Im betting that if a study came out they would be able to correlate smoking with education level. People who continue to smoke are uneducated, don't have a college degree, were dropped on their head as a baby.
Smokers are smelly, There is nothing worse than talking to a smoker and having him/her reek of smoke! Yucky.

Im betting that if a study came out they would be able to correlate smoking with education level.

I wouldn't take that bet. However, I would bet that it applies to people who continue to argue FOR smoking in internet forums like this one.

A lot of educated people smoke. Most people get hooked as kids, and then it becomes extremely hard to quit as an adult, no matter how educated you are. Everyone is quite aware of the dangers of smoking. Just knowing that fact doesn't mean you can quite easily get your body un-addicted to this strongly addictive substance, which I've heard compared to heroin in terms of addictive nature.

Andrew

To repeat, though, the main purpose of banning smoking in bars is to protect the non-smokers from health risks. Eating fatty foods is bad for you, too, but if I sit next to you at the Carl's Jr eating a salad, you don't endanger me by eating junk food.

Andrew

Want a french fry Andrew?

Skeptical,
I always enjoy your posts, but I think you're twisting this issue. I don't know if you're talking about me, or the others here who take same side as me. I, for one, am not arguing for smoking. I'm arguing for property rights. Let me explain my position in full. The word "public" has been thrown around a lot in this forum. Bars are not public places. Parks, streets, libraries, etc are public places. Bars are privately-owned establishments that allow adults to voluntarily come inside. It is my belief that the proprietor of such an establishment should set the rules of conduct for his/her establishment. I believe that all activities that don't cause harm to people OUTSIDE of the bar (like over-serving) should be at the sole discretion of the owner. I think that even things like health code compliance should be voluntary, but you should have to have a really big sticker on all doors disclosing whether you comply with the health code or not. Of course the businesses that didn’t comply would often be driven out of business, which demonstrates how my view of capitalism works. We’re to the point these days where owning property is basically only useful for the purposes of being in a positive equity situation; you really no longer have the right to control many aspects of your private property. You have to get a permit to cut down a tree in some places. No, it’s no longer “your property”, you’re just allowed to trade it and profit from it. My complaint is broad, and I’m talking about regulations that have been increasing for decades, not just this latest example of rights removal. I’m certainly not a libertarian on all issues, but on property rights I am.

I know that many socialist-leaning people disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm not going to tell you that you "have no argument" either. You have an argument, it's just not capitalistic. It's the old "for the greater good" argument, which is anti-individualist.

This is my argument. It's not "pro smoking". It's pro property rights.

"Bars are not public places."

Yes they are.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/

Shane, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but the legal definition of "public place" is different than what you think. This is not my opinion, it is the law. If I had the time, I'd find the ORS definition, but the article linked should suffice.

Oh, I know. It's my view that the law oversteps the boundaries on what it considers a public place. It's an argument about the fundamentals of the way the law views private property.

How many vegans and vegatarians in the Portland city limits are smokers? Serious question. I bet the percentage of those that do would amaze and surprise you.

I don't have figures on vegetarians who smoke, but I know that they're out there. I know at least two people who are serious vegetarians and virtually chain smokers, and I ran across an FAQ years ago that addressed the issue of vegan cigarettes (as well as vegan diets for cats and many other things vegan). Since animal rights, rather than health is the primary motivation for many vegetarians and vegans, a vegan (or vegetarian) smoker is not a contradiction in terms.

Andy-you dodged the question. How much money did you lose in the stock market??? And did you have puts to hedge your position. Or did you just not believe stocks could go any futher down. BTW. Poker is a game of skill, with a risk and reward ratio. After seeing how the stock market has preformed this year. I'll stick with the cards.

From: "Our PDX Network":

Catch someone lighting up in a bar?
Dial 1-800-I’m-a-Snitch.

Posted: 03 Jan 2009 07:10 PM CST

"Grab your cell phones, people, and program in this number: 1-866-621-6107. Why? Because that’s the number you call to report noncompliance of a business that allows someone to smoke inside or within 10 feet of an open door or window.

