Smoking Ban Update

[JimmyWint]

We had yet another vote on the Smoking ban here in town to modify our smoking ban to only be in Bars as opposed to all workplaces. A total ban won out again...


Smoke ban survives

57% of Appleton voters say 'no' to change

By Steve Wideman
Post-Crescent staff writer


APPLETON — One of the state's toughest smoking ban will remain in effect after voters on Tuesday rejected efforts to exempt bars and other businesses.


Just more than 57 percent of voters — 11,559 to 8,674 — favored keeping the ban in place. That is virtually the same margin by which the ban was put into place after a referendum last April, although 2,956 more voters turned out for Tuesday's vote than did last year.


Smoking ban advocates are hailing the vote as a victory for healthy lifestyles while bar owners are predicting some bars may go out of business.


"We are thrilled with the vote. This lays the groundwork for us to go state-wide," said Connie Olson, executive director of the Community Action for Tobacco Free Living Coalition, which first brought the issue of secondhand smoke danger to Appleton.


Appleton's workplace smoking ban has been in place since July 1 and, according to bar owners, has resulted in significant loss of income.


Bar owners agree the next step is pursuing a statewide smoking ban.


Terry Harvath, owner of the Wishing Well Tavern, 2709 E. Newberry St., and head of the Outagamie County Tavern League, said the league will push for a statewide ban to level the playing field among competitors.


"That's the only way we can survive," he said.


Olson said she would welcome help from bar owners.


"If they want to do a statewide effort that is as strong as Appleton, come on board, boys. We are ready to go, but it has to be 100 percent smoke-free, including bars," Olson said.


Ruthie Coley of Appleton, who voted against changing the existing ban, said campaign signs declaring "Vote yes to smart smoking ban in restaurants" may have confused some voters into thinking they were upholding the current ban instead of voting to change the ban. A "yes" vote was in favor of overturning the ban.


"At first glance, if a person was unaware of what exactly they were voting for it could have made a person think they were voting yes to banning smoking in restaurants," said Coley, a former smoker. "I think a lot of people probably voted the wrong way because of the signs out there. They (voters) just weren't thinking it through.


"I think it's wonderful (the ban was upheld). Nonsmokers should be able to go wherever they want. Smokers can go to the same places. They just can't smoke anywhere they want."


Robbie Johnson, spokes-man for the Appleton Coalition for Business Owners' Rights, a political action group that collected enough signatures on petitions to force Tuesday's vote, said he was disappointed by the outcome.


"We tried our hardest," said Johnson, manager of The Bar on the Avenue, 427 W. College Ave. "I'm not a smoker and don't own a business but I feel sorry for the people who do. We had an opportunity to help small business in Appleton. For whatever reason we can't do that.


Johnson said some bar owners are now considering closing or laying off staff.


"The bar owners have some serious decisions to make," he said. "You can't sit here and lose money every day and stay open. Unfortunately, this (vote) is going to cost real jobs for real people."


Sharon Reader, owner of Emmett's, 139 N. Richmond St., said the vote means an immediate end to lunches at her bar and the end of full-time jobs for two employees.


"My nighttime business has always supported my daytime business. Since the ban went into effect and I lost 28 percent of my nighttime business, I can no longer afford to stay open for lunch for the first time in 16 years," Reader said.


Stevie Schmidt, chairwoman of Clean Air Works, a political action committee that circulated petitions leading to last year's referendum establishing the ban, said the vote settles the health versus economics issue.


"Obviously, the people in Appleton care. The vote margin was very strong," Schmidt said. "This means that health is most important to most people in this community. This vote should make an impact on our state legislators."


Harvath said he was surprised by the outcome.


"I thought it was actually going to go in our favor, especially with surrounding communities passing something similar to what we wanted and this wasn't a total repeal," Harvath said.


Harvath said Appleton bars remain at a competitive disadvantage with bars in neighboring communities "but the voters have spoken."


"The bar owners will fight tooth and nail to stay in business, to come up with new gimmicks to bring people in the bars," he said.


While planning begins on a statewide ban identical to Appleton's, Olson said local education efforts will continue.


