The Stranger is ruled by Big Tobacco

[maggie2]

The Stanger's reasoning for voting no on 901 is a lie. A bald faced lie that
carries every bit of destructive force as a lie from the Bush
administration, Enron, or any of the other forces of corruption The
Stranger loves to criticize.
The Stranger wants voters to vote no on 901, not because of the
25-Foot rule, but because it has its dirty, evil claws in tobacco
money. Camel ads permeate The Stranger, The Stranger's Capital Hill
Block party is sponsored by Tobacco, as are The Genius awards and
various music events.
The Stranger is every bit as evil as the worst corporate and
government criminals it loves to lampoon. The Stranger is ruled by Big
Tobacco. The Stranger has blood on its hands.
The 25-foot rule is totally negotiable. Any business that can
demonstrate that smoke within 25 feet will not reach inside its
establishment is not obligated to follow the rule. The 25-foot rule is a non-issue - it's being used as an excuse to promote pro-tobacco agendas.
If 901 fails to pass, workers will continue to breath smoke and many
will die prematurely from it.
You are the worst kind of hypocrites - you are not liberal. You are
corrupt. You are evil.
You anti-901 people need to wake up and truly examine the issue. Read the facts. Educate yourself. Examine the success of similar laws throughout the country and the world.

[grammarcop]

Have you ever actually read The Stranger, or is this a cut-and-paste polemic against all media organizations that dare to oppose this latest attempted infringement on civil rights?

Considering Dan Savage is a known and rabid anti-smoker, it shows how little you know about this paper that you would assume these editorial endorsements are affected by advertising copy.

If you were a regular reader of The Stranger, you'd see a recurring anti-smoking message that creeps into the editor's writing, both in his nationally syndicated column and his articles for local consumption.

The cigarette ads have never managed to affect any of the scores of other anti-smoking messages in The Stranger. Why on earth would they have any bearing on this endorsement, which contains the phrase "we would have loved to endorse a statewide smoking ban"? (Not to mention the laudatory language describing in loving detail successful smoking bans in other states.)

The Stranger's reasoning is correct. Passing 901 would be a de facto license to harass. That alone is reason to reject it, whether or not you are a fan of smoking. Certainly liberals and conservatives alike can agree that our overworked police force has enough to do without getting out a tape measure and ticketing adults engaging in legal, nonlewd behavior on public, outdoor property.

It amuses me how critics of The Stranger claim it's a cog in the vast left-wing conspiracy in one breath, then imagine it in the pockets of Big Tobacco in the next.

[maggie2]

I-901 an infringement on civil rights? What right does anyone have to blow toxic smoke in my airspace? What right does any bar owner have to subject his workers and customers to cancer-causing fumes? "The right to swing my fist ends at the tip of the other mans nose", said Oliver Wendell Holmes.
You say non-smokers should look for work elsewhere? Why should non-smokers be disadvantaged in a competitive work environment? What if a worker who works in a smoky environment wants to quit smoking? She'll also have to quit her job if she wants to breath clean air. Is this fair?
When I walk into a hip dance club, local bowling alley, or billiard hall, aren't I being discriminated against by wanting to breath clean air? Why should I be inconvenienced and drive way out of my way to find a non-smoking venue? What if I can't find a smoke-free venue? What if all my friends want to go to a certain bar but I can't because I'm allergic to smoke - why should I have to choose hanging out with my friends over breathing clean air? What if I can't see my favorite comedian or listen to my favorite musician because the venue is too smoky for me? There are plenty of bands I am unable to see because every goddamn venue in this miserable city is smoky as hell. Your civil rights argument is horseshit.

As for reading The Stranger - since I-901 got on the ballot there has not been a single positive word said for 901 - not in an editorial, article, or letter. You call this unbiased? - when 66 percent of the voting public is for 901? Where is their point of view? Anti-smoking sentiment may "creep in", as you say, but pro-smoking sentiment is up front, loud and clear.

And why undermine the fact that The Stranger takes so much tobacco money? The tobacco ads and promotions permeate the paper - the money generated is significant. Of course it influences their politics. In fact, The Stranger should have refrained from endorsing 901 at all because their business dealings with tobacco make their opinions, at the very least, suspect.

