I think it is an excellent idea. I now have adult onset asthma and must limit my dining experiences to restaurants that do not allow smoking in their bars. This meants that I can eat an Applebees but not at a Red Lobster even though they have the same parent agency. So for me it is a personal issue, but I do worry about the overall health effects of second hand smoke for the general population.
I think this would be a non issue if someone could smoke next to me without impacting my ability to breath, but smoke is pervasive and doesn't stay in one place.
Lastly, I think it is unfortunate that this might be seen as another loss of freedom for smokers. However, the more we learn about the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, the more common sense it is to limit the public's exposure to it. And with a 25/75% ratio of smokers to non smokers in this state, it really is the ultimate democratic decision.

I think this is a bit... much, but has good intentions.

Smoking hurts everyone! Even if you never enter an establishment that caters to smokers. Medical insurance premimiums are higher because of smokers. Family members suffer because of the poor choice the smoker started and now ravages their body. Children and grandchildren watch their loved ones slowly die and wither away. Forrest and home fires cost millions frequenlty because of smokers. I am against smoking. I got to watch the painful demise of my mom, dad, and heard about my uncles agony.

please donot take my freedom of choice away frommegovernment should nottake a business owners ability to usde their property as they see fit

Finally an extended rule. Most of the people I see smoking outside are standing right next to the door which is usually open or opened frequently. I'm amazed they don't notice that smoke gests sucked right back inside. As Far as Im concerned the current rule for smoking outside is useless. Having to stand further away from the doors will fix the problem. Cheers, to whoever was able to put this motion into action. My stress level will drop and Ill live a few xtra years.

I hear all kinds of worries by the business community thinking that they will lose business if the smoking ban is passed. Can't they see that since 75% of us don't smoke and many of us won't patronize businesses where smoking is allowed, their business might actually flourish with non-smokers now becoming potential customers? I would love to go bowling again, or go to some music venues that I will not now attend because of smoking.

If anything, it will expand their customer base.

The social aspects of public smoking not withstanding, smoking in public should be banned, primarily, because it is a scientifically proven health hazard. Emperical evidence validates the studies; just look at anyone who has smoked for any length of time - the smoker has halatosis, brittle hair, dry and wrinkled skin and a scruffy voice. This is what can be observed on the exterior of the body; imagine what the interior of the body looks like.

When paid lobbiests take the position that jobs will be lost and businesses will close, they are only using good 'ol scare tactics. The reality is that far more people, myself included, do not patronize businesses that allow smoking than those that do patronize because they do allow smoking. Most smokers have less disposable income than nonsmokers. I lived in CA, where a statewide ban is imposed on public smoking, before moving here. Business is great!

The truth is smokers are a selfish lot and do not value life. They care not if their bacteria infested second hand smoke pollutes our lungs and causes our hair and clothes to stink; misery loves company.

I support I-901, and I think it has a very good chance at passing...the latest SurveyUSA poll from 9/21/05 that Robert referred to has it passing by 67% with the support of over 60% of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. (A lot can change 5 weeks before an election, but it's an enviable starting point nonetheless.) All 3 major electoral populaces support it. How often are we all unified like this? It's downright inspiring!! There's usually at least 30% who don't support an issue no matter what it is...considering that, 67% support is stellar! Only 1% are undecided (compared to 6-7% for the other initiatives), and it has a considerable amount more Likely Voters than the other initiatives. Plus over 321,000 petition signatures (6th highest ever in WA). This is the perfect mix of people who are motivated by this issue...more who want it to pass than not. It's a no-brainer for many...plain commonsense.

Nothing in I-901 is new...it's all been tried in other states (9 have comprehensive smoke-free laws), cities or countries...including the 25FR. We're not reinventing the wheel here. It's embarrassing that we don't already have this law.

Come to think of it, the more we talk about the 25FR the better. From talking with people, it seems that for each "con" someone sees for I-901, there are more people who see that "con" as their "pro". Others see the eventual effects of smoking as a go-nowhere deadend...literally...and they want to remove as much as possible the hazards of smoking from their lives as they enter the buildings they want or need to enter in the course of living. Seems rational, even commendable. Case in point: the 25FR. I have 3 colleagues who told me they're motivated to vote for I-901 specifically because of the 25FR. One has asthma, the other can smell smoke at her desk in the middle of our non-smoking building coming in from outside via the ventilation system, and the last one "doesn't want to breathe it in" and finds "the smokers by the door are inconsiderate". I too think the 25FR is sensible and am glad WA will have it. (Some people in other states like RI wish they had it in their laws.) We're 4 of many people who have their own reasons for supporting the 25FR. So please...keep giving I-901 exposure by talking about it. Many will see its intention and that it's reasonable. Heck, it looks like it might actually help it pass!

We all seem to have our own reasons for supporting I-901. There are people like myself who work in "cushy office jobs" and remember not-too-long ago they had to sit by people smoking at the desk right next to them. Could you picture that in Microsoft today? How archaic! It seems like an uncivilized Stone Age, and yet it was only 12 years ago. How quick we get use to something, take it for granted, and think "it's always been this way" when actually it was once thought of as "radical". It was only in 1993 when smoking was allowed in private offices until the law changed to prohibit it: office employees were at their employer's whims to allow it or not and then possibly allow it again which is the reality for today's workers in the hospitality industry where exposure is heaviest. Now many of those office workers figure supporting I-901 is the least they can do for them so they can earn a living in a healthy smoke-free workplace...like they do. They can relate: call it empathy.

Overall, the pool of supporters motivated to see this pass is larger than the pool of people motivated to see it lose. Not many people yearn to be around second-hand smoke. Who wants to place themselves, health and all, in front of the stinky equivalent of an invisible yet toxic freight train? What positives are in it for them? On the contrary, it's more like a sinking ship slowly taking down its captain and passengers. There's no "safe" amount of second-hand smoke, and it's not worth the sacrifice. Most people feel they've "done their time" around it, and now that time is over.

The purpose of the initiative is to ensure clean and healthy indoor air in places open to the public and workplaces. That's it's #1 priority. If a business has chosen to have their business model rely so heavily on smoking for its success, now it might be in their best interest to plan ahead and rethink that model...they just have to look at the warning signs in front of them: "Second-hand Smoke Isn't Getting Any Safer or Healthier". It's remained remarkably consistent in that. The bad policies and habits of the few are not the good policies and habits for the many who live with their effects. People's essential need for clean toxic-free air trumphs people's non-essential choice to smoke and create toxins...whether inside or just outside the door. I-901's goal is to keep the air inside free of smoke whether that smoke is coming from the inside or from the outside via open windows and doors and/or ventilation that is sucking it back in. And, for the most part, I think it will easily and quickly accomplish that if passed. New century, new priorities.

I-901 is not the "Smokers' Accommodation Initiative" with its goal being to outline to people where and how to smoke. That time passed before I-901 was even born...it simply catches us up by giving us modern, effective updates to our existing smoking regulations. I-901 gives people something they can rely on by creating smoke-free areas which are the priority...the days of "smoking sections", which could never even contain the smoke, are ending as they are no longer a priority. If the status quo was working, we wouldn't have had those 321,000 plus people signing to get I-901 on the ballot. In considering what the effects of smoking have been on people's lives over the years, the general population doesn't seem to harbor much sympathy for it, nor do they seem to be willing to accommodate it nor be associated with support of it. Those are the realities of this issue today; success comes to those that see that. People that choose to continue to smoke will just step outside and figure out how and where to do it...that's the responsibility that comes with their choice to smoke. They'll manage. Then they'll come back in, and we'll all enjoy each others company again. Just like in Albuquerque, Bloomington, MN, and the entire state of Utah to name just a few...all cities and states with smoke-free laws with 25FRs. If they can do it, so can we.

Anyone whose hang-up is the 25FR probably doesn't want smoke-free indoors to begin with (they're in that 30% above) or they don't mind "cutting off their nose to spite their face". Their minimal and reactionary interpretation of it appears to be misguided and selective especially when the flexible wording of the initiative that we can all see expressly states 25' or a lesser approved distance. Negative responses to that seem silly and shortsighted. As far as enforcement the vast majority of people will self-comply making it a non-issue just like they do in other states while at the same time everyone will reap the rewards of smoke-free air. The numerous pros of I-901 as a whole far outweigh any imagined cons. Five years from now we'll look back and wonder what took us so long to implement these minor behavioral changes to go smoke-free and reap the benefits for so many by those few simply adapting. And now knowing how it impacts our health, I wouldn't want it on my conscience that I didn't support it.

Bottom line: If smoking was currently not allowed in bars and restaurants, we would never think of allowing it given all that we've come to know in the last 10-15 years about the negative health effects of second-hand smoke. (It's unfiltered smoke coming out of what's essentially a 'weapon' that kills at both ends...yuck!) That would be irresponsible and baffling. I-901 is well-intentioned, reasonable, and a worthy cause...I believe the majority of people know it and see it as a logical step, therefore, they will support it.

I can't wait for the freedom and the choice that will come from the ability to go to ANY bar, club, restaurant, or live music show and have it be 100% smoke-free! It will become the new normal, and we'll all get used to it...most will even like it. It's time.