"Grand Chute is next," Olson said. "We are coming to help you step up to the plate with Appleton. We will work with the Grand Chute governing body to help them understand why it is important to have a 100 percent smoke-free workplace law in effect."


Dr. Tony Phillips, an Appleton oncologist, said the vote shows Appleton residents understand the dangers of secondhand smoke.


"The people understand removing secondhand smoke from workplaces is the right thing to do," Phillips said. "Now we clearly have to find a way to spread this to the state and surrounding communities."

[Yossarian]

The smoking ban (all enclosed public places) came into effect in the whole of Scotland a couple of weeks ago.

I went to an open mic night at a bar called Nice n Sleazies on the first (week)day of the ban. Place was as busy as ever and as a non smoker I have to say I was glad not to stink to high heaven / breathe in that shit all night.

Whether or not it's 'right' to do that is a seperate issue, I'm pleased with the results.

I've only been out one night since it came into effect thought, I don't know what general turnout has been in town.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

The smoking ban (all enclosed public places) came into effect in the whole of Scotland a couple of weeks ago.

I went to an open mic night at a bar called Nice n Sleazies on the first (week)day of the ban. Place was as busy as ever and as a non smoker I have to say I was glad not to stink to high heaven / breathe in that shit all night.

Whether or not it's 'right' to do that is a seperate issue, I'm pleased with the results.

I've only been out one night since it came into effect thought, I don't know what general turnout has been in town.

I don't think it will effect turnout at any bars/restaurants. It's not like people in Scotland have an alternative other than just staying home. From what I have read, there has been no drop off in sales in bars/restaurants in almost every city/state/country that has adopted the smoking ban. It's not like people in New York are going to go to a bar in Jersey just because they can smoke.

As for it being "right", the debate rages on... When it comes for voting on something like this, I think Quiksand said it best in the original thread on this top:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I say vote your self-interest, rather than getting caught up in all the political philosophy.

[lungs]

I smoke when I drink. The only smoking ban I've dealt with is in Madison, WI. The bars have been pretty good about setting up patios outside for smokers.

Only problem is now people are complaining about having to walk by these patios. Ever heard of compromise?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by lungs

I smoke when I drink. The only smoking ban I've dealt with is in Madison, WI. The bars have been pretty good about setting up patios outside for smokers.

Only problem is now people are complaining about having to walk by these patios. Ever heard of compromise?

The State of Georgia has banned smoking in all places except bars that do not allow anyone under 18 in.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by lungs

I smoke when I drink. The only smoking ban I've dealt with is in Madison, WI. The bars have been pretty good about setting up patios outside for smokers.

Only problem is now people are complaining about having to walk by these patios. Ever heard of compromise?

irony

[Solecismic]

If the cigarette were invented today, the FDA would immediately ban it.

I'm not even sure if today's cigarettes still include any tobacco, there's so much crap in there intended to ensure addiction.

While I'm glad bars no longer allow smoking, I'm not sure I care all that much. I'm part of a generation that has grown up entirely avoiding bars because they are so smoky.

The bar owner quoted in that story as saying they'll need to think up new promotions to gain new clientele has exactly the right idea. There's a huge opportunity out there to market to what may amount to well over half the population below the age of 40. Bar owners who continue to try and cater solely to the 20% who smoke will go out of business.

[Coffee Warlord]

I still want a smokers only bar. You get your hand stamped at the door when you light up and take a drag in front of the door guard.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't think it will effect turnout at any bars/restaurants. It's not like people in Scotland have an alternative other than just staying home. From what I have read, there has been no drop off in sales in bars/restaurants in almost every city/state/country that has adopted the smoking ban. It's not like people in New York are going to go to a bar in Jersey just because they can smoke.

As for it being "right", the debate rages on... When it comes for voting on something like this, I think Quiksand said it best in the original thread on this top:

It has effected turnout where people just go to Indian casinos to smoke instead. For example Pierce County (Tacoma), WA.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If the cigarette were invented today, the FDA would immediately ban it.

I wonder how true this would be for a lot of things that predate the FDA that we buy and are included in food, drink, and anything else that we take into our bodies.

[Fonzie]

I went to high school for two years in Appleton and my mother still lives there.

That is all.