The 25-foot Rule: I have tested it. I had a smoker friend stand 25 feet from the entrance where I work. The front area of the building filled with cigarette smoke. 2 or 3 smokers outside a nightclub would fill the nightclub with smoke, defeating the purpose of the ban. 25 feet is not enough, but it will have to do.

When 901 passes, venues will be able to create legal smoking areas and there will be no trouble at all. The entire country of Italy has a 25 foot rule. Read up. They have had no significant hassle.

You're worried about smokers being harrassed on the streets? What about smokers harassing workers by giving them lung cancer? You think that's extremist thinking? There are workers in this state who have died from secondhand smoke. Slow miserable deaths. I can give a f**k about some poor smoker who has to walk an extra 25 feet away from a building so he can get his fix. He can smoke all he want, but get it the everloving f**k away from me when I'm out having a good time with my friends.

[grammarcop]

First off, the infringement on civil rights I refer to is not the right to smoke. It is the right of free association, which would be at heavy risk were police officers able to target patrons of bars and nightclubs they don't like -- that is, gay bars.

Second, you make several faulty assumptions in your counterargument. I never claimed The Stranger was unbiased -- of COURSE election endorsements, as a type of opinion statement, are going to be biased toward a certain side. As for whether The Stranger has run negative words against the smoking ban, I refer you to http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Letters?oid=22151, in which arguments both for and against I-901 are published online in the interest of printing a complete record of letters to the editor. As you can see by looking at the page, the Letters section of The Stranger (or any other newspaper, for that matter) does not print all letters received. There are far more letters that never see print than those that do. And by making all of the letters in question available online, The Stranger goes above and beyond -- this is NOT a standard media practice.

Third, you assign arguments to me that I never made, here or in any other venue. I didn't say anything about your right to work, or your right to breathe, or your right to have fun with your friends. Don't put words in my mouth.

Fourth, The Stranger is not the only local paper opposed to I-901. The Seattle Weekly opposes it for much the same reason as The Stranger (anti-smoking, but realizing this initiative overreaches); The Seattle Post-Intelligencer opposes I-901 because it's an endrun around the legislative process.

Finally, The Stranger is not expressing any sort of "pro-smoking" stance in its opposition to Initiative 901. Several times, the editorial board has made its position clear: They hate smoking and would support a workable ban, but I-901 goes too far.

[JohnR]

I have a hard time finding that anti-smoking message in The Stranger. But with all it's "Camel Casino" ads, this publication sure takes the guesswork out of getting to the RJ Reynolds website. This is a big help to RJR because the age group The Stranger appeals the most to is just what any cigarette company wants. Thanks in part to The Stranger, these large corporations can get some more young people hooked. So what if it kills them? So what if secondhand smoke kills the bartender? He should get another job or maybe just quit working so it can kill the bartender who replaces him.

[DrOctopu5]

Originally Posted by maggie2

The 25-foot Rule: I have tested it. I had a smoker friend stand 25 feet from the entrance where I work. The front area of the building filled with cigarette smoke. 2 or 3 smokers outside a nightclub would fill the nightclub with smoke, defeating the purpose of the ban. 25 feet is not enough, but it will have to do.

OMG. You are exactly the kind of non-smoker that makes smokers want to KEEP SMOKING, afraid they will become UTTERLY INSANE LIKE YOU IF THEY QUIT.

Keep up the good work.

[Shady_B_206]

Maggie

Quit bitching and start your own club. Wait, that would be to hard......

wimp

[maggie2]

To the Editors and the Election board:

Here's the issue: a few articles on the success of smoking bans in other states doesn't erase the fact that your newspaper profits from Big Tobacco - and that profit nullifies the legitimacy of your position on 901. You cannot divorce the two - tobacco is in your interest, and anything that harms tobacco, such as a statewide ban, is harmful to your interests. Period.
And it's not just a few cigarette ads - Camel ashtrays, large neon signs, and posters are a ubiquitous presence at your Capitol Hill Block Parties. Tobacco is a well known and controversial contributor to your Genius Awards (talk about hypocrisy!). Camel Casino, tobacco sponsored music events, and full color Camel ad inserts are a few more examples of your dependence on tobacco. How do you defend taking that blood money? Answer that.
The 25-foot rule controversy is drummed up, bogus bullshit. It's a smokescreen for the real issue - that workers are forced to breath cancer at their jobs. This business about selective enforcement is ludicrous - it has no basis in fact. It's all speculative and it's pure hype. All the pro-tobacco nut-jobs are using it and I am astounded and depressed that you've latched on to it as well.
It's time for you people to look in the mirror - you can't rationalize your ties to tobacco any longer and still sleep at night. You're as bad as the worst corporations out there - you are selling lies, deceit, and death. -and that is not a reactionary, overblown, emotional rant - that is the sad truth.

[Dan Savage]

When it comes to the tobacco companies, we've bitten that hand—one of the many that feeds us—so many times that I’m amazed they've still got hands for us to chomp into. I am, as has been pointed out, a rabid anti-smoker, most of the staffers at the paper's are anti-smoking, and our editorial content, particularly my column, is pronounced in its hostility to smoking and smokers.

We could not, however, endorse 901 due to the 25 foot rule and the certainty—past being prologue—that the SPD would, through selective enforcement, use the 25 foot rule to harass patrons at bars and clubs the SPD doesn’t like, a.k.a. hip-hop clubs, gay clubs, clubs that are “loud,” etc.

In our editorial board debate about what to do about 901 we stressed out for a moment that urging a “no” vote would lead people to accuse us of caving to business interests—but not, ironically, to the tobacco business. Look through the paper, kids. Most of our ads are from…? They’re not from cigarette companies. We actually don’t get that many ads from tobacco companies. Most of our ads are from bars and clubs and restaurants, and most bar owners, club owners, and restaurant owners are opposed to smoking bans.

But we didn’t cave to bar and club owners anymore than we caved to tobacco. We urged a “no” vote because the authors of 901 fucked up, period. The 25 foot rule was a mistake, and for us it was a deal-breaker. As we pointed out in the paper, an initiative is a blunt object—you have to swing it carefully. It is the responsibility of the authors of an initiative to get it right. They can’t expect us to endorse, or voters to pass, laws that are well-intentioned but badly written, dangerous, and vague.

As for Genius, which wasn’t sponsored by a tobacco company this year (it was sponsored by ArtPatch, an anti-tobacco project sponsored by the health department), yes, we took tobacco money and gave it to artists. I viewed the tobacco company’s money as a self-imposed sin tax. Anti-tobacco types generally support taxing cigarettes to pay for socially beneficial programs like health care programs, anti-smoking campaigns, etc. Same deal with Genius, so far as I was concerned. The first two years of the Genius Awards were no dirtier for “taking” tobacco money than the health care programs, youth programs, and water quality programs that are funded by taxes on tobacco in Washington state are dirty for “taking” tobacco money.

As for the ads in the paper, well, that’s not editorial’s department. We don’t decide who advertises and who doesn’t. But I will say this: Like a ban on smoking in bars and clubs, a ban on cigarette advertising in newspapers and magazines will have to be imposed on everyone all at once. Just as few bar owners will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by banning smoking while other bars allow it, few papers will refuse tobacco ads so long as their competition can accept them.

[DrOctopu5]

Dan,

How DARE you be reasonable. I am shocked and appalled.

Sincerely,
An Evil Stranger Reader

[JohnR]

I-901 is a common sense worker's health initiative very similar to those in place in many U.S. communities and countries all over the world. Blowing the 25-foot rule (which is necessary and negotiable) out of proportion is just your way of changing the subject. Workers in the hospitality industry in Washington State are getting sick and dying because people get to smoke in their workplace. Workers in every other industry are protected. No one should have to inhale secondhand smoke at any job. It's discrimination. Don't you get it? When bans are in place, smokers just get used to going outside where they don't poison anyone. The only ones who really suffer are the cigarette companies because more people quit smoking and fewer young people, like most of your readers, get hooked. When people have to go outside, smoking is deglamourized and exposed for the addiction it really is. Do you understand that this saves lives? You should be ashamed of yourself for having no compassion for hospitality workers in our state. Disguise it as whatever you want. A lot of people have your number. Of course, RJ Reynolds will love you for it. Really, don't they already?