I think it is a bad idea. I have Asthma and have been a non-smoker for eight days now. I smoked for thirteen years yet I still think I-901 is silly. We need to stop taking away our own rights no matter how smart or stupid our rights may be. God Bless

I did not post the communication assigned to me. I did post the communication assigned to Sherrie.

I would like to make another point. Smokers advocate for their rights, but as I understand my own rights, it is my right to Life that is being taken away. A person's right to freedom stops where the next person's right to freedom begins. So don't tread on me!

First I-901 is not a statewide ban at all. Repeated news reports clearly show businesses such as bars, taverns, charitable bingo and private groups suffer losses of 25% to 40%. The employees in many of these places will suffer 50% loss in wages. This is what happened during the Pierce County smoking ban.
Another major factor is in Washington State all tribal land and the businesses on them are exempt and 3 of the richest tribes own the land that surrounds the Puget Sound region where three quarters of our state lives.It's foolish to believe that the 29 tribes in this state won't take advantage of this exemption and simply open businesses that will cater to smokers.
Smokers pay almost $400 million a year to the state just in taxes on cigarettes. If smokers buy their cigarettes at the only place in the state it will be legal to smoke the loss to taxpayers will be huge. Sales of cigarettes at tribal businesses only net the state $7 per carton versus $20 at non-tribal businesses. That's a 7)% reduction in tax revenue.
If you research the studies I-901 supporters cite 80% are irrelevant. 11 of the 15 studies they use as their basis for the ban don't even look at revenue form bars, taverns, private groups or charitable bingo. Why? Because that would show the negative effects of these smoking bans. Remember that the people who pay the millions needed to implement these bans are the same ones compiling the numbers. An I-900 type audit of these agencies would prove this.
We have in this country what is called worker right to know laws. It is a federal law which in short says if there is a hazard in the workplace OSHA/WISHA must investigate and take the proper measures to protect all workers. They do this at Boeing, Paccar and thousands of other businesses in Washington State and around the country.
If in fact second hand smoke was a hazard that kills 38,000 people a year The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (WISHA) is required by law to act to protect workers in bars and taverns. Further, a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) would be required to be posted at every business in the state that allowed smoking.
You really believe that big companies like Boeing who got hundreds of millions from this state to stay in Washington is held to a higher standard on worker safety? If one worker dies at a work site there is a major investigation yet 38,000 die and nobody does anything? That just doesn't make sense.
The reason OSHA and in this state WISHA don't regulate second hand smoke in the workplace is that besides the smell there is no evidence second hand smoke is anywhere near the danger I-901 supporters paint it to be. Sure there are many chemicals in second hand smoke but there's lots of chemicals in sauerkraut too. You have to look at the quantities of each chemical. If you ate several ounces of salt it would do to your brain what it does to a slug. Does that mean we should list salt as a toxin?

In response to Dave's comment above:

Tribal lands are sovereign nations...initiatives and laws like this can't apply to them. Just because they have a bad and unhealthy policy by allowing smoking doesn't make it good for the rest of the state.
I'll repeat a part of my post from above: "If a business has chosen to have their business model rely so heavily on smoking for its success, now it might be in their best interest to plan ahead and rethink that model...they just have to look at the warning signs in front of them: 'Second-hand Smoke Isn't Getting Any Safer or Healthier'. It's remained remarkably consistent in that."
Overall, this will be a big non-issue in a year or so if this passes. Meanwhile, workers, patrons and tourists and their children will be enjoying smoke-free air in the places they work and spend money in.

We should all remember I-901 isn't about banning smoking at city hall or the public library. I-901 re-classifies all private non-tribal property in this state (with the exception of your private residence) into public property. It also states that anywhere someone is working is now classified as a workplace. I-901 isn't about banning smoking. It's about essentially making it illegal to smoke anywhere except at home or on tribal land.

What about a cigar shop. Isn't it reasonable that the employees, the owner and all customers coming into the business smoke cigars? I-901 says even in a cigar shop smoking is illegal. Same for a cigar bar. Don't people go to a cigar bar to smoke and drink? Not according to I-901. It's illegal to smoke there too.

What about private clubs like the Eagles, Elks or Veterans of Foreign Wars? Shouldn't these groups be able to run their private clubs the way they want? Whether you agree with smoking or not shouldn't private clubs on private property be able to decide whether to allow smoking? I-901 says NO! Their private property and club is re-classified as a public place in I-901. Reports from around the country show these clubs are hurt financially when much less restrictive bans are implemented.

One of the most ridiculous things about I-901 is that even if the property owner, every employee and every customer are smokers themselves it would still be illegal for anyone to smoke within 25 feet of the business. Anyone caught smoking would be fined $100.
There are streets in many cities where it's almost impossible to get 25 feet from all businesses and comply with the law

I-901 doesn't say just go outside and smoke like California and New York do. It says go 25 feet away from the property regardless of the weather or safety of the customer or employee. It even makes no exception for someone confined to a wheelchair or in need of a walker. This in nursing homes or assisted care facilities have to be 25 feet away too. This isn't reasonable at all.

Hundreds of businesses have spent thousands on outdoor patios and decks to accommodate smokers while trying to keep their non-smoking customers happy.
These will all be expensive firewood if I-901 passes because none are be 25 feet from the business. The main spokesperson for I-901, Peter McCollum stated "It would have been good to have had this conversation before we'd written the law." Oops!

Even if someone is lucky enough to own the property 25 feet away they can't have an employee service the area because then that area would be considered a workplace too.
So non-tribal business and their employees will suffer, the state will take it in the shorts because of the tax revenue it looses while tribal businesses get a financial windfall because they'll have the only land in the state that can allow smoking on it That sucking sound you hear will be your tax dollars going to tribal government instead of Olympia. So a vote for I-901 is a vote to raise your taxes. Voters had better educate themselves on what I-901 really is and what it will do.

This wasn't said to bash local tribes but lets face it. Since each of the 29 tribes are each sovereign nations state law doesn't apply to them and it's foolish to thing they won't take advantage of the situation if I-901 passes. So just remember I-901 isn't a fantasy. It's a nightmare. Mark my words

I'm voting NO. Not because I think we should allow smokers to blow smoke in our face; but because I believe in Representative Government. We elect smart, trusted people to represent us; they study the issues and debate the merits of State Law. Populous government works with small local issues of less than 10,000 voters but not at the State level. Vote no on all initiatives and let our Representatives govern.

I'm struck by the comments of DaysonJones. You obviously never owned a business and don't own property. It's hard to believe if you owned a business or property you would so easily give up your rights to that property. Again this is private property, not public property supported by tax dollars. You think it's okay for tribal businesses to be able to cater to 100% of the population while another on private land can only cater to 80%.

Time for a business owner to rethink their business plan? Businesses don't pick their customers. Customers pick the businesses based on their satisfaction. It's called the free market system. Businesses that don't make their customers happy don't stay open. How the tribes get an exemption is meaningless. The fact is they do.

Your logic seems to be because you don't like cigarette smoke all private property owners should lose their right to allow it is something from the Stalin era. A visitors rights while on someone else's property should never supercede those of the private property owner. Again, this is private property.

A business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone but not if it has to do with smoking? Even if the property want to refuse to serve non-smokers and doesn't even want them on his property the property owner still can't allow a legal product to be consumed on his or her property because I-901 says that's illegal.

If we're going to make tobacco illegal then lets do it. To tell a private land owner that they no longer have a say is a slippery slope. What will it be next? Alcohol? Certainly alcohol kills far more people than are ever harmed by smoking let alone second hand smoke.
That gets us back to why if second hand smoke is so deadly why hasn't OSHA or in this state WISHA ever found second hand smoke to be a workplace hazard? If in fact it was a workplace hazard they would be required by law to ban it in every workplace in the USA. Why haven'y they?

who's kidding who, to say that non smokers are treated fairly is redicilious. I am a smoker and from a personal perspective " smokers are treated like second class people. you cant even enjoy a cigarrett with out someone looking at you funny or giving you a lecture. I belive in responsible smoking including not smoking where its not permitted and out of parks, schools any place a child or health facility is located.

Reply to:
Dave at October 9, 2005 06:29 PM

I'm going to paraphrase what I said earlier. Whether you realize this or not, the reasons you give not to support I-901 are reasons to support it for a larger or significant portion of the database. Your "reasons" actually help I-901. Not really your fault...it's just the nature of this unique issue.

Your comments are in quotes mine are prefaced with an "*".

"We should all remember I-901 isn't about banning smoking at city hall or the public library. I-901 re-classifies all private non-tribal property in this state (with the exception of your private residence) into public property. It also states that anywhere someone is working is now classified as a workplace. I-901 isn't about banning smoking. It's about essentially making it illegal to smoke anywhere except at home or on tribal land."

* These places serve the public so it makes sense smoking shouldn't occur there. I bet that's what most people hear. It actually sounds good. More will probably vote yes.

"What about a cigar shop. Isn't it reasonable that the employees, the owner and all customers coming into the business smoke cigars? I-901 says even in a cigar shop smoking is illegal. Same for a cigar bar. Don't people go to a cigar bar to smoke and drink? Not according to I-901. It's illegal to smoke there too.:

* Probably not a lot of sympathy from many on this one....becomes a "yes" vote for most. Just the reality of it.