[Logan]

NJ becomes a no smoking in bars state on April 15th.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Washington, DC is going smoke free on Jan 1, 2007.

[dubb93]

I'll say one thing on this matter and then leave the thread before it becomes the flame war it would if I were in here.

How freakin stupid is it to ban smoking in a building thats only purpose is to sell alcohol? Why is everyones right to alcohol more important than everyones right to smoke? I have no problems with no smoking if the owner doesn't want smoking in his business, but to say, "I want to drink at this bar but this guy is smoking. My right to drink is more important than this guy's right to smoke," is obsolutely stupid.

On a related subject I have no problems with no smoking in other types of buildings. It is just the bars that kill me.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I'll say one thing on this matter and then leave the thread before it becomes the flame war it would if I were in here.

How freakin stupid is it to ban smoking in a building thats only purpose is to sell alcohol? Why is everyones right to alcohol more important than everyones right to smoke? I have no problems with no smoking if the owner doesn't want smoking in his business, but to say, "I want to drink at this bar but this guy is smoking. My right to drink is more important than this guy's right to smoke," is obsolutely stupid.

On a related subject I have no problems with no smoking in other types of buildings. It is just the bars that kill me.

Well, I'm not an anti-smoking advocate, but there really is a simple anwer to your question. My right to drink doesn't affect you in any way, but your right to smoke affects my right to breath.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Well, I'm not an anti-smoking advocate, but there really is a simple anwer to your question. My right to drink doesn't affect you in any way, but your right to smoke affects my right to breath.

Your right to drink could very well effect me if I was in the same building as you. In fact I was in a bar in Ohio a few weeks ago and a simple misundestanding between a friend of mine and a completely trashed guy resulted in said trashed guy throwing a punch and proceeding to get destroyed by security. I've never seen that effect with a cigarette.

Its a freakin bar for crying out loud.

[Daimyo]

Chicago banned smoking in all buildings earlier this year, but there is a two or three year exemption for bars and the bar areas for restaurants that have them. I think they'll be able to allow smoking in bars after that if they can demonstrate the air inside is just as clean as the air outside with the cost of that on the owner of the bar.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Your right to drink could very well effect me if I was in the same building as you. In fact I was in a bar in Ohio a few weeks ago and a simple misundestanding between a friend of mine and a completely trashed guy resulted in said trashed guy throwing a punch and proceeding to get destroyed by security.

Yes. Once drinking begins to "affect others", it too is banned (for that individual at least). Your story is case in point. (See, e.g., laws against drunk driving, drunk and disorderly conduct, etc, etc).

For the record, I have never so much as gotten a buzz from sitting next to someone who was drinking alcohol when I wasn't.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yes. Once drinking begins to "affect others", it too is banned (for that individual at least). Your story is case in point. (See, e.g., laws against drunk driving, drunk and disorderly conduct, etc, etc).

For the record, I have never so much as gotten a buzz from sitting next to someone who was drinking alcohol when I wasn't.

Neither have I, but I've never gotten a "second hand" buzz from smokes either. Although you could make a case against the "wacky" kind with that argument.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Neither have I, but I've never gotten a "second hand" buzz from smokes either. Although you could make a case against the "wacky" kind with that argument.

No, I don't think I have gotten a buzz from second hand smoke either. That said, I have had my eyes sting, clothes smell like shit, my mouth feel like an ashtray, and lungs burn leading to uncomfortable coughing fits from "second hand" smoke.

No need to go down this old road again to beat this extremely dead, mumified corpse of what appears to have once been a horse. Needless to say, I have no problem with smoking bans. Every time one goes into effect I get all , though I always seem to end up leaving a place just before the ban goes into effect and moving to a place that doesn't have one. That makes me all . I like the current trend and hope it continues.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Your right to drink could very well effect me if I was in the same building as you. In fact I was in a bar in Ohio a few weeks ago and a simple misundestanding between a friend of mine and a completely trashed guy resulted in said trashed guy throwing a punch and proceeding to get destroyed by security. I've never seen that effect with a cigarette.

Its a freakin bar for crying out loud.

I know H_B already took care of it, but I just have to say that your argument was so flawed, it's ridiculous.

