Lawbreaker! I'm going to report you. SmokeFree DC has conveniently placed information on how to report violators on their page. Such good upstanding citizens.
Brooke | 01.04.07 - 3:28 pm | #

Ooooh, dangerous. Scared me.
Jennifer | Homepage | 01.04.07 - 3:53 pm | #

I suspect I may be in the minority among TTP regulars, but I like the damn ban.
Matt | Homepage | 01.04.07 - 4:21 pm | #

what a great photo of you! you, rebel!
Minerva Oblongata | 01.04.07 - 4:26 pm | #

Smoke on, you sexy beast.
Jackson Kuhl | 01.04.07 - 7:17 pm | #

Well, in Omaha, they like you to call 911 - we win for stupidity!
colson | Homepage | 01.04.07 - 8:08 pm | #

Matt, the ban is for people who want to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. I guess you are one of them.

There were so many non-smoking bars pre-ban (something like 150 according to Smoke-Free DC) that there is no excuse for people like you complaining about smoking. In Logan Circle alone there were two full-time gay bars, among about six in the entire city, that banned smoking. So even if you were a homo in a limited geographic area you could find bars that did not make your clothes smell like smoke.

I myself spent the last smoking night in DC at my local bar, the Chevy Chase Lounge, and smoked merrily while drinking enough martinis that made me wonder how I got home that night.
Leonardo | 01.04.07 - 8:34 pm | #

"There were so many non-smoking bars pre-ban (something like 150 according to Smoke-Free DC) that there is no excuse for people like you complaining about smoking."

I think you are conflating bars with restaurants. There are plenty of smoke free restaurants but virtually non which had smoke free bars. In any case, there are 2014 restaurants on yahoo yellow pages for DC, 150 is only about 7.5%. Most non smokers probably just want some nice places to go to pop down a couple dozen beers and watch the game, and the only alternative offered is a total ban. If half the bars were smoke free the true smoking nazi's would be a fringe element. I would work towards a scheme whereby private business owners buy a smoking license, similar but more expensive than liquor licenses, providing an economic incentive for bars to go smoke free. If 99 out of 100 bars continue to allow smoking then total bans are inevitable.
kaptain kirk | 01.05.07 - 1:47 am | #

"Matt, the ban is for people who want to impose their lifestyle on everyone else. I guess you are one of them."

Apparently I am. Thanks to Katpain Kirk for writing the well researched and rationalized response I don't have the energy to come up with.
Matt | Homepage | 01.05.07 - 1:10 pm | #

Just because you aren't getting the exact results you want doesn't mean that the system isn't working.
I'd like to go to a restaurant in my hood in suburban virginia without having to see or hear a tv with ESPN on. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. Amazingly, a total ban has yet to occur to me. I'll give it some thought.

Geez, over ten years ago I worked in an entirely non-smoking restaurant and bar in Virginia (Carlyle Grand)ffs and it made plenty of money. You want a non-smoking bar? start one yourself.
mk | 01.08.07 - 2:16 pm | #

I understand your point of view. My point is that you can continue to claim that the free market provides accomadations for both smokers and non-smokers, even though everyone can see that isn't true. In that case, the non-smoking non-libertarian majority WILL continue to impose total indoor smoking bans. If you can accept some policies which lead to more non smoking bars and restaurants, you take away the real reason these bans are passing, which isn't the health of the bartenders or customers, but the fact that smoking is annoying to non smokers.
kaptain kirk | 01.09.07 - 2:05 am | #

million dollar online poker million dollar online poker million dollar online poker // casino slots game casino slots game casino slots game
cmcqd | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 4:30 pm | #

Good for you, man. Fuck 'em.
NateIn08 | 06.24.07 - 8:51 pm | #