"What about private clubs like the Eagles, Elks or Veterans of Foreign Wars? Shouldn't these groups be able to run their private clubs the way they want? Whether you agree with smoking or not shouldn't private clubs on private property be able to decide whether to allow smoking? I-901 says NO! Their private property and club is re-classified as a public place in I-901. Reports from around the country show these clubs are hurt financially when much less restrictive bans are implemented."

* There are workers here. It protects those workers as well as the visitors.

"One of the most ridiculous things about I-901 is that even if the property owner, every employee and every customer are smokers themselves it would still be illegal for anyone to smoke within 25 feet of the business. Anyone caught smoking would be fined $100.
There are streets in many cities where it's almost impossible to get 25 feet from all businesses and comply with the law."

* What most probably hear is a variation of: Good more protections for them...it actually creates smoke-free zones they can count on. It's worked elsewhere why wouldn't it work hear? WA isn't so unique. Most people will just self-comply like they do in Utah and Albubuerque where they have 25FR and enforcement provisions. The person that chooses to smoke will responsibly figure out where they can smoke....so most will probably vote yes.

"I-901 doesn't say just go outside and smoke like California and New York do. It says go 25 feet away from the property regardless of the weather or safety of the customer or employee. It even makes no exception for someone confined to a wheelchair or in need of a walker. This in nursing homes or assisted care facilities have to be 25 feet away too. This isn't reasonable at all."

* I really don't think this will garner much sympathy from many. People in wheelchairs or nursing homes smoking. What many will think about is...hmmm...what's the priority here? Not going to sway many votes...probably more to yes.

"Hundreds of businesses have spent thousands on outdoor patios and decks to accommodate smokers while trying to keep their non-smoking customers happy.
These will all be expensive firewood if I-901 passes because none are be 25 feet from the business. The main spokesperson for I-901, Peter McCollum stated "It would have been good to have had this conversation before we'd written the law." Oops!"

* What a lot of people hear is: Great, smoke-free patios...right on...something they can count on as being smoke-free. I-901 and its predesessor I-890 which I signed have been around a few years...all with 25FRs in them. Opponents never collaborated on that issue earlier. Hmm, wonder why they waited so long? If they were sincerely concerned for their businesses wouldn't they have addressed this issue sooner than right after it qualifies for the ballot?

" Even if someone is lucky enough to own the property 25 feet away they can't have an employee service the area because then that area would be considered a workplace too."

* Correct...everyone's protected. Of course that distance can be reduced if smoke doesn't reenter the building.

"So non-tribal business and their employees will suffer, the state will take it in the shorts because of the tax revenue it looses while tribal businesses get a financial windfall because they'll have the only land in the state that can allow smoking on it That sucking sound you hear will be your tax dollars going to tribal government instead of Olympia. So a vote for I-901 is a vote to raise your taxes. Voters had better educate themselves on what I-901 really is and what it will do."

*Regarding the tax issue and other states with bans and tribes seem to being doing fine...why wouldn't it work here? Less "sin" taxes but healthier places that people frequent in their daily lives...I bet most people are Ok with that.

"This wasn't said to bash local tribes but lets face it. Since each of the 29 tribes are each sovereign nations state law doesn't apply to them and it's foolish to thing they won't take advantage of the situation if I-901 passes. So just remember I-901 isn't a fantasy. It's a nightmare. Mark my words"

* Again, other states with bans have tribes.

Overall, the pros far outweigh any imagined cons.

We'll see what everyone else thinks Nov. 8th.

Tobacco is, as far as I know, the only cancer producing subtance that is legal to use and it's used on people who don't want it! It should go farther and ban it totally. I'd rather pay more taxes than breathe smoke that kills more people than automobiles.

Anything that makes it a little bit more difficult for innocent people to be injured by the effects of smoking is a good thing!

Reply to:

Dave at October 9, 2005 07:01 PM

Thanks for the comments.

Again, I'm pretty sure most of the "cons" you mention are "pros" to most people who will therefore vote "yes" on I-901.

Your comments are in quotes mine are prefaced with an "*".

"I'm struck by the comments of DaysonJones. You obviously never owned a business and don't own property. It's hard to believe if you owned a business or property you would so easily give up your rights to that property. Again this is private property, not public property supported by tax dollars. You think it's okay for tribal businesses to be able to cater to 100% of the population while another on private land can only cater to 80%."

* If I owned a business, I would obide by the current laws and realize that they sometimes change. I would already realize that private businesses had to obide by our states smoking laws...people can't smoke in private office buildings. So this makes I-901 seem very logical to me.

"Time for a business owner to rethink their business plan? Businesses don't pick their customers. Customers pick the businesses based on their satisfaction. It's called the free market system. Businesses that don't make their customers happy don't stay open. How the tribes get an exemption is meaningless. The fact is they do."

* Yes, and a lot of those businesses will see all the doom and gloom never materialized and that benefits far outweighed anything else. Just because the tribes have a bad and unhealthy policy doesn't make it right for the rest of the state.

"Your logic seems to be because you don't like cigarette smoke all private property owners should lose their right to allow it is something from the Stalin era. A visitors rights while on someone else's property should never supercede those of the private property owner. Again, this is private property."

* It's actually from the new millenium. Second-hand smoke isn't getting any safer or healthier. People who have their head in the sand on that one fall behind at their own peril. And that private property owner opened his doors to the public therefore he has to obide by laws protecting their safety. Just part of the responsibilities of owning a business. Again, people can't smoke in private office buildings.

"A business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone but not if it has to do with smoking? Even if the property want to refuse to serve non-smokers and doesn't even want them on his property the property owner still can't allow a legal product to be consumed on his or her property because I-901 says that's illegal."

* Boy this becomes a yes vote for many...interesting logic. Most people want to go where they want to go and have it be free from smoke...that's what resonates with them. But keep bringing this out as it seems to help. And it is a legal product...a regulated legal product.

"If we're going to make tobacco illegal then lets do it. To tell a private land owner that they no longer have a say is a slippery slope. What will it be next? Alcohol? Certainly alcohol kills far more people than are ever harmed by smoking let alone second hand smoke."

* If you want to ban tobacco or alcohol, start an initiative. That's your option. I would guess that this issue is more important to a greater number of people, hence, the reason why we're even having this dialogue today. Life happens in steps...this is the step we're on.

"That gets us back to why if second hand smoke is so deadly why hasn't OSHA or in this state WISHA ever found second hand smoke to be a workplace hazard? If in fact it was a workplace hazard they would be required by law to ban it in every workplace in the USA. Why haven'y they? "

* The yes votes flew off the chart on this one. It's unfiltered tobacco smoke...tobacco smoke leads to a plethora of diseases from lung cancer to breast cancer....do the math. It will probably be banned in all workplaces...give it time...the country's in the process of dealing with it. How shortsighted. I tell you, I wouldn't want it on my conscience that I said statements like that. Wow.

Again, thanks. Not only does 901 provide reasons to support this smoke-free legislation, but its own opponents inadvertently do. To be an opponent on this, you compete against yourself and your own statements. There aren't a lot of compelling reasons to "no" vote this...they just turn to "yesses" for the many. Most people don't want to be a martyr to second-hand smoke.

We'll see Nov. 8th.

I-901 is about time for Washington. More than 38,000 people die every year due to
secondhand smoke related illnesses. This is more than a business issue, it's a
health issue to keep our residents healthy and live longer healthier lives. Look at
the 11 states that have smoking bans, businesses especially bars have increased
business because non-smokers that usually don'r go out began to do so. My friends
that smoke say that they too don't mind if smoking is banned because the stench on
their clothes when coming home at night is more than an irritant but a health
hazard!

I see people complaining about rights. Since when was assault a right? I realize that intent is lacking in this particular crime, but the result is the same - one person's actions are causing everyone around them bodily harm. It's not silly, it's not overreacting, it's a proven fact. Non-smokers DIE from second-hand smoke. Charging smokers and business owners who allow and encourage smoking around their workers with negligent homicide would be a stretch, this is an appropriate measure.

I am in support of this initiative for an entirely selfish reason: I want to go out on weekends once again to bars and clubs. I would venture to guess that I am not the only one whose patronage of bars and clubs would increase after passage!

About time Washington caught up with other states.

Now even Montana has a more protective policy concerning smoking indoors along with 8 or 9 other states.

Worse yet, Washington still even allows smoking indoors where minors are present. Unbelievable.

Smoking is a right that everyone has and should have. Not smoking is also a right that everyone should have but does not currently have. By inhaling second-hand smoke non-smokers are being forced to do something that they have no intention of doing. One of the basic needs in life is air... no one has the right to impact that basic need. Just as we make attempts to clean our air of the damage caused by factories and vehicles, we should attempt to clean our air of tobacco smoke. This is not about taking away anyone's rights, it is about restoring rights to those that have had theirs walked on. Businesses will flourish from this decision from the outpouring of support from those that have avoided dining out and going to bars due to smoke, and they will all benefit from being on equal ground. Washington is following numerous other states who have passed similar bans and not one of them has reported negative impact from doing so. Smokers will get used to having to step outside for their smoking and perhaps a fair share will quit a habit that they know is terrible for them but just need a small push to take the steps to quit for good. Pass this initiative for the health of Washington's children, elderly, and workers forced to inhale toxic smoke and chemicals all day.

I strongly support I-901. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says that a user of a hazardous substance has a right to inflict that substance on other people -- even if he/she is getting their own personal gratification out of it. I am concerned that our society has become confused with what is a legitimate legal right.
Smoking is not a right when a non-smoker is unwillingly exposed to it.