[Groundhog]

Australian bars are non-smoking now, with seperate smoking sections. It's wonderful to be able to come home not smelling like smoke...

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Logan

I know H_B already took care of it, but I just have to say that your argument was so flawed, it's ridiculous.

I'll leave it alone after this, but I think the, "I want to go where I want when I want and don't want to be exposed to anything I don't want to be exposed to even if the business owner and his customers all endulge in a legal activity I don't support argument" is as flawed as they come.

And seriously, it is a bar. Should we ban drinking in there b/c people want to go there and watch the game but not be around loud drunk people?

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Australian bars are non-smoking now, with seperate smoking sections. It's wonderful to be able to come home not smelling like smoke...

I would be 100% for this. If there was atleast a smoking section in the building that would be great. But these bans over here don't allow for that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Australian bars are non-smoking now, with seperate smoking sections. It's wonderful to be able to come home not smelling like smoke...

How does that work? I mean, having a separate smoking section in most places is the equivalent to having a "separate" peeing section in a pool.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

How does that work? I mean, having a separate smoking section in most places is the equivalent to having a "separate" peeing section in a pool.

Now you want to ban peeing in a public pool? Whats next?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

How does that work? I mean, having a separate smoking section in most places is the equivalent to having a "separate" peeing section in a pool.

I don't know what the actual rules for the pubs+clubs are but from what I've observed the smoking rooms are usually a small section of the bar that is designated the smoking area (such as the poker machine room or the gaming/gambling area). Sure, there is no physical barrier stopping the smoke from reaching the other areas but as the majority of the pub is smoke-free it works fine. I'm sure there are other specifications regarding ventilation and such. Bars were given a few years warning, and a few around my area closed down for renovations to accommodate this.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Now you want to ban peeing in a public pool? Whats next?

I am the slippery slope come alive!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I don't know what the actual rules for the pubs+clubs are but from what I've observed the smoking rooms are usually a small section of the bar that is designated the smoking area (such as the poker machine room or the gaming/gambling area). Sure, there is no physical barrier stopping the smoke from reaching the other areas but as the majority of the pub is smoke-free it works fine. I'm sure there are other specifications regarding ventilation and such. Bars were given a few years warning, and a few around my area closed down for renovations to accommodate this.

Interesting. Well, I desperately want to go to Australia at some point and one of my best friends is from Melbourne, so I reckon the odds are good that I will eventually be able to see for myself. Not that I can notice all that much. I have no sense of smell. It takes a lot of smoke before I notice it.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I'll leave it alone after this, but I think the, "I want to go where I want when I want and don't want to be exposed to anything I don't want to be exposed to even if the business owner and his customers all endulge in a legal activity I don't support argument" is as flawed as they come.

And seriously, it is a bar. Should we ban drinking in there b/c people want to go there and watch the game but not be around loud drunk people?

Hey, I have no problem with people smoking in bars. They have the right to, as its not against the law. And I would never not go to a bar because of other people smoking (actually, I spent at least 4 nights a week in smoky, crowded bars during my last 2 years of college). But once someone decides that I won't be exposed to it anymore, I applaud it. I could also care less about the second hand smoke issue...what I hated most was stumbling home from the bar, stinking of smoke, passing out, and waking up and having my bed stink like smoke because I didn't shower when I got home .

[Drake]

I'm smoking in this thread...and there's no way you can stop me! Bwahahahaha!

[Craptacular]

For the record, the Peoples' Republic of Madison recently passed an exemption to the smoking ban for cigar bars. They have to prove that at least 10% of their revenue comes from the sale of cigars, pipes, and tobacco. Cigarettes are NOT included.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

For the record, the Peoples' Republic of Madison recently passed an exemption to the smoking ban for cigar bars. They have to prove that at least 10% of their revenue comes from the sale of cigars, pipes, and tobacco. Cigarettes are NOT included.

That's cool. I love Madison. It's like Ann Arbor, but even a little nicer with the lakes there.

[astrosfan64]

I'm an X-Smoker, but I think people should be allowed to smoke in a bar. It is up to the bar to establish the policy not the government. If people don't want to go to a bar that has smokers, then they shouldn't attend.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm with astrosfan64 myself (also an ex-smoker) - my personal belief is that there are so many things you 'can't' avoid secondary smoking makes little difference to most people, especially those who live in towns.