[maggie2]

A 25-foot rule is necessary and it is practical; it is designed to protect workers and patrons from cigarette smoke. Smokers standing next to a window or ventilation system can fill an establishment with smoke. It is reasonable that they are required to step 25-feet away.

Read Section six of 901 - owners have the right to contest the 25 foot provision if they can prove that smoke does not get in the building. There is also a provision for passersby - people with lit cigarettes who are walking on the sidewalk just passing an establishment will not be fined.

Venues will be able to inform their customers where they can legally smoke. If smokers smoke in that area, they won't be fined.

Similar provisions are law in hundreds of communities around the country. California state has a 20-foot rule; the entire country of Italy has a 25-foot rule.

Again, the 25-foot provision is necessary if venues are to be smoke-free. When 901 passes, fines will be appropriate for those who violate the law because workers and patrons will be at risk for exposure. Everyone who obeys this reasonable provision will not have to worry about a ticket - and this goes for any venue, be it gay, hip-hop, or otherwise.

The law is common sense, practical, and necessary - it also works great in other communities, states, and countries, and it will work in Washington State.

[DrOctopu5]

Originally Posted by maggie2

Venues will be able to inform their customers where they can legally smoke. If smokers smoke in that area, they won't be fined.

What does this mean?

"You can smoke on the double yellow line in the middle of the road, and you won't be fined. For smoking."

[maggie2]

You're funny, Octopu5.

[Jay]

As a stand-up comic, I can't wait for the ban to be enacted. Due to two surgeries to remove lumps in my sinuses from second-hand smoke, I have followed the advice of more doctors than I care to remember and not performed in the smoke for over a year. There is only ONE club in the whole state where all the shows are non-smoking. My choices are limited.
Most people are looking forward to the ban so when they're going through an entrance or waiting in line at the door to enter, they will not have to pass through or wait in a toxic fog, or have the smoke be sucked back into the building. To protect the public's health, the 25 foot rule is a blessing, and it's already in effect in 325 other communities. We're not really breaking new ground here, folks.
The Stranger's and some opponents' rationale for opposing 25 feet is that it will supposedly "force smokers out onto the streets". When high density areas such as Pioneer Square and Lower Queen Ann were actually studied, walked and inspected, "out on the streets" proved to be a fallacy based on application of the initiative and flexible exemptions granted. In Pioneer Square for example, it was found the farthest one would have to walk from any bar or restaurant(Il Choriso) was 60 feet along the sidewalk(north then east). That's the distance between home plate and the pitcher's mound. Detractors seem to forget that from an entrance to a building, you can actually step sideways.
Robert Jamieson in the PI wrote about the supposed ills of The Mecca and Dave Meinert's Mirabaue Room in lower Queen Ann. Upon inspection, from The Mecca and heading south on the sidewalk, there is 25 feet between it and the adjacent entrance to Blockbuster Video. Twenty five more feet and there are no more businesses and the smoker is home free. Dave Meinert also claims hardship with his Mirabaue Room. From his entrance, there is only ONE adjacent business to him(Kidd Valley to the north).Then, more open space. The total distance from his door to smoking bliss is 17 steps. Whether by intention or by oversight, focusing on 25 feet( twelve steps or a birdie putt) is really much ado about nothing.
Enforcement will not be an issue either. The statistics show that one year after enactment nationally and internationally, compliance with the bans is between 92 and 98 percent. Public approval of the bans increases to between 77 and 82 percent.
In order to protect workers and the public, asking the smoker to simply step outside for a minute and take a few steps sideways is hardly "an outrage". But it is a simple way to protect public health. Jay

[maggie2]

"We could not, however, endorse 901 due to the 25 foot rule and the certainty—past being prologue—that the SPD would, through selective enforcement, use the 25 foot rule to harass patrons at bars and clubs the SPD doesn’t like, a.k.a. hip-hop clubs, gay clubs, clubs that are “loud,” etc."

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

No smoker who obeys the 25-foot provision will be ticketed, harassed, or otherwise. Smokers who break the law deserve a ticket - because they are likely smoking where smoke can get inside an establishment, thereby compromising the health of those the law is meant to protect. The 25-foot rule is necessary, practical and reasonable - and similar provisions have been proven to work in hundreds of communities, cities, states, and countries around the world.