I personally know of a woman who developed emphysema from second hand smoke. She has never smoked a day in her life and now walks around slowly with an oxygen tank. She is living proof that our society doesn't afford adequate protection to the non-smoking public.

I have been riding a public bus a lot these days because of the rising fuel prices and am quite bothered by the number of people who will come into a bus shelter and light up. They don't seem to have any regard for my health as long as they get their fix.

Initiative I-901 is not saying you can't smoke. It is just asking people not to do it indoors where non-smokers would be exposed to it. This is a good law and I am wondering why the legislature didn't pass it?

I will vote yes on I-901. I cannot wait until I can go into any bar, restaurant, or bowling alley and not come out smelling like a dirty ashtray.

As for the arguments against the ban, smoking bans have worked in nine other states already (including Montana--Marlboro country!). I don't understand why businesses would rather focus on the 20% of Washingtonians who smoke instead of the 80% who don't. That just seems like a bad business plan to me.

And to tell people that they would have to leave their jobs if they don't want to inhale smoke, to make people choose between their livelihoods or their lives is simply unconscionable. Sure, Seattle has some restaurants and bars that are smokefree (they're the only ones I go to), but what about all of the small towns and cities across the state where workers and customers don't have the option for a smokefree environment?

The state of Washington already restricts smoking in most businesses. Why are restaurants and bars any different? So office workers should be protected from smoke, but waiters and bartenders shouldn't? That makes no sense to me. I see comments from some who say that businesses should be allowed to determine their own health policies regarding smoking. Yet restaurants and bars already have significant regulation on the quality of the food and drink they serve, and for good reason. The air in those establishments shouldn't be exempt from regulation, either.

I-901 is not an attempt to quash our freedoms. Anyone who says that voters shouldn't have the right to regulate dangerous substances like smoke would probably also not want to regulate the use of dangerous substances like asbestos. To say otherwise would be hypocritical or ignorant of the health hazards of second-hand smoke.

Yes, cigarettes are legal products, and smoking is a legal activity. But guns are legal products, and shooting is a legal activity. That doesn't mean I want someone to be able to walk into a bar and start firing their pistols everywhere.

Finally, the costs. Everyone except the tobacco companies should love a dropoff in cigarette sales and the attendant taxes from them. That would mean substantially reduced Medicare costs, which are supported by taxpayer dollars. If restaurants and bars were forced to provide health coverage for all of their employees, they would probably jump on the smoking ban bandwagon. Instead, the costs are shifted from the entertainment industry to the taxpayer, and I for one don't want to continue to subsidize those costs.

I support it all the way. I am a professional musician and a good deal of my work comes from playing in clubs and bars. Some nights the smoke is so bad my eyes and throat burn.... my house smells like smoke because all the smoke in the clubs soaks into my equipment. Some nights when it's really bad I find myself wondering what else I could do to make a living just to get away from the smoke, but really... why should one have to change their job (even if they could) just so thoughtless people can spread toxic smoke in public? It's time to step up to the plate, vote and make clean air a right for all.

I have two reasons I think 901 is a great plan. 1) When smokers smoke in my presence they take away my right not to smoke.
2) Each time I am exposed to second hand smoke I end up sick. I have zero tolerance for it. My breathing second hand smoke for more than 5 or ten minutes results in a upper respiratory infection or sinus infection. Therefore, I stay away from any establishments that promote open smoking, ie. pubs, bowling alleys, restuarants with smoking sections and anywhere I will be confined or exposed.

Some feedback for Fred here. He seems to think this is a freedom of choice. This is crazy. Allowing second hand smoke is allowing someone else to pollute and endanger everyone's health including the smoker. If they want to smoke, they can do it where it hurts no one else. They can choose to smoke at home not subjecting everyone else to the cancer causing effects of second hand smoke. We need to stop thinking of only me and start thinking of we. It's called personal responsibilty.

I will vote yes on I-901. I have never smoked but grew up in a household of smokers. I didn't realize what fresh air smelled like until I moved away from home. Only then did I realize I went to school everyday smelling like a used, stale, dirty ash tray because it was in my clothes and hair.

I currently do not patronize resteraunts that allow smoking. I choose not to spend my dollars in a business so I can come home and wash everything I had on including taking a shower to get it out of my hair.

As people have said before me here, one person's right stops at the outside of another person. If smokers could consume their cancer sticks within a glass bubble, great. But they haven't bothered to consider a that.

When I-901 passes, I look forward to going out to more resteraunts and social places just because they will be non-smoking. Yes, the state revenue department will benefit from the passing of I-901.

I strongly support I-901. I'm a rights advocate, but this isn't about rights, it's about health. Only 20% of Washington adults smoke, so why cater to this small minority? People can't smoke in churches, in theatres, on airplanes or many other public places, so why should they be allowed to smoke in reaturants where their second-hand smoke can affect other people's health? People opposed to I-901 say that if you don't want to eat in a smokey restaurant find one that isn't smokey. I travel a lot and in small towns I don't have much choice on where to eat. I-901 will make all restaurants and bars pleasant to visit. I live in a small town. One of our restaurants and one of our taverns went smoke-free last year and the business increased in both places. I go to them now, whereas I didn't when they allowed smoking.

GO I-901!!

I'd like to take my son and his friends bowling without worrying that I am increasing his risk of respiratory stress and later cancers.

And I'd like to go out to hear music without worrying that I am putting myself at risk for breast and lung cancer.

The 20% of people who are smokers DO NOT have the right to subject me, my family, of the workers in these establishments to these risks.

YES on I-901!!!

Do not worry business owners! I went to a casin0 one time last year. And that was when the Pierce County Smoking Ban was in effect. I can't wait to go again when I-901 passes! I assure you there are many others like me.

As the bans become more common all over the world, the "no" folks arguments carry less and less weight. The more they repeat them, they lose even more credibility.
I'm a stand-up comic who has had two sinus surgeries to remove lumps from second-hand smoke. I've been advised not to perform in the smoke anymore by numerous doctors, referrals, and specialists' opinions. Opponents say "go somewhere else". There is only one club in the whole state where all shows are non-smoking. For many of us, there is nowhere else.
As for "rights"......Allowing a Class A carcinogen to remain in the workplace is not something that should be "owner's choice".
Some complain about the "inconvenience" of the 25 foot rule. 1)This rule is in effect in 325 communities. 2)It is designed to keep smoke from going back into the buildings and to protect those in line at the door. 3)25 ft rule---Taking eight to ten steps sideways is not that big of a deal. The law is also designed to be felxible and exemptions have beena nd will be made. Smokers' claims they'll be "forced onto the streets" are ridiculous. 4)Mamy smokers I've talked to feel that simply stepping outside for a minute to smoke is not only no big deal, but it is also reasonable, polite, and the right thing to do. Cecilia Izzo, a volunteer on the campaign, used to wait tables at a smoky diner and had one lung removed due to lung cancer from second-hand smoke. Her lung cancer is way more "inconvenient" than petty complaints about the 25 foot rule.
Whether opponents want to admit it or not, indoor smoking is going the way of eight track tapes and the Macarena. People care most about the right to breathe clean air.

I worked as a server in the smoking section of a restaurant and had attacks where I couldn't breathe. I went to the doctor, had expensive tests, and was found to have reactive airway disease - a condition similar to asthma.

Even though it has been 15 years since I worked in a restaurant, I still have to carry around an inhaler just in case. I have respiratory problems and had pneumonia a few years ago which my doctor has told me are all linked to the reactive airway disease.

I was lucky because I was able to stop working in restaurants. Not everyone has that choice and they should not have to make it. Restaurant workers deserve to be protected from secondhand smoke. Please vote yes on I-901.

I can't wait until I-901 is passed and goes into effect. Empirical evidence has shown the devastating effects of second hand smoke. It's about time we treat restaurant workers to the same kind of rights that we provide other workers. Let's hope the residents of Washington believe in equality for all workers.

There is a lot of evidence at this point that smoking bans are good for business. The Pro-smoking people (Mainly Big Tobacco) are running out of excuses to allow smokers to poison the workers and the general public in bars and restaurants anymore. Tobacco companies would suffer because people always quit smoking or smoke less when indoor smoking is banned. Smoking outdoors de-glamourizes smoking. Seeing smokers out in the rain or away from others exposes that they are addicts, rather than the cool people cigarette companies want you to see them as. This hits Big Tobacco where it really hurts: It prevents the very young members of our society from becoming smokers.

I work and have worked in industry for 40 years. Often I inhale toxic compounds including dust, welding vapors, solvents, and engine exhaust. I pray for a chance to breath the clean air God intended for me after a day's work. Alas, some smoker invades my one chance to enjoy a non polluted breath after work, and then claims I am a zealot not able to mind my own business. This is so unfair, and in the Spring, I get hay fever to make life really unbearable. I truly wish for their right to smoke as long as it has no effect on me. Their premature death I would applaud.
The effect on me in reality is multiple. I pay a social cost to keep them treated when they become ill, I become ill from their bad habit, and my life is very uncomfortable.
Smokers have stalked me in response to my objections about their stench. Please give me a break, and let's make it difficult for them to assault us. Vote yes on 901.