To me smoking is simply a convenient scapegoat for goverments to blame while ignoring pollution from big business and transportation. Once smoking is fully banned and diseases which are said to be hugely contributed to by secondary smoking don't decline as much as predicted a secondary scapegoat will have to be found ...

(for an example of this - I grew up in the countryside in England, when I first started travelling into London I could 'taste' the difference in the air quality between the two ... can't now I'm too accustomed for it, but to me that shows there's definitely something odd in the air in a built up area )

[Karlifornia]

I'm a current smoker....


But this shit needs to be banned at every indoor location. I have no problem going somewhere, and then going outside to smoke. If somebody comes outside any complains to me about smoking (which has never EVER happened, by the way), then I will tell them (as the English say) to sod off. It's deadly, and I would never smoke indoors where a single non smoker frequents. That's just my take.

[Karlifornia]

Hey...and to everyone....the great state of California banned all smoking in indoor business establishments in 1998. Yes. 1998. I'm 22 now, and they banned it when I was 16. I just realized I couldn't even buy a pack when Cali had banned smoking indoors.

EDIT: Whoops, I was actually 14 when California banned smoking indoors in public places. 8 years has gone so fast.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

To me smoking is simply a convenient scapegoat for goverments to blame while ignoring pollution from big business and transportation. Once smoking is fully banned and diseases which are said to be hugely contributed to by secondary smoking don't decline as much as predicted a secondary scapegoat will have to be found ...

Agree 100%. I'm a nurse and have actually taken care of lung cancer patients as they were being diagnosed. The conversation about the cause went more or less as follows.

Doctor: Are you, or have you ever been a smoker.

Patient: No

Doctor: Do you or have you ever lived with a smoker?

Patient: No

Doctor: Have you ever worked in a building that allowed smoking.

Patient: No

Doctor: How often do you visit buildings that allow smoking?

Patient: Less than once a week.

The "cause" of this patients cancer was second hand smoke. I felt very sorry for this person, but lost all respect for the doctor. I'm sure not all doctors are like this, but if there is one you know there are many. It seems sometimes they forget that cancer occurs naturally. No need to lie to the patient and get them worked up about other people giving them cancer when you can't prove it and the signs point otherwise. But I think the inflated "second hand smoke" numbers are another thread.

[clintl]

When I was growing up, both of my parents smoked. I can remember a blue layer of haze floating around the living room all of the time. There's no way that urban air pollution is as bad as that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'm with astrosfan64 myself (also an ex-smoker) - my personal belief is that there are so many things you 'can't' avoid secondary smoking makes little difference to most people, especially those who live in towns.

To me smoking is simply a convenient scapegoat for goverments to blame while ignoring pollution from big business and transportation. Once smoking is fully banned and diseases which are said to be hugely contributed to by secondary smoking don't decline as much as predicted a secondary scapegoat will have to be found ...

(for an example of this - I grew up in the countryside in England, when I first started travelling into London I could 'taste' the difference in the air quality between the two ... can't now I'm too accustomed for it, but to me that shows there's definitely something odd in the air in a built up area )

I agree that governments could do more to help curb pollution from transportation and big business. The current emissions laws and clear air laws could be a bit more stringent.

That said, they exist. I just look at the smoking ban laws as a "clean air", "emissions", "zoning" laws for people. They can still pollute the air by smoking outside, or in their cars, or homes, but their emissions/pollution are being slightly curbed inside businesses. Factories create pollution, but in many areas zoning laws prevent them from being built within X miles of residential areas, etc.

[SegRat]

I hope Oshkosh follows Appletons lead.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

For the record, the Peoples' Republic of Madison recently passed an exemption to the smoking ban for cigar bars. They have to prove that at least 10% of their revenue comes from the sale of cigars, pipes, and tobacco. Cigarettes are NOT included.

Are there any cigar bars LEFT?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well, it looks like it's finally going to happen.

Public smoking ban heads to Granholm's desk | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Both the Michigan Senate and House have passed a smoking ban. All that needs be down now is for Govenor Granholm to sign that baby into law and as of May 1, 2010, Michigan will, FINALLY, be smoke free.