Cops have plenty of ways to harass venues and patrons they don't like without having to target people with lit cigarettes - they can simply enter an establishment, ask for I.D.'s in over-21 clubs, spot inebriated or disorderly people, or complain that loud music violates the peace. The SPD has plenty of ways to harass - the 25-foot rule wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

And talk about having a narrow view - you're worried about a few clubs here in Seattle - this is a statewide initiative. 901 applies to the entire state of Washington. That's 225,000 workers and millions of patrons in cities and counties you've never even heard of. You're going to deny them the right to breath clean air because you're worried about a few rogue SPD officers?

Some issues are black and white - that's why 901 detractors fire me up. 901 is a no-brainer. It's common sense. I want to puke when people try to tell me the sky is green and the grass is blue.

[amyjenniges]

Maggie, you'd make a terrible legislator. You'd adopt laws because they meant well, and were good intentioned, while ignoring the crucial details.

When it comes to initiatives, the voters are legislators. As we wrote in the endorsement: "in a state where the initiative process is so accessible to activists, voters have an obligation to scrutinize the measures that make it onto the ballot—assessing them not just in spirit, but in substance. Voters are acting as legislators. Just as we would expect an elected representative to reject flawed legislation because it has the potential to go awry, we are obligated to make sure citizen initiatives, while perhaps well-intentioned, are carefully calibrated and don't include clumsy language that could create new problems. This is the failing of I-901, the proposed statewide smoking ban."

Bring us a good initiative to ban smoking, and we'll gladly endorse it. But we aren't going to accept a half-assed one, just because it means well.

[sickbadthing]

Holy crap. maggie2, you're a psychotic fascist nutcase. You obviously take this issue very seriously. I'd hate to find out what else pushes your buttons.

[maggie2]

John Kerry was a "half-assed" candidate for President, and he was endorsed by The Stranger. Why? Because he was the lessor of two evils.
I do not agree that 901 is flawed - that's your premise. But according to your logic, you'd rather have workers and patrons go on breathing smoke than to pass an initiative that might inconvenience a few people. That's the same kind of logic that put Bush in the White House when leftist extremists voted for Nader.

[amyjenniges]

Of course we endorsed Kerry, even if he wasn't perfect. We have to have a president.

But we don't have to pass an initiative simply because it's on the table and the intention behind it is great. Our job is to scrutinize it, and we found that it's flawed. We've spent years reporting on SPD v. clubs, and that weighed heavily on our minds when we debated this one. You don't have to agree with us that it's flawed—and you don't have to vote no on it, as we recommended. But we felt it was our duty to point out this glaring problem, one that's going to bite the more urban, densest parts of Seattle in the ass. My guess is those dense areas where the 25 foot rule poses a problem for business owners trying to do the responsible thing, are probably the areas you'd most like to hang out—they are, after all, the areas to find "a hip dance club, local bowling alley, or billiard hall."

(P.S. - Our editorial board wanted so badly to endorse this that we all but ignored the lone "No on 901" guy during our endorsement meeting, and devoted the entire hour to giving the initiative proponants a chance to calm our fears about the 25 foot rule. They failed. They danced around, couldn't back up their claims, didn't know who would enforce it, etc. And that's after giving them ample warning that this was our one concern.)

[JohnR]

The Stranger has been working with Big Tobacco to promote it's deadly product for years and continues to do so. They have about as much right to tell voters about I-901 as Joe Camel himself. Who are they to urge voters to condemn Washington workers to death in smoke-filled rooms? 25-foot rule, my Ass! Just a convenient way to change the subject away from the death and destruction of workers. But, then, you've been promoting death and destruction for years, STRANGER!

[maggie2]

We have to have a President, and we have to have an indoor air policy. Through inaction, you will be "voting" for keeping lethal carcinogens in workplaces. Since you think 901 is flawed (it isn't) the greater of two evil's wins. How is that different from your reasoning for voting for Kerry? No difference.

I've presented arguments thus far that explain why 901 will do nothing to exacerbate problems with the SPD and clubs. I've heard no counter arguments. Nor have you explained how 901 is flawed in nomenclature or otherwise.