I can see both sides of this issue. The thing that bothers me the most is the restaurant workers who smoke on the job. I have never seen a server wait until break to light up. It's at the server station, usually away from the customers, but over food, beverages, trays of food to be delivered, over the ice bin in the servers area, etc. Not only do the ashes get blown over everything like bar towels, guest checks, silverware trays, etc, but I can honestly say the thing that really upsets me is the refraining of workers to wash their hands after taking a puff. A health code, but not adheared to by workers or by management.
I do agree with the 25 feet proposal away from the doors. I would also like to say that perhaps if establishment owners would've spent a little more time and money on cleaning the smoke eaters, maybe this issue wouldn't have caused such a comotion.
I do not agree at all with the tribal businesses being able to do what ever they want. They too, should be goverened like the rest of us. They get too many freebees as it is, so why give them more business just because the rest of us have to abide by the rules.

I am a non smoker, but can clearly see that there is more to this issue that just the smoking health concerns.

I support I-901 because if I am a non smoker that has to work in a smoking enviroment is it not my choice why do I have to take on a smokers bad habit? It is extremely inconsiderate for smokers that don't see they are causing harm to others around them. I have some smoker friends that signed for I-901 because they realize everyone should not have to smoke and when they are smoking in a public place they are forcing all the Non smokers to smoke with them! I belevie in choice and if the smokers what to kill their lungs, make it black, and get lung cancer go right a head, but for me I would like the choice to keep my lungs in tack and live longer. So by voting YES on I-901 this will give non smokers a Choice and better working enviroment for all who have to work in a bar or club etc. Please help keep our air clean!! Thank you, Ursela

NO on 901..YES on SB-5909 (just read it, it says it all and is FAIR FOR ALL!) SHAME ON YOU Mr. 901
HAVE YOU GUYS READ "THE ENTIRE BILL"... what a sanctimonius insensitive zealot. READ SENATE BILL "5909" WHICH GETS THE JOB DONE -AND- IS MORE HUMANE FOR ALL. If you don't agree, then I question you as a human being and feel sorry for your lack of compassion...(i.e. SHAME ON YOU) NONONONONONONONONONO 901/YESYESYESYESYES SB-5909

It's a no-brainer: YES on 901.
When California passed a similar bill, the opposition claimed it would hurt restaurant & bar business. In reality, businesses are better (and healthier) than ever. It's a pleasure to spend a night bar-hopping in SFO & find that your coat doesn't smell like an ashtray the next day.

We do not allow drunks to drive because it is likely they will kill someone. For that same reason we should not allow people to smoke in indoor public places. Smokers have rights, but not the right to pollute the lungs of the person sitting next to them.

Please note that I am a 3-1/2 year EX-SMOKER!

I support and fight for I-901 like nothing I've ever fought for before! First of all, I would like to mention all of the comments I've heard about how horrible it is that we would be taking away smokers' rights. What about the majority of us? Don't we have the right to breath clean air? Ya, I know... I've been told that I should just stay away if I don't like it... and I do! That's the problem! In doing so, I have been to two restaurants in the three and a half years since I quit smoking. Is that fair? I sure don't think so! I am twenty-four years old, and I have NEVER been in a bar... because of the smoke (and yes, I do drink)! Plus, how can I avoid it completely when I have to walk through a billowing cloud of lung-stinging smoke to get into almost any public building, often with my two toddlers(including state and office buildings, retail stores, the mall, parks, zoos, daycare centers... even the HOSPITAL for cryin' out loud!)

Now, I used to be one of those smokers who said "I'll never be like that! I'll never vote to take away people's right to smoke in a public place." And I really truthfully believed that. The problem with that thought process is that if you are a smoker, you just don't notice it! Any non-smoker can tell you: just because the smoke has broken up enough so you can't see it, that doesn't mean it's not still there, toxic chemicals and horrible smell and all (I know you like the smell... I used to... but it's absolutely appalling to a non-smoker, even one who used to enjoy it)!

I'm just so confused when people state that a person's right to inhale cancer-causing chemicals in public is more important than a person's right to be in public without the fear of health-deteriorating poisons floating around their heads, and horrible smells permiating their clothing! How is that even justifiable?!?!

I just can't wait for this law to pass so I can finally go out and party for my 21st birthday that was 3 years ago, and sit down and have a nice meal out with my husband and children without fearing for their lungs!

To all of the smokers: I must again stress, you just don't realize what you're doing to the people around you! If you ever quit, you will know what I'm talking about! I am SO sorry for how disrespectful I was to non-smokers, even though I had no idea that I was really causing them any hardship!

As for the businesses... they can't lose any business! They will get new business from non-smokers, and what are the smokers going to do? Take their business somewhere else? Well okay, but they're gonna have to go pretty far to prove their point! No one will be able to hold a grudge against specific establishments, because ALL establishments will be non-smoking! That's the beauty of it for business owners! It's a win-win! MORE business... period.

PLEASE vote YES on I-901. For me, my children, and everyone in Washington! Remember: When a law is put into effect after a majority vote, that means that the majority of people are happy with the results... and even if the actual majority wanted the opposite results... well... they should have voted now, shouldn't they? If they had really cared, they would have won!

I care, and I will be voting YES on I-901!!!!!

Smoke from tobacco should be banned from the universe! It serves no beneficial purpose to anyone...end of story!!

I think that we should also ban alcohol consumption (which causes at least as many problems as smoking), driving on our highways if you're under age 25 or over 65, & children under 12 at restaurants that serve alcohol. Come on, we've already lost enough of our rights in the past few years. I WILL vote NO on I-901.

I HAVE BEEN A NON-SMOKER FOR 14 YEARS. THERE ARE NOT MANY PLACES FOR NON-SMOKERS TO GO FOR AN EVENING OUT THAT IS SMOKE FREE. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES THAT US NON-SMOKERS HAVE NOT GONE BECAUSE OF THE HORRIBLE SMOKE. NOT ONLY IS IT OFFENSIVE, FOR OUR HEALTH TO BREATHE THEIR SMOKE, BUT YOUR CLOTHES SMELL, YOUR THROAT IS SORE AS IF YOU SMOKED THEM YOURSELF. THIS IS NOT HEALTHY, I WOULDN'T HAVE QUIT IF IT WAS NOT A HEALTH ISSUE FOR ME AND MY FAMILY. I RECENTLY VISITED A FRIEND IN CALIFORNIA AND LET ME TELL YOU HOW NICE IT IS THERE THAT YOU CAN EAT A NICE MEAL OR ENJOY A DRINK IN ANY OF THEIR COCKTAIL LOUNGES AND NOT HAVE TO ENDURE WHAT US IN WASHINGTON HAVE TO PUT UP EVERYDAY OF OUR LIVES. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT NO MONEY WILL BE LOST BY BUSINESSES IF THIS PASSES, I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL BE MAKING MORE MONEY AS NON-SMOKERS WILL VISIT THESE ESTABLISHMENTS AGAIN WHEN BEFORE WE WOULD STAY AT HOME. WHY IS IT, THAT THE SMOKERS HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAT US NON-SMOKERS? DO YOU SEE THEM STAYING HOME AND NOT EATING IN PLACES WHERE THE NON-SMOKERS ARE. THERE ARE MORE NON-SMOKERS THAN SMOKERS IN THIS STATE. IT JUST IS NOT RIGHT. WE ALL SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN THIS MATTER, NOT JUST THE SMOKERS. I HOPE THAT THIS LAW PASSES WITH EVERY BREATH IN MY BODY AS THIS HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. I WILL BE VOTING TO GET THIS PASSED

As far as I know, tabacco is still legal - so how can the government tell us we cannot partake in a LEGAL activity? Yes smoking is bad, but so is sugar - I don't see where it's a crime to send cookies in our kids lunches though.

With all the restrictions being placed on our day-to-day lives, USA is no longer the land of the free....it's more like the land of the way the government tells us to be.

In response to Roquel's comment about the government telling us what to do. I-901 is an initiative of the people. It took over 300,000 registered voters in Washington state to sign the petitions to get it on the November ballot. The government didn't get I-901 this far, the people did.

As one of the people who was out on street corners collecting those signatures, I even got smokers to sign. I asked them if they felt it was appropriate for smokers to smoke in resteraunts. They signed the petition.

We aren't telling the smokers they can't smoke. We aren't taking their rights away, we (the non-smokers) are asking to get our rights back. We have the right to break smoke free air in public areas.

I will vote in favor of I-901.

I think this smoking ban should have come alot sooner than this! I am tired of going out and coming home smelling like an ash try! It sticks to my hair for at least 2 days even after washing and conditioning! Please vote YES on I-901!! It's better for our health and our future! And hey, it might even help folks to stop smoking! =0)

I will vote YES for I-901 because I think it is high time that all WORKERS in Washington are protected from cancer-causing secondhand smoke, in the workplace. Don't we all deserve to breathe smokefree air indoors?! Personally, I will go out a lot more often, now that bars and taverns will be smokefree. I cannot wait until this Novemeber 8th to cast my YES vot on I-901!

First off, smoking does NOTHING for our future! All it is, a WASTE of $$$! Maybe smokers need to try to take some classes to relieve the stress, or boredome due to smoking! When I go out, it stinks me up, stings my eyes since I wear contacts and serves no purpose! I am wasting good $$$ on perfume to go out and start smelling like smoke after an hour! VOTE YES!!