You can call from the bar, or go to this website and fill out this form. Both the website and the phone number warn that complaints are a matter of public record, so you can’t be guaranteed confidentiality. Of course, you can always leave it anonymously.

Didn’t your mom ever tell you that no one likes a tattletale? Tsk, Tsk."

From the CDC website:

"By education level, current smoking prevalence was highest among adults who had earned a General Educational Development (GED) diploma (39.6%) and among those with a 9th--11th grade education (34.0%) and generally decreased with increasing years of education."


I don't know if I got any smarter when I quit, but I sure felt smarter. (There is something inherently stupid about dragging your chemo trolly outside so you can have a smoke.)

Poker is absolutely a game of skill.

The only real worry, besides having a firm understanding of the game, is how many other players are in your pool that DON'T have that understanding, and how that impacts the variance and size of your working bank roll.



It's funny too. The Poker has paid off consistently, despite a whole lot of other things going to crap for us.

At least with that game, if you go to a card room, you can see the other players. In the financials, you never see the other players and most of the money is virtual.

On the table, the odds are clear, risk is clear, chips are right there.

Love it.

(now, living cheap to establish a solid bank roll to play with)

Rule number 1: Play as cheap as you can.

Rule number 2: Play with money you can lose, as in you don't need it.

(and that's a very, very, very hard one when times are tough --temptation runs high)

Rule number 3: Risk equals dollars. Bad decisions also equal dollars.

(And that's why knowing the percentage of stupid players has an impact on the size of the working bank roll you will need to be profitable at the game! Everybody knows the first part about risk, not everybody thinks about the second part, variance)

We are up 5 digits from day one playing this game. When the shit hit the fan in the KSKD family, we used the bank roll for health care, to move, and such. Ugly, but necessary.

(arrgh!! No real Poker for us just yet. Hate it.)

I would stick with the cards too. Much less volatile than the financials are these days. Good god, look at those 401K's, investment banks becoming ordinary banks, FDIC likely double broke ass, treasury debt at an all time high, and what 7-10 trillion of it coming due next year?

Steve, where do you play?

When we could play, we liked down town @ the Plaza the most. Nice, low pressure room, plenty of newbies and 1 - 2 blinds in the early parts of the day to build 2 - 4 dollar profit for the later evening games, where the competition is a bit tougher.

Back to the smoking ban.

Merkin, I am sure there were people in bars at 12:01 on the 1st armed with their cell phones taking pictures with them to document it. There are those people that seem to get off on that sort of stuff. There are just to many busy bodies to let anything go unoticed these days. You can't even swat a misbehaving child in public without the fear of some do-gooder calling child services on you. In my book after people watching the last two weeks 9 of 10 kids out in public need a nice good swat on the ass. Either that or the parents for letting their kids behave like wild hulagins in public.

I always thought it was 'women' 2-to-1...HERE

I just returned from downtown, ahem, believe it or not, recording wild ambient sound with my video camera for my project. And I noticed outside the all the bars are clusters of smokers parked 10 feet away from the doors. Good little soldiers on a freezing cold night, aren't they?

I like DT's comment that cell phones are being used to document violations.

Dear missing kskd--I have been playing at the palace station. all the station casinos are having a big 40k freeroll at end of month for eveyone who played 50 hours in nov-dec. binions has a monthly 50k freeroll for 25 hours of ring game play that month. the orleans has a similer monthly tournament. station casinos and the orleans also have a nice bad beat jackpot. Several casinos have been sending me free play offers, at the same time. I go and grind it thru a michine and then use it to play cards. And yes rule one. don't use money you can't afford to lose. My friend used to make his living off of people chasing there losses and tourists.

Missing--please call me today if you have time. regards steve

Steve - I'll be down there in March for Pizza Expo. (Don't laugh people, it's worthwhile for those of us in the business!) Where are good off-the-beaten-path places to play?

Email me sir.

o.k. give dates please.

PDX get together in Vegas anyone? Yeah I can dream can't I?

March 9-12

Shyguy - I would be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO down for that!