"(P.S. - Our editorial board wanted so badly to endorse this that we all but ignored the lone "No on 901" guy during our endorsement meeting, and devoted the entire hour to giving the initiative proponents a chance to calm our fears about the 25 foot rule. They failed. They danced around, couldn't back up their claims, didn't know who would enforce it, etc. And that's after giving them ample warning that this was our one concern.)"

This is really an astounding statement. Very depressing. I'm sorry if the campaign sent over a couple of dimwits to speak with you, but that's no reason to punish the workers and patrons of Washington State.

The only voice you need to listen to regarding your fears is the voice of reason. Of common sense. Look at the facts. Look at the success of similar laws around the world, many with "reasonable distance" provisions. Read the text of 901. It's all there and couldn't be clearer.

It's crystal clear who will enforce 901. The police. The police will write tickets similar to traffic tickets. No other entity I'm aware of besides the police has the authority to write such tickets. Where is the confusion?

The Health Department reports infractions to the authorities. It's all in the text. It couldn't be clearer - what the hell are you even talking about? I'm sorry but this is truly baffling.

I've heard lots of good arguments for voting for 901 over the last couple of days, right here in the Stranger forum. I've heard no legitimate arguments against it.

It's very frustrating. Especially since so much is at stake.

Think more on this, have another meeting, and retract your position on 901. It's not to late to correct yourself. I'm serious about this.

Swallow some pride and do what's right. Don't just stick to a bad position to save face. Think harder. Research better. Consider the startlingly profound positive ramifications of a statewide smoking ban. Consider how bad your recomendation will look in 2 years when 901 proves to be an astounding success.

[JohnR]

Makes sense coming from the owner of an establishment full of big "Camel" ashtrays and a large neon Camel on a cigarette machine. Anyone who works with Big Tobacco by advertising their products is in no position to talk to voters about I-901. No matter how many times you try to change the subject, this initiative is about protecting the health of workers who have to breathe toxic smoke on the job in places like the Mairabu room. They are breathing class A (known human) carcinogens continuously for hours as a condition of their employment, something workers in every other occupation in Washington have been protected from for years. I'm not talking about exhaust from cars- since I know you like to change the subject when it comes to secondhand smoke-I'm talking about the extreme and unnessary job hazard you inflict on your employees. It is a life or death situation and plenty of hospitality workers have already died or become unable to work and barely able to breathe from working in establishments like yours. You say the air inside the Mariabu room is "yours". "Your" air should not be regulated. What about that 2-week old meat you have laying around that's turning a little green? Should you be able to serve that to customers and employees too, with no regulation? It's "Yours". As for the 25-foot rule: It is necessary (and negotiable) to make establishments like yours safe to work in. It's a common sense provision and already in effect in hundreds of other, more progressive, communities. I know you don't want to go out of your way just so your employees don't have to inhale cancer-causing smoke with every breath of "YOUR AIR". But your bartender's bad health might become even more annoying to you than a smoking ban now that so much is known about secondhand hand smoke. Since you knowingly put workers on a steady diet of toxic chemicals, each one of them is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[maggie2]

Truly laughable arguments from Mr. Mirabeau Room.

If I were The Stranger, I'd be embarrassed to share his stance on 901.

"...most people feel that there is no objective standard for the (25' rule) exemptions and that none will be allowed. 901 simply goes too far."

No objective standard? How about this: does smoke get in the building? Can you get more clear cut than that?

And pleeeeeeze stop talking about enforcement. A monkey could figure it out:
The cops issue tickets to violators.
The Health Department reports violators to the authorities.
All owners have to do is not allow people to smoke in their establishments.
The only people exempt from the 25-foot rule are passersby.
All issued tickets can be disputed in court - just like traffic tickets.

By the way - Jaywalking is illegal in Seattle. When's the last time anyone you know got a jaywalking ticket? Everyone's paranoid about getting a $100 ticket for smoking. Christ, get over it!

As for civility, I make no apologies for my anger. It's justified.

[DrOctopu5]

Two possibilities:

1) Maggie and JohnR helped draft 901.

2) They are married.