HEY, ALL YOU EX-SMOKERS WHO ARE FOR 901...WHAT A BUNCH OF INSENSITIVE HYPOCRITES! YOU MAY NOT SMOKE NOW, BUT I BET YOU WERE GLAD THERE WERE PLACES TO GO WHEN YOU DID -AND- I BET YOU WOULD HAVE VOTED DIFFERENTLY BACK THEN! HYPOCRITE!

NOW, I'M "NOT ADVOCATING" TO KEEP THE WAY THINGS ARE, BUT 901 GOES TOO FAR, WHEREAS "SENATE BILL 5909" GETS THE JOB DONE AND IS MORE HUMANE FOR EVERYONE. THIS IS AS FAIR AS IT GETS.

PERSONALLY, I QUESTION THIS WHOLE SECONDHAND SMOKE THING BECAUSE ALOT MORE PEOPLE SMOKED IN THE 50's and 60's AND US KIDS FROM THAT GENERATION WHO DON'T SMOKE SHOULD BE HAVING PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT...WE DON'T. HOWEVER, IT DOES SMELL, BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO VOTE FOR THE "HIDDEN AGENDA" OF 901..IT DOES HOWEVER,
PROPEL ME TO GET "SENATE BILL 5909" PASSED.

PLEASE VOTE NO on 901 -and- YES ON "SB 5909"

Comment to:
Roquel at October 11, 2005 07:43 AM
who wrote:
"As far as I know, tabacco is still legal - so how can the government tell us we cannot partake in a LEGAL activity?"

You're correct it is a legal activity...a *REGULATED* legal activity. Regulated, for one, to protect the health of people who are being inadvertently impacted by the negative effects of it. Sounds like a logical regulation to me.

Smoking is horrible. What's w/ all these young punks in Kirkland that constantly chain smoke at places like Tiki Joe's Cantina, The Central, etc. I truly hate it! I like to go see live music often, but my biggest complaint about when I do not go is " I don't feel like smelling cig smoke tonite" It's a complete nuisance!!! Also them losers that tend too smoke right outside the door, let them take a hike to be within 20 feet of any entrance. Especially at them airports!

I don't understand how a "sin" place such as a bar should be restricted to only drinking. Maybe you outspoken few should pass this law over in Kirkland or whereever you're from.

Don't ruin the bars for people just because you don't like the non-smoking bars that DO exist. It's not our fault that smokers are inherently cooler than non-smokers (yes, that's the reason you want to hang out in the smoking bars).

And for the folks that talk about 75% of the population doesn't smoke, go to a bar and actually could the number of people who smoke vs. those that don't. Keep in mind the entire population doesn't go out drinking.

If you don't like the bars and restaurants in your local neighborhood and really think you'd gain customers being non-smoking I suggest you take out a second mortgage and put your money where your mouth is instead of trying to get other business to cater to the minority.

VOTE NO ON I-901.
Every since the 1993 laws outlawing smoking in private office buildings. The bars, restaurants and bowling alleys have come a long way to keep the air clean in their place of business. Businesses have spent thousands of dollars on equipment to remove the smoke in their business, adding outside patios and decks to accommodate non-smoking customers. There are smoking and non-smoking establishments, smoking areas and non-smoking areas that have worked but there has been a hidden agenda. The secondhand smoke theory is just that, secondhand.You tell people the same thing over and over they start believing it. The hidden agenda is a move by certain groups of people who want to control others by eliminating smoking. Next on there agenda is to do the same tactics for obesity, which they have already started, alcohol and yes
the things we do behind closed doors. I-901 is the start to eliminate your freedom.Jim Jones of the People's Temple had a loyal following of about 1000 people and look what Hitler did. It goes to show how people can be used and brainwashed.
I have to laugh a little; your only here for a short time, your not going to live forever, but you may think so.
Non-smoker

RIGHT ON GEORGE! HOWEVER...

ALTHOUGH I AGREE THAT IT'S THE BUSINESSES DECISION...I ALSO HAVE TO SAY "SENATE BILL
5909" IS F-A-I-R FOR E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E.

ALSO, THIS SHOULD BE ON A LOCAL LEVEL AND N-O-T
ON A STATE LEVEL.

NO ON 901....YES ON SENATE BILL 5909

I-901 is going to pass, and it is going to pass BIG. The reason, smokers are a pathetically weak dying breed, and even they know it. This is just the first step. Smokers have encroached on our rights to clean air for too long, and this is the beginning of the reversal of their arrogance.

And for those business owners whining about the government interferring with their rights, did that ever come up when the health department came in and told you how to keep and prepare your food, or when the fire marshal found that overloaded extension cord, or that you had too many people for the occupancy rating. How about the fact that you had to remodel your bathroom to meet the new ADA federal guidlines. Ask the owners of The Station in Rhode Island how important government control is on business.

I also have adult on-set asthma. In less than four years I have suffered 76 asthma attacks, one requiring oxygen, two required an ambulance, and one of those ended in the emergency room. The trigger for EVERY one of these attacks was tobacco smoke. I try to avoid it; I'm a virtual hermit, except for my job, but yet I still have suffered needlessly. I know my life is endangered by tobacco, that I am breathing disabled, and I will need inhalers and medications for the rest of my life. I must carry a nebulizer with me where ever I go. Am I bitter about it? You bet, since I have never smoked in my life, yet my life is threatened by every smoker in the area. (People DO die from asthma; I am determined not to be one of them.)
Some people think it is their right to smoke; I could not disagree more. To me, it's like guns; it's not legal to use shoot them in public, especially when there are others around. Why should tobacco be any different? There is no Consitutional right to smoke, and using it in public can cause someone, (like me, for instance), to die. If someone wants to smoke, make them do it in their own closed house. Not in their cars, (with the windows down), not in the park, and certainly not outside any buildings. (If second hand smoke is not harmful, why does every smoker roll down a car window, usually before they even light up?)
As for smokers being "inherently cooler" than non smokers, that's a laugh. The brain washing of advertising has some folks feeling that way, but THINKING, independent individuals know better. Smoking isn't cool, it's dangerous, and it's deadly. My motto? "Smokers suck, then they die." Unfortunately, it's all too true.

It's funny how debasihg the already down trodden seems to gain popularity during times of low moral. I guess these "Dudley Do Gooder's" feel
better about themselves, regarless of fairness and compassion. I doubt Jesus would have ever been so judgemental. Oh yea, he wasn't.

I doubt EVERY asthma atack was from smoking, Deb.
Additives in food, processed food, car polution,
Spraying just to have your lawn green, these as well as alot of other polutants trigger asthma.

With over 75% of non smoking places to choose from, it would seem you're looking for an excuse to justify your prejudice.

Smoking in Ca. is fine outside...they don't have 10 degree weather! AND, I've been to Ca., and they smoke inside too! Same with NY.

Read SB 5909 and if you don't think that is the best bill for this debate, then I wouldn't want a sanctimonious prejudicial person like you in my life, employment or otherwise. WWJD?

I-901 is about two things, fairness and health. Non-smoking hospitality workers suffer twice the risk of lung cancer because of their involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Workers in other industries don't have to choose between their paycheck and their health because worker safety and health regulations protect them from all kinds of workplace hazards. Employers haven't had a free hand to expose workers to hazardous working conditions for over thirty years in this state. Why should hospitality workers have less protection than white collar jobs?

The only industry that loses money when smoke free laws are passed is the tobacco industry.

The "lost freedom" arguments from opponents are completely bogus. It is the height of irony for smokers to talk about freedom when their addiction forces them to buy and use this stuff every day despite their desire to quit and the economic and health costs.

Look, smoke all you want, but not where others can get sick from it It's America, you can jump off a cliff - just don't ask me to hold hands with you when you go.

I-901 IN IT'S "ENTIRETY" IS ABOUT NEITHER, JOHN.

OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T READ THE "WHOLE INITIATIVE"
OR YOU WOULDN'T BE SAYING THAT,IF YOU'RE ANY KIND OF A THOUGHTFUL HUMAN BEING..and i have doubts.

1) WHAT SOUNDS GOOD ON THE SURFACE "NO SMOKING
INDOORS" WOULD BE JUST OK IF IT ENDED THERE..
-BUT NO- THIS ZEALOT MR. COVERT (apropo name,
by the way) WANTED TO FLUFF UP HIS OWN
FEATHERS EVEN FURTHER. (this is where it gets
unjust and the inequity of 901 comes into
play)

2) SMOKE DISSIPATES OUTDOORS WITHIN 8ft. THE
25ft. rule IS TOTALLY BOGUS. OBVIOUSLY THE
ONLY THING mr. covert WANTS TO DO IS
DISSIPATE SMOKERS...AND THAT "IS"
UNCONSTITUTIONAL."

3) HOTELS CAN ONLY HAVE 20% SMOKING ROOMS. WHAT
IF A DELEGATE OF ASIANS (who think we're
nuts anyway) WANTED TO RENT OUT THE WHOLE
SET OF ROOMS FOR A CONVENTION..OOPS. SORRY
MR. HOTEL OWNER, LOST REVENUE FOR YOU!

4) PRIVATE MEANS PRIVATE. PERIOD.

5) SMOKING IN ONE'S CAR IS THIER BUSINESS.