The smoking ban has been tied up on the state congress for a couple of years. The Republicans, who always opposed it, switched gears a couple of years ago and decided to support a ban, so long as it was completely state-wide, no exceptions. The Democrats, however, refused to sign a complete ban for fear of what it would do to the casinos in Detroit. So, they wanted a ban with an exemption for the casinos, cigar bars, and a few other places. That essentially ended the whole thing.

Today, however, the Republicans in the Senate finally voted in favor if the ban with the exemptions for the casinos and cigar bars. The House then voted in favor of it and... voila!

I am pretty excited. I've never lived anywhere with a smoking ban. The lack of a ban really restricts the places Lady H_B and I can go out to, since the terrorists gave her asthma.

Very pleased.

[thesloppy]

A few months ago I was bitching about the Oregon smoking ban in here, because the result of it passing was that groups smokers were now huddling outdoors around every bar or restaurant in town, which was not much less inconvenient or second-hand-smokey than dealing with smoking sections in bars/restaurants.

However, in recent months most restaurants and bars have all taken to building covered, 'smoking patios' in the backyard, a side alley, or anywhere convenient, and I gotta say I'm pretty happy with the result, and most smokers I know have turned around their initial opinion on the ban as well.

I do think it's odd that they're going to allow smoking on the casino floors but NOT at casino bars, but whatcha gonna do?

[SackAttack]

It seems like the smokers' patio would work well in states that have a warmish winter climate, but states that have snow five months of the year, how would that even work? Kind of build it as a separate enclosure rather than open-air?

If the point of the smoking ban is health of the employees, would such patios only be served by employees who also smoke?

I mean, I don't smoke, and I'm certainly no fan of being inundated with a smokers' atmosphere, but there's a number of things about a smoking ban that just make me cock my head like the RCA dog.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It seems like the smokers' patio would work well in states that have a warmish winter climate, but states that have snow five months of the year, how would that even work? Kind of build it as a separate enclosure rather than open-air?

If the point of the smoking ban is health of the employees, would such patios only be served by employees who also smoke?

I mean, I don't smoke, and I'm certainly no fan of being inundated with a smokers' atmosphere, but there's a number of things about a smoking ban that just make me cock my head like the RCA dog.

I am pretty sure there is no service whatsoever in these "smoking patios", but thesloppy could answer for sure.

Personally, I see nothing illogical about smoking bans. They seem very much in line with the various other work palce safety restrictions that the law imposes.

[lungs]

Next up, public smoking bans!

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I am pretty sure there is no service whatsoever in these "smoking patios", but thesloppy could answer for sure.

Yup, it's typically just a covered/fenced/heated place to smoke outside. There may be tables and/or chairs, but there's no actual service.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I am pretty excited. I've never lived anywhere with a smoking ban. The lack of a ban really restricts the places Lady H_B and I can go out to, since the terrorists gave her asthma.

Very pleased.

It is amazing how nice it is and how quick you will notice the difference. It is great coming home and not having to incinerate your cloths.

[Drake]

Caveat: I'm still smoke free since April, but I find these issues interesting.

The college town I work in has been smoke free for a few years now. The campus I work on went smoke free two years ago. To deal with the huddled smoking masses problem, the town prohibits smoking within so many feet of any building (seriously).

While the ordinances have cleared up smoking indoors, my boss used to joke that I was the only person in the whole university system who was observing the rules for not smoking on campus. I used to go walk around the closest off campus parking lot to smoke.

When I started grad school this fall, I had the opportunity to spend more time walking across campus, and essentially what I've seen is that there are just as many smokers, only now they're tossing their butts on the ground because the university took away all the outdoor ash cans. Campus police said publicly from the beginning that the rules were a pain in their ass, so they weren't going to enforce them. Compliance is completely driven by complaints.

The city has encountered the same issue with the x feet from the building ordinance. City police said they had more important things to do and told the town council to essentially go fuck themselves.

Bottom line for me is that I don't mind indoor smoking bans at all, but I'm critical of passing the sorts of outdoor ordinances that beg people to ignore the law. When you create ordinances you're not going to enforce, all it does is degrade people's faith in the rule of law in general.