6) THERE'S MORE, BUT MR. ZEALOUT LOST ME WHEN
HE ADDED ALL THIS EXTRA "LET'S REALLY GET'EM
CRAP TO THE INITIATIVE."

AND WHY IS IT ALWAYS SOME "POOR FEMALE" WHO IS ALWAYS POTRAYED AS "THE VICTIM" OF THOSE
HEARTLESS EVIL SMOKERS? CHANCES ARE--SHE/HE
SMOKES HER/HIS SELF. THE REST OF THE NON SMOKING
WAIT PEOPLE ALREADY WORK AT THE OVER 75% NON-
SMOKING ESTABLISHMENTS.

LAY OFF THE "POOR ME" VICTIM..IT'S TIRESOME!!

OH YEA, I DON'T SMOKE BUT I BELIVE IN BEING FAIR TO ALL, SOMETHING I-901 FAILS TO DO.

Smokers you should be ashamed of yourself. If you could smoke without exhaling and without lighting up I'm sure this would not be an issue. You insist on exhaling away from you and lighting up. How many of you hold your cigarets away from your face. In the car you hold it out the window. Why? Maybe because you don't want to smell it. We don't either. I got asthma from second had smoke. I worked in the resturant/bar industry for 8 years before they knew of all the bad effects. I changed careers 8 years ago but it was too late for me. We can't go to any music bar, most conserts and I have to hold my breath when I go into any building. How is that fair to me? Smokers throw their cigarets out the car window, drop them on the sidewalks, dump their ashtrays in parking lots, and start fires both at home and in forests. Maybe if smokers were more considerate of others this wouln't have been an issue but carless smokers made it one. VOTE YES 901

This guy,

"Posted by: DaysonJones at October 9, 2005 05:04 PM

I think it is a bad idea. I have Asthma and have been a non-smoker for eight days now. I smoked for thirteen years yet I still think I-901 is silly. We need to stop taking away our own rights no matter how smart or stupid our rights may be. God Bless"

You rights are NOT BEING TAKEN AWAY, WE'RE GIVING THEM BACK TO ALL OF US WHO BREATHE. Your rights stop where mine begins. If your habit can kill or maim me, you have violated MY rights. Right. It's all about compromise and fairness. Go smoke at home, but not around children.

To TW and STEVE,

I am sorry about your asthma and perhaps you didn't see my more humane solution in the
alternative bill SB-5909.

Simply stated it says: THERE HAS TO BE A SEPERATE
SMOKING ROOM FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO SMOKE, BUFFERED BY AN AREA SO THE SMOKE DOESN'T FILTER
BACK INTO THE AJOINING NON SMOKING AREA. I DON'T
LIKE TO SMELL SMOKE EITHER, BUT STANDING OUTSIDE
IN 5 degree weather IS JUST PLAIN CRUELTY, -and-
the 25ft. rule..well who came up with that crap!

SMOKERS DESERVE TO BE TREATED HUMANELY AND NOT
LESS THAN JUNKYARD DOGS, THEY'RE STILL PART OF
THE HUMAN RACE TOO..however misguided. THAT'S
WHY I SUGGESTED A BETTER ALTERNATIVE IN "SENATE
BILL 5909." SO, I SAY....
"NO ON 901" AND "YES ON SB-509" give it a try!
READ BOTH BILLS, AND YOU'LL SEE THE LATER GETS
THE JOB DONE JUST AS WELL, AND MORE HMANELY TOO!

To:
Posted by: Steve Geller at October 12, 2005 09:43 PM
The quote you quoted...
"I think it is a bad idea. I have Asthma and have been a non-smoker for eight days now. I smoked for thirteen years yet I still think I-901 is silly. We need to stop taking away our own rights no matter how smart or stupid our rights may be. God Bless"
...was written by "Jason Chilcote at October 9, 2005 05:07 PM" above and not DaysonJones.

I read them both, and thought I'd clear the air...pun intended. ;-)

I am _SO_ going to vote yes on this initiative. I registered to vote SPECIFICALLY
because of I901. I frequently go to non-tribal cas_inos, and I HATE coming home
smelling like an ashtray. It's about damn time that this became law.

That idiot manager/owner of Skyway Bowl really ticked me off. He said "just go
somewhere else." That's NOT POSSIBLE with bowling alleys. To my knowledge, there's
only one alley that doesn't allow smoking, and they don't open until November.

Look out smokers, your days are numbered.

I support I-901. A smoking ban has been popular and successful in California and New York, among other places. How is this not a no-brainer? VOTE YES!!!!!

Alan, the brainwashers gotcha.

I am a smoker.I have been pushed outside(in sleet,snow and rain)in most cases.To ban all bars etc. would just discriminate against us smokers.Have we not endured enough?Even outside I have people walk by and cough loudly or even have the balls to tell me how bad smoking is.Is there not enough non-smoking bars and restaurants etc.?

You poor smokers. First, we tell you you have to wear a motorcycle helmet, then we force you to fasten your car safety belt. Now you're being told to step outside and smoke! I'm voting for I-901 because I care about you.

Finally an initiative that saves lives. I have asthma and try to eat right, exercise and abstain from tobacco. I am inundated at my place of work by employees who smoke outside my workplace. No one should have to be subjected to pass by smoke in order to get to their work area. If the employers like Boeing can't do it, an initiative/law will.

I am allergic to second-hand smoke. This is not a mere inconvenience, I get sick. It's a great idea to make smokers move farther away from the front door.

I live on a main street where smokers think my front yard is their personal garbage can.

I realize the initiative won't fix this. But, I'd be happy with what it can do.

Why not leave it up to the business owner and if you don't like smoke, then don't give them any of your money. It is terrible that idiots don't understand that it is not their right to go into a private business. It is privlage. If I went to a child care facility and they had religious signs in the child care facility and I didn't want my child looking at them or being influenced by it then I would go to another child care facility. It is that easy and if your such an idiot that you do not understand that then maybe I will open a restruant where the clothing uniform is nothing. You choose to come to it if you want.

Oh yeah, you allergy is not the concern of the business owner. Maybe you should consider opening your own smoke free bar and then you can have a smoke free estabilshment, but stop getting the government to do what you afraid to do. Grab you nut and open your own business.

If you only hope at getting a job is a smoke filled bar, I suggest you consider buger king or mcdonalds. They are smoke free by choice and doing good.

Ciggs are bad and they should simply be outlawed. its a nasty addiction. If most people could quit they would. It's a healt care epidemic. I cant justify letting people smoke in places where any one wants a breath of fresh air

YOU SANCTIMONIOUS I-901 CREEPS ARE THE WORST
THAT HUMAN NATURE HAS TO OFFER!

AND TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S (ANYONE'S) RIGHTS TO PROMOTE YOUR IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SMOKERS, HOW?!

HYPOCRITES!!

The right to breathe clean air trumps the right to pollute it.

from my prior post
The hidden agenda is a move by certain groups of people who want to control others by eliminating smoking. Next on there agenda is to do the same tactics for obesity, which they have already started, alcohol and yes
the things we do behind closed doors. I-901 is the start to eliminate your freedom.
Read the moring Seattle Times on OBESITY. Your freedom is sliping away.

Hate to check in so late, but Jeff is right on this one, though perhaps a bit overstated.

I personally know one of the point men on I-901 (hint - he was on KING 5 recently) and he is, at best, a Nanny State Socialist. You know the type: more enlightened and intelligent, supposedly, than the rest of us. He's still a friend, but his idea of Liberty is that you're free to do what you like, as long as he agrees with you.

While we're at it, anyone recall something called the Constitution? Says something there about some abstract called "Freedom of Association".

Of course, this is lost on all of the Smarter Than Thous.

Don't like smoke? Here's an idea: Don't work for or patronize a smoking-friendly establishment. Make your own choices. You might find liberty rather liberating.

The right to breathe clean air trumps the right to pollute it.

I'm a smoker and have always respected others rights to breath clean air. But then, the air is not that clean. Toxic particles are all around us from the emissions of our automobiles. Those emission are far more dangerous then second hand smoke. Just ask anybody that works for the EPA. So, once this ban is passed, then we can start on getting rid of all of those cars, factories etc.

Hey, our medical insurance should be cheaper. You see, we smokers may die earlier. But the true high cost of medical insurance is the longevity of people who's long list of drugs and doctors that keep them alive for another 10-20 years. It costs more to take care of someone who lives longer then it does for someone to die early.

Twenty-five feet away from any establishment to be able to smoke. Cool! Don't want to mix my second hand with those gas particulets.

Actually, you should be nicer to us smokers. We pay so much in taxes that support the gereral fund. Why, if we stopped smoking, the tax collector would be coming after you to pay up your share.

Have a good day!

Interesting reading. The hysteria from the smokers about their rights is entertaining. Personally, I could care less who smokes outside, in their own home or car, etc. However, having said that so many of the arguments against the intiative are based on specious or faulty logic. I don't have time to go into all of them so will just address one of the most common ones.

Myth #1 It is a private place of business so don't patronize it.

Well now, history showed us how that argument worked during the Jim Crow regime of the south. How would you like it if you said that to a woman because of her sex, a minority because of their skin color, etc. I think you get the point. Long ago the judicial branch of government decided you could not do that. If you own a private rental property you can't not rent to someone because of the color of their skin.

Not only does this whole private argument not stand the test of law regarding patronization, it also doesn't stand under OSHA rules and guidelines. Business, whether public or private, if they employ workers have to follow a litany of local, state, and federal laws regarding worker safety, etc.

I would love to go into the civil rights issue also but can't at this time. Suffice it say that the initiative will pass, smokers will still smoke, and just like the businesses in states who have passed a law like this one there will be little or no impact on business. It is a done deal so relax.

First, my post of Oct 11, 2005 is attributed to “Lyon”, and a response to that post is attributed to me! So by responding to that post, I almost feel like I am talking to myself. Of course, when someone states the cause of their asthma attacks, I would never be so judgmental, “sanctimonious or prejudicial” as to question them. Since I was there, and I am the victim who documented all of my attacks, I am confident that I know the trigger; I should not have to be questioned and ridiculed by someone who has never met me. If someone has a reaction from a bee sting, is that person questioned about his or her trigger? I am no different; I was there, I know the circumstances, and in most cases, I have witnesses as to what caused my attacks. Just because you cannot accept the fact that people can and do react in a life-threatening fashion to tobacco smoke does not mean that it does not happen.

Why call me names and hide behind religion? WWJD? Well, since the Bible never mentions Jesus smoking, nor was tobacco known in that part of the world at that time, I am sure he was not a smoker. Moreover, since he preached, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, I am sure he would not have forced others to be subjected to a life-threatening habit.

How does wanting to stop smoking in public buildings or within 25 feet of a door or window “debase the down trodden”? Well, I guess if people are so hooked on tobacco that they will buy tobacco products before necessities, then that is their problem and decision; mine is trying to avoid life-threatening asthma attacks. What is fair and compassionate about smoking? Most smokers do not concern themselves with how others will react to their second hand smoke. (If they did, we would not have to have this issue on the ballot.) I am not trying to “feel better about myself” by supporting I-901, I am trying to regain control of my life. I want to be able to go out and stand in line outside a building so I can attend an event inside it, go to a concert, or even just walk down the street without the fear of being “assaulted” by second hand smoke.

As to “over 75% of non smoking places to chose from…” sure, if all you want to eat is fast food. I prefer something a bit healthier. However, if someone chooses to smoke, then the fact that it is 10 degrees outside should not be my problem.

I collected many signatures for this initiative and I still have people thanking me for helping it reach the ballot. I assisted the effort in California when I lived there, and I assisted when I moved here. If I ever have to move again, I will assist again if needed. Of course, I hope that smoke free will become the way of the future.

Ever hear about the helmet law? The seatbelt law? Who is fighting these? These are designed to protect people from themselves. They also protect people without means to place an unreasonable burden on society. Smokers do this every day. Who wants to chip in and play for some indigent guy's $million hospital bill after he crashes his motorcycle and has a head injury. Nor do I want to pay for medicare recipients treatment of avoidable diseases like lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease.

People should practice this disgusting, self destructive habbit behind the closed doors of their own home, hidden and ashamed.

The truth is, that this is one step closer to getting rid of smoking altogether. That is the future, whether it is 25 or 100 year from now. The truth is, that if we had all of the money used to treat smoking related illnesses saved up, we could probably wipe out childhood disease and hunger. And the money people spend on cigarettes... throw in curing a few types of cancer.

Waitresses/Waiters should not have to breathe second hand smoke in order to keep their jobs. Knowing a lot of people that experience a lot of ill effects from second hand smoke (including myself), we avoid restaurants that allow smoking. There is absolutely no good reason for smokers to impose their habits onto others around them. I understand that smokers have rights, but so do non-smokers and employees. Employers will benefit in the long run by not exposing their employees to second hand smoke. They will benefit by their employees taking less sick days because they are healthier. There are numerous studies that show the illnesses that are caused by, or are made worse by, smoke! Let's protect the workers!

I think people are scared of the what if's. When California banned smoking they were worried also.It seems they are not hurting, than Washington will be fine too.
In 1998 my husband and I quiet smoking. With that we have not been dancing, bowling or have not shot pool or played darts. We have given a lot of our money to the video stores.
We hope this passes. Although I have been on the other side of the fence. After all, people who don't smoke have the right to go to places with out the hazard of second hand smoke.

FOR A PERSON WITH ASTHMA, YOU CERTAINLY ARE
LONG WINDED..AND I MEAN "L-O-N-G W-I-N-D-E-D!"

ONCE AGAIN IT IS ALL ABOUT YOU..YOU-YOU-YOU! :-(

I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW US PROOF THAT SECONDHAND
SMOKE IS "SOLELY" RESPONSIBLE FOR "ALL" THE
DISEASE AND PESTILENCE YOU CONSTITUTIONAL,
CIVIL RIGHTS SQUASHING ZEALOTS SEEM TO SCREAM
THAT IT'S DOING!

FYI: THE EPA WHO STARTED ALL THIS HYSTERIA BACK
IN 1992 WAS SUED AND LOST FOR THE OMISSION OF
"ALL" EVIDENCE BY JUST ADDING WHAT THEY WANTED
YOU TO READ....IN SHORT, "THEY LIED."
(OSTEEN DECISION 1998)

I HOPE OUR GOOD WASHINGTION LEGISLATORS WILL
SEE PAST THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL/BS BILL AND
RIGHT THE WRONG YOU PIOUS PUKES HAVE MANAGED
TO BRAINWASH THE USUALLY FAIR WASHINGTONIANS
WITH. LET'S ENVOKE SB-5909 AND TRULY BE
VISIONARY NOT VENGEANCE(CY).

FAIRNESS FOR ALL

PS. LIKE CALIFORNIA IS A SHINING EXAMPLE OF
A STATE TO EMULATE...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

SMOKING SALONS...VERY CHIC/VERY FAIR.

EL GAUCHO comes to mind.

PS. That's not a "fast food" place, Deb.

Actually, fairnessforall... The case against the EPA was reversed a couple of years ago. It seemed that the tobacco industry bought off the presiding judge. The EPA report and the hundreds since then are all valid.

Only a moron would contend that breathing smoke isn't bad for you.

Well, I for one am glad you bunch of wimps are out there protecting me from those nasty smokers!
Here is a novel approach...dont go to establishments that allows smoking.
I am in the process of opening a lounge with a completely separate, walled off cigar smoking area, and if this goes into effect even THAT would be illegal. Do you folks honestly think that is fair? I cant even smoke in my own establishment in a contained smoking area, with other smokers?
I agree wholeheartedly about REAL public areas (around doorways, etc.) being smoke free, but a private business IS NOT a public area.
For all the people that say that smoking is the reason for high health care costs, blah, blah, blah... How may other variables also drive up health care costs? Obesity comes to mind So we need to start our NEXT initiative by outlawing fattening food and making mandatory exercise programs. Dont make statements that are completely unfounded to try and prove a point.
For the previous comment about the 25/75 split of smokers/non-smokers being the "Ultimate Democratic decision" What a crock!!! That is a lot of things...a democratic approach it is not! A democratic approach is this; If you dont want to drink, dont buy alcohol. If you dont want to fly, dont buy a plane ticket. If you dont want to be around smokers, then stay out of the smoking establishments!!! It is called a "Free Market" becuase it is supposed to be free and unhindered! Do you people not get that? 25/75 is a set up, not a fair chance for everyone involved.
Quit forcing your beliefs and views on everyone else, let EVERYONE choose for themselves instead of making the decision for everyone.

Here's my issue with I-901:

Any person interested in the protection of private property rights(private = business, club, etc.)should be vary aware of ANY legislation restricting, dictating or otherwise meddling with the use of what they have put their hard earned money into. The proprietor of a restraunt who risks many thousands shouldn't be "trumped" by a person risking $15-$20 for their meal.

My example of this is a greasy spoon in my neighborhood that has been there for years, with the same smoking policy. The whole place is designated smoking, and if you like the food it is also part of your meal. I know the owners, and they have been repeatedly verbally abused by people who come for the food - but dislike the smoke. So much so that they have been obliged to post multiple signs displaying their right to refuse service - and that if you don't like smoke you can leave.
This law I feel puts the owner and his family in jeapoardy, since naturally all of his repeat business smokes. One may presume that the word would get out about the great place, now improved without smoking, and business climbs up to usual levels in about six months or so. You could also assume that the guy could get a (or another) loan to tide him over.
What you're asking him to do is start over.

And I really don't care if this is the ONLY example of this situation - This is a case of the "rights" of the many over the rights of the few. So many people don't understand that the government our forefathers intended comprises of much more than "majority rules".

I am thinking of a case in a Chicago housing project where people were so distraught over the neighborhood drug problem, that they were prepared to do away with their fifth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Their proposed legislation would take their city block and make it available to law enforcement at all hours and without warrant or probable cause.
Possibly it would have solved their drug problem. Possibly. But what about their cop problem? I guess they could get a dog to eat the cat, that they got to eat the mouse - but where will it end?

There is no reason why common sense shouldn't prevail and allow the non-smoking person to use their legs and remove themselves from the situation. Dont MAKE business owners liable for certain people's tastes, let the market do it. That is the ultimate judge of what people want - and it pulls no punches.

Please think about your choices, because next time it could be you that gets hurt by overwrought and underthought legislation.

-Dave in Woodinville

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller