Should a private club have to comply with the city smoking ban?
See related: Superior court judge upholds city smoking ban
Disclaimer: VoxBox is a forum for Juneau Empire readers to share their opinions on topics that matter to Juneau. These comments do not represent the Juneau Empire's views.
Warning: Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions at our user agreement page. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
This entry was posted on Friday, October 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 am and is filed under City, Health / Living.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 am
Does it have to comply with fire code? Food service hygiene rules? Liquor laws? If so, what’s different about the smoking laws?
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:48 am
NO. The word: Private means something. Right? It’s very disturbing how this ban can reach into the facilities of Private citizens.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 am
Yes, well said ToddP. Private does not mean free from laws and regulations, it means limited access.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 am
I agree with both ToddP and Laurie – Private clubs do have to comply with all the other codes and regulations and “Private” does mean something. My take is, if group of citizens what to get together and slowly kill themselves, more power to them. However, I as a tax paying citizen don’t want to take care of their medical bills down the line due to smoking related diseases.
So, if the “private” clubs and members would like to exercise their RIGHTS, they better start saving their club dues for their future medical bills instead of pawning off their bills to the “non-club” members!
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:38 am
NO, The courts are slowly taking away the freedoms that this country once stood for, and all the anti-smoking sheep are blindly letting them, not looking forward to when the liberties they enjoy will be taken from them.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 am
LifeLongAlaskan – YEAH!!! I like that one.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Let me tell you what to do in your own home. No? What’s the problem? If I can do it to “private” business, why not “private” residence? If I own something, I don’t want ANYBODY telling me what to do with it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 am
Pollypocket, I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere but what you’re insinuating is ridiculous- laws shouldn’t apply because something is privately owned. Give me a break.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
heidijnu — I pay my share for medical insurrance so people can stuff their fat assess full of McDonalds, so I don’t find that arguement a very good one. Plus who says your tax money goes to THEIR medical cost.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 am
ToddP and RaininAK got it right.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
No. And the city should exempt them.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
No
The City should have stayed out of this fray to begin with. In Jan of 2008 the Eagles were breaking no law, but due to a self serving bar owner screaming at the city assembly the law that was passed 3yrs prior and understood not to include fraternal clubs was modified.
Now it appears that the bad chidlren at the Eagles are going to be spanked for having the nerve to use thier right to challange this absolutly capricious change in the ordinance.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Good idea, I have often been thinking that smoking should be allowed in public schools as well. Those private school teachers have a right to smoke don’t they.
The big issue is that many of the employees of these “private” businesses are subjected to second hand smoke. While I agree that they did choose to accept the position, last time I checked many individuals need to take any job that they can get.
A good question to ask is: Does anyone actually think that smoking is NOT bad for you or those around you? Does anyone actually think that smoking does NOT increase your health risks and therefore your medical bills? Does anyone actually think that smoking is some inalienable right bequeathed from on high?
It is a stupid smelly addiction that I had for many years. It serves no real purpose but to line the pockets of the corporations who prey on the weak and addicted.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The argument that you are paying for a smokers medical bills is rediculous when you look at how much a smoker already pays in taxes for their cigarrettes. The argument that allowing smoking in a private club because non-smokers may want to work there is a stretch. Smokers need jobs too, preferably one where they can smoke occasionally. There are alredy jobs that you can not get as a smoker, like working for Alaska Airlines. Why can’t we let smokers have somewhere they can still legally smoke, haven’t you taken enough from them already?
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
It’s not a private business. It is a private club.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The law say any public place. even though it is a private club it is still public and there for the ban applies. Now the city needs to enforce the smoking ban in taxis. The law say ANY public transport. This also means taxis and needs to include drivers
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
courts don’t take away freedoms – they interpret laws that legislators write. so please place the blame rightly on the heads of those who wrote the law/ordinance/whatever. the court system merely interprets and then lawmakers, etc. can take corrective action should it appear that the interpretation is not correct.
it is ridiculous to say there is some place where no laws should be in effect. your home is “private” but you still can’t abuse your spouse or your child inside your home and get away with it (for long at any rate).
smoking is different in that the by-product of you exercising your freedom harms everyone else around you simply trying to breathe. should there be a club where smokers can go – absolutely. it’s called your home – invite all your smoking friends and have a “we hate non-smokers” party. that what non-smokers did before this law.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Remember traveling in Texas 2 years ago. Nachadosis, on the way to the La border. As I rember to buy a beer in a GREAT ribs BBQ place, I had to buy a” membership” for the day….a “private club” you know. I even had to fill out a little card. Each time I bought a beer, I showed my membership card. In Juneau, a donut shop or bar could go private, sell memberships for the day, and you could smoke all you wanted inside the business area. As a consumer, I would be fully aware that this club allowed, or even encouraged smoking. Issue of legality might be for workman compensation insurance though. If the private club had paid employees, their exposure to smoke might raise a liability issue for the public. Good question for a change.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
You can’t compare the anti-smoking law with spousal abuse. Spousal abuse is illegal everywhere, smoking is still legal in some places. No one is saying that “no laws” should be in effect at a private club. Smoking in a private club only affects the members inside, and therefore should only be decided by a vote of its members. i realize that the law states otherwise, but I disagree with the law.
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
but smoking is regulated. maybe the analogy wasn’t strong but my point is still valid – there is only so much “privacy” in the privacy of one’s own home.
so i think what you’re saying, Chinese, is that as long as the members are doing nothing illegal, then whatever they do in their “club” is okay?
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
ALL bars are private. If you disagree, find a bouncer, tell him you have a right to be in a bar and he can’t make you leave. Pick yourself up off the sidewalk and reaffirm your inalienable right to be in a bar.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Nay!!!
We are not in California, this is The Alaska Capital City!!!!
From now on.
Alaskans Do Not have to follow the Libs!!!
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Leave Private Clubs alone!!!!!
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
[...] VoxBox » Blog Archive » Should a private club have to comply with … [...]
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
What? Speak!!! Dont’ just sit there!!!!
What did you say??
October 24th, 2009 at 12:39 am
I believe the Superior Court has already answered this question for us, so it’s not up for a vote anymore–although if we voted I’m sure we’d agree with the court.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I believe the intent of the law IS to protect the employee who may be subjected to second hand smoke. Again, while I do agree that they have the option of selecting to work there or not that fact is that they do work there. Say, for the sake of argument, that we are all reasonably intelligent individuals who are aware that second hand smoke is bad for you. If the law protects one individual resulting in their not having lung issues or heart issues, isn’t it worth it? It could be your son or daughter we are talking about. Or should we just accept the fact that we are putting employees into a position where they have to choose their job over their long term future. Heck, wasn’t this a big argument some time ago regarding asbestos? Both are KNOWN carcinogens.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Yes. The city has every right to license people to occupy buildings and what goes on inside that building. Tobacco is regulated because it is a drug. Those who use this drug are drug addicts.
And the city has every right to keep addicts away from other people.
ToddP above said it all, I totally agree with him.
Non-smokers are fighting back and we are winning. It’s just a matter of time before smoking on city streets is also illegal, and I look forward to that day where I no longer have to involuntarily breathe the stench of someone else’s drug addiction when I am simply walking down the street.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Still have to put up with stinking scum bag smokers-the world will be better after you die from cancer from your addiction. Please just shoot yourself now and save us all some money.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
It is interesting how tobacco use regulation has advanced a great deal in the last 20 years. Contrast this to the alcoholic beverage industry. First issue of taxation. Adjusted for inflation, tobacco products costs at least 5 times more than they did back then. Almost entirely the increase in costs for tobacco products comes from vastly increased taxation during this period. On the other hand, alcohol costs pretty much the same, taking inflation into consideration. Taxes on beer wine and spirits is virtually unchanged percentage wise during this period. Me thinks the drunks are getting a much better deal than the puffers. Considering all, the real issue, is alcoholism a better deal than lung disease? Is drunk driving better than 2nd hand smoke? Is the cost to society greater from the smoker or the drunk? Based on cost of usage in Juneau, smokers clearly are less popular and must therefore be more dangerous to the local citizenry. Based on legal limitations, alcohol obviously is the better vice.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
You’re on to something LemonCreek. But you’re missing the vastly escalated enforcement/punishment for drunk driving over the past 20 years. Drunks aren’t getting off so cheap after all.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
People used to be “free” to smoke during long airline flights. Imagine a flight today from Seattle to Boston, and some junkie is chain-smoking next to you, your infant daughter, and your grandparent on oxygen.
It took us all a while to realize, “um, maybe that’s not such a good thing; smoking on airplanes.”
Well, now society is waking up to realize that it is not good for smokers to be around ANYONE other than themselves. And people like me who want to be free from the stench and the carcinogens are fighting back, and we are winning.
Today alone, I counted…I passed through 5 clouds of someone else’s nicotine addiction simply by walking through downtown and going to the grocery. “No smoking allowed within 10 feet of the door.” W T F? That is all but ignored. Those laws aren’t enforced, and smoke drifts a HELL of a lot more than 10 feet from the door.
And the doors to bars like the Triangle bar downtown actually SUCK the smoke into the bar from the street!!!! So, I don’t go there. I go to a few other bars away from the stench of the junkies.
Bottom line: Cigarettes are drugs, and those who are addicted to them are drug addicts. And law-abiding people like me are tired of being around drug addicts and all they bring with their addiction; the stench, the litter, and the increased health care costs which drive insurance rates through the stratosphere.
Since we all know cigarettes will always be legal, that doesn’t mean that non-smokers can’t vote for initiatives which raise the taxes on these things. We can also vote for initiatives that restrict the junky’s “rights” to smoke and litter wherever they choose.
Interesting fact: earlier this week, I ran into a buddy who is now trying to give up smoking because of the new tax increase. He knows it is getting expensive. Cool. I applaud him. I want to help him.
I support every smoker’s right to pollute their body with as many cigarettes and nicotine as they want. But I vehemently oppose their presumed “right” to do so around me and the air that I need to breathe.
And I am a militant, passionate fighter in this war of us vs. them.
“US” are winning.
Here’s to the day when it is illegal for a smoker to smoke a cigarette on any street or public area in Juneau. It’s a matter of time.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Tax, tax,tax. Is there anything else in your famlies life you guys can think about?
October 25th, 2009 at 3:32 am
I am going to reply to miss porcupine opening statement.
” Porcupine kisser Says:
October 24th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Yes. The city has every right to license people to occupy buildings and what goes on inside that building. Tobacco is regulated because it is a drug. Those who use this drug are drug addicts.
And the city has every right to keep addicts away from other people.” Miss Porcupine, as a highly taxed Federal,State,City sponsored drug addict since I was 12 years old I have been addicted to cigarettes after 32 years of smoking I have yet to find the increase in taxes a deterrent to smoking over these many years.
I find it very curious that my federal government has for decades given tobacco farmers big tax breaks to grow tobacco, they ( Fed government ) being my suppliers, would that not make my government my drug dealer?
(speaking to the trillions of dollars in revenue we addicts generate.)
The federal government benefits greatly and not withstanding so does the State benefit into the millions of dollars and the city benefits to the tune of the 500,000.00 range. Now would the later two also be known for being an enabling entity to my addiction and enabler with good fiscal benefits for the suffering local coffers?
It is all about supply and demand. There are over 140 + known (if not more) addictive ADDITIVES that the federal government allowed to be introduced to the tobacco. Need more funds for city,state and federal programs … Why just jump on the smokers tax train but make sure to keep them addicted keep the money coming.
Now I drop dead from my loathsome addiction much like a heroin addict you lose 1 addicts tax money.Let try this solution on for size. Lets play this out. All smokers quit and everyone is HEALTHY AND NOT ADDICTED. May I ask then where are these trillions of dollars of lost revenue going to come from next?
Just a thought… Who is worse the child that became a home grown addict through watching family, friends, movies, stars, teachers, DOCTORS, etc… Or the child’s Government,States and Communities that 32 years later not only vilify her but makes sure she is reminded of HER “sin” of addiction by taxing her and now wishing to isolate her.
I have never seen a rehab for smokers just “Drug Addicts” and the other drug “Alcohol” rehab, I would invite a in house cigarette “addicts” rehab program of 8 weeks 2 weeks in patient and 6 weeks walk in meetings to be followed up with a Nicotine Anonymous Meeting. Utilize MY money in taxes to heal me of MY addiction. I believe my taxes pay for Rain Forest recovery Center just one of many programs.
My tax money should go to a children smoking awareness classes required attendance every semester till they graduate. I say we have a fat food sin tax with proceeds to go to healthy eating programs in school, a clean air tax for ALL cars that are not not electric, a green building tax for all homes not 30% green. If we want to address these true addictions and social ills by all means let the funding flow.
As far as keeping this addict away from other people. Well my dear as an addict of 32 years working for the past 20 years to care for the health, well being and support others independent living. I am not to sure that the ones who depend on me to provide warm,tender,compassionate,honest,ethical services would agree this addict needs to be “kept from other them”
May I ask where you would like me and others like me to be kept? Jail? perhaps an island not unlike Australia? or anywhere just as long as I keep sucking on a cigarette and paying them taxes? There are many layers to addiction and when you can just go into a store and buy your ” heroine” of choice as easily as you buy your milk. My thinking is my addiction will prevail. I am certain as the sun rises tomorrow that we addicts will still be making life fiscally easier on our respective cities, states and the biggest drug dealer of them all my beloved Federal Government.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Roll me a FATTY! I’m Wayne Ivers from Yakutat!
October 25th, 2009 at 8:14 am
People are so prissy in this town, this is Alaska, rough and tough and if people get offended by some smoke STEP AWAY!
October 25th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Private clubs shouldn’t be affected by the smoking ban, and the smoking ban should be repealed. The City is not bestowed the devine right of rule from God above. The City is composed of individuals with individual rights and not one of these individuals has natural rights to any greater or lesser degree than anyone else. So really, if I as an individual cannot go into the eagles club and say “I don’t like ya’ll smokin’ in here so you must stop.” then the City doesn’t have that power either. Don’t tell me “majority rule” either, cause of the will of the majority makes it ok to violate the rights of others then gang rape would be considered just another ligitimate example of majority rule.
The bottom line is this, adults go to bars, part of being an adult is taking responsibility for actions and decisions made. I don’t like second hand smoke, because of this I stay out of bars. If the people of juneau really needed a smoke free bar, why hasn’t someone opened a non-smoking bar? Now that folks can’t smoke in the bars I have to choke on their second hand smoke every time I walk down franklin street. It’s foolish, self defeating, and costly. not to mention a serious overstepping of bounds on the part of the City. Remember we pay the City to be a servant, not a master.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:55 am
We went through this in Sitka and My take on this is that the “Private Clubs” have a voting membership that are all of voting age and are perfectly capable of making their own decisions about their club. The City should worry about public places and let the private clubs have their own vote about smoking there. Our Elks Club had a vote and guess what. They voted to go non smoking. If the clubs vote to smoke and you don’t like it. Don’t go there!
October 25th, 2009 at 10:39 am
papasmurf – I agree with you and here is my list of bars that were ALREADY non-smoking bars at the time the ban went into effect:
The Airport Lounge
The Travelodge bar
The bar at the Baranof
The bar at the Goldbelt hotel
The Alaskan
The bar at the Prospector hotel
The bar at the Chinese Palace (now the Dragon Inn)
The Breakwater bar
The bar at the Hangar
The bar at Doc Waters (since closed)
The bar at the Bergman
The bar at the Frontier Suites
That’s 12 non-smoking bars that were already in existence when the ban went into place. Did I miss any? Get any wrong? I’m sure everyone will let me know…. My point is, it wasn’t enough for the non-smokers to have 12 bars they could go to to drink alcohol (far more damaging than smoking in my experience) they had to hace ALL the bars. Now bar attendees smoke on the street where everyone can breathe it. THANKS! Thanks a lot….
October 25th, 2009 at 10:39 am
sorry – that’s “have” in that last part there….
October 25th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Todd P Thanks for pointing out a key point. Of course the number of drunk driving citations vs. drunk driving incidents means that you have say, 100-1 odds of actually being cited in Juneau when over the limit. Considering the slender police /trooper coverage, maybe the odds should be bumped to 500-1. I really don’t know. Is there a law enforcement person out there that could give a better educated estimate? But the core of the thought was how much more effective the Liquor Lobby has been in preventing increased product taxation to pay for education, treatment costs, health insurance claims etc. Real costs that society pays. Real costs in lost business productivity, worker productivity. I still think smokers are getting a worse deal than drinkers. By a long long long shot.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Sheep
October 25th, 2009 at 11:26 am
There are some privacy issues lurking here and some possible contradictions..
Some of these may require the Alaska Supreme Court to do some fancy footwork.
The private clubs have similar aspects to homeowner associations or other common area dwellings–a possible future case.
How will privacy rights be balanced with a potential ban in common areas of condos or even inside units ? Surely having a smoking neighbor 24/7 in a condo complex is more of a public policy issue (especially of you share air or are not well sealed from the smoke) than second hand smoke for a few hours at a club…
Could the ban reach an establishment for medical marijuana? Could it reach the common areas of homeowner associations? Could it extends to homes with common walls? Hotel rooms? Residential living centers with private rooms? All businesses.
A funny contradiction may be a privacy right to smoke marijuana in the home (Ravin) but not tobacco? A potential oddity that may have to be worked out in Alaska law.
Or how about my favorite, the AK PFD Corp owning huge blocks of tobacco stock.
So do we take the money and profit from the enterprise on one hand and then just ban it locally on the other hand… A public policy oddity.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:33 am
So if I call something private — like my home, then I can be exempt from all public laws? Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
October 25th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
It seems like in cold climates they should be able to offer a smoking room separate from the main area, which would eventually become the whole bar. Of course then they woud have a closet size area for people who wanted to be excluded from any efects of second hand smoking connected to the outside door.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
When I write comments, the Empire always puts “your comment is awaiting moderation”. Why do they do that? There is no profanity, no names mentioned, nothing derogatory in them. Yet, the empire won’t print them. There is NO freedom of speech when you are using the Juneau Empire. They only print what they want YOU to read.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I have a private club that allows weed smoking. It’s in my home. However, we don’t allow tobacco.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Lung cancer for all smokers NOW! And pay your own ^&*%$ing medical bills.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
So Jay, have you given up all your unhealthy habits?
October 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I’m not offended by smoke, I have severe asthma, because growing up, my family smoked non-stop in our house. I have to live with this disease for the rest of my life. Anyone who suffers from asthma knows how scary it can be when you can’t breathe. Walking by someone who is smoking, causes my lungs to shut and without a rescue inhaler, I could die. So, Big_D, I’m NOT a sissy; thanks to the many years of growing up in a family that smoked, I have lungs of a smoker, yet, I’ve NEVER smoked in my life!!!! My father-in-law was a robust, strong healthy tough Alaskan who smoked, alot!! He died a slow, very painful death of lung cancer. Had you known this man, you would have never called him a sissy and if you had, he would have beat the crap out of you and stomped out his cigarette on your face. Sometimes, you can’t just “step away” from smoke; however, you CAN educate yourself about the dangers of smoking, so maybe you should give that a try. There is nothing macho about smoking.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Im a non smoker, and I hate the smell of smoke but I think people should have that right to smoke if they want to. We are slowly losing our freedom in the USA, soon we will not be able to spit in public etc. This country is becoming communist, soon the government will be running everything and there will be no civilian owned businesses etc. Im tired of this country, this government. Rights, we are losing them. Then you have these A%^ kissing people licking the butt of the government. Im leaving this country it sucks.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:28 am
YES.. and I think the Taxi cabs need to also.. THEY reak like a smelly ash tray, they are considered a business too. The drivers need to not smoke in them, even if no one is in it at the time. I hate getting a cab and it reaking to high heaven of smoke.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:36 am
So, Onewolf, where you planning on going?? Canada, Europe, South America…??? Good luck and happy travels….
October 26th, 2009 at 9:40 am
This is hilarious! A smokers last resort to find a place to smoke inside and booze it up. No such luck!
October 26th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Cancun Mexico
October 26th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Everyone wants to use the “poor employee will get second hand smoke” as an excuse. As a non-smoker who has worked in the food service/bar industry, I would rather work on the smoking side of any restaurant than the non-smoking side. Smokers are better tippers and better guests to wait on. Not only that but have you tried to walk around downtown. Nothing better for our tourism industry than a bunch of drunks outside smoking at 10 in the morning. At least if they could smoke inside then all their cigarette butts and drunk antics would stay inside with them. If you don’t like the smoke stay out of the bars.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Private clubs have fought a similar battle before and lost that one too. Remember gambling and how private clubs felt they should be exempt from state gambling laws? Same thing holds true here. This new law was not instigated by a liberal minority. If that was the case it wouldn’t last any longer than the next city/borough assembly election. A majority of the citizens of this community do not want people to smoke in tightly enclosed public areas. Private clubs may be private but they have a part of the public as their members. Non-smoking individuals have a right to be a member of that club without putting their health in jeprody. Smokers can smoke somewhere else and still enjoy the club but non-smokers did not have that option.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I think all the arguments have already been presented. For the record, I am a non-cigarette smoking, sometimes binge drinking, marijuana smoker, as are my rights in the state of AK. I was a huge opponent of the smoking ban at first. Since the ban I have grown to enjoy the clean air while I am getting wasted at the bars on the weekends. HOWEVER, I find us slowly entering a “Brave New World” or “1984″ type world, and that is far more terrifying than a little second hand smoke. For those who don’t take the dwindling of our civil liberties seriously, it is time to WAKE UP. Your liberties could be next.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
P.S. ToddP and Bill Burke, as well as anyone interested in true liberty, should Google “Wake up call”.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I say let them have their stinky bar. Who cares. Maybe they’ll all congregate there and kill each other with the second hand smoke exposure while they enjoy their cocktails.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I just can’t get worked up over smokers “rights”. You don’t have the right to pollute the air that others breathe. I don’t think this is the sword those of us who truly care about liberty want to fall on. Tobacco products are regulated because their ingredients include toxic products with harmful side effects. As far as that goes, I am for legalizing all drugs and simply using similar regulations for those.
Smokers have a place to booze it up and smoke – it’s called “home”.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Non-smokers also have a place to booze it up without having to walk through cigarette smoke. What a coincidence – it’s also called “home.”
Non-smokers had, at my count, 12 non-smoking bars they could go to – but they wanted them ALL!
Polluting the air you breathe? Here’s the top causes of air pollution (if air pollution bothers you that much, better stop driving a vehicle or boat.):
Stationary Causes for Air Pollution
As the name suggests, stationary causes are ones that do not move. These would include primarily power and energy plants where oil or coal is refined or burned. Although we do need power for a myriad of reasons in our daily lives, the results of using these polluting forms of the power generation process release many dangerous chemicals into the air.
One of the most common of these chemicals is sulfur dioxide. When coal and other fuel sources are burned, this chemical is released and can have damaging effects on the people in the surrounding areas. When present in low concentrations, the compound is not extremely dangerous. However, the concentrations around these plants can be very high and that can lead to serious breathing problems in the residents of surrounding areas. Of course, the wind also moves these concentrations of sulfur dioxide where they begin to mix with a host of other pollutants in the air; spreading the pollution and causing problems for areas far away from the plants.
Mobile Causes for Air Pollution
Every time we drive a car, boat, or truck, we are releasing large amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. As the gasoline is burned by our engines to power the vehicle, waste products are being released into the air through the exhaust system. These waste products include high levels of poisonous carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbons.
Nitrogen oxide in large amounts contributes to acid rain when it is combined with sulfur dioxide from those stationery sources. It is also one of the leading causes of high levels of ozone in the atmosphere which makes breathing difficult.
Another Air Pollution Cause
Other primary causes of air pollution are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These are chemicals released into the atmosphere through the use of aerosol cans, air conditioners, refrigeration units, burning some types of foam, and similar sources. CFCs are believed to be the chief cause of the disintegration of the ozone layer in the atmosphere which reduces the amount of ultraviolet light reaching earth. That’s because as the CFCs move upward through the atmosphere and come in contact with light radiation they release atoms that convert ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2).
Besides the problems associated with the reduced ozone layer, CFCs are also believed to play an important role in photochemical smog which has become increasingly common in urban areas especially during the summer.
Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/17296.aspx#ixzz0V6ONGsS5
October 26th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Rule of Law Says:
October 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I just can’t get worked up over smokers “rights”. You don’t have the right to pollute the air that others breathe.
Do you drive a car???? If so you have the right to pollute the air others breathe.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
We all pollute by existing. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If one person starts the stone throwing, then we can all get stoned.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:24 am
This country was built on freedom and private property rights, the loss we are suffering right now of those two ideals is what will,and is, destroying the country!! If it’s a PRIVATE club, light em up!!
October 27th, 2009 at 7:02 am
heidijnu-As a tax paying citizen I don’t want to take care of fat people due to obesity because they stuff themselves with McDonalds and junk food. Let’s tax and ban that!! Besides I thought the law was mostly to protect the non-smokers from second hand smoke and to keep kids from starting and/or continuing to smoke. Ironically, they will be the only ones that can afford to smoke! A private club is just that, PRIVATE!!! People have a choice whether to join or not. The next step will be someone telling you what you can do in your own home!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 7:03 am
NO !
October 27th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Non smokers are a permanent majorty and will forever exert their will — even unfairly — upon smokers. Non smokers will vote to tax to the extreme, regulate sales and restrict where smokers smoke either until the end of time or until everyone stops smoking.
Smokers seem to be slow to realize that they will get “beat with a stick” in the political environment every single time. Maybe they should try others tactics beside obstinance.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Thanks Laura! I responded pretty much the same way – but my comment is still “awaiting moderation” since yesterday afternoon!
October 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
To all y’all who are wishing lung cancer on smokers, here’s hoping you’ve been exposed to asbestos or some other lung cancer causing element (not tobacco smoke!) and get to die too (or watch someone you love die from it)- it’s lots of fun!
October 27th, 2009 at 8:36 am
The City changed the law which closed the loopholes to suit the needs of the Sandbar owner and her complaints to the City about their business suffering form the Smoking Ban she complained that her customers were leaving her sandpit and going over to the Eagles lodge so they could smoke and drink…
October 27th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Well the City changed the law to suit the needs of those who were complaining! CBJ should not be allowed to make one law and then change it to suit the needs of other business owners.
This should have gone out to a public Vote! Private Clubs are Private! NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC! YOU MUST BE INVITED AND/OR SPONSERED BY TWO CURRENT MEMBERS to become a member PERIOD!
By the way Judge Pallenberg check out the status of this lodges history in chartialbe contrubution to the community of Juneau!
This Lodge hosts CHARITABLE events which benefit OUR LOCAL NON-PROFITS AGENCIES. Judge Pallenberg insulted each and every member of every lodge in this nation when he made his quoating statement! Shame on you Pallenberg you should be REMOVED!!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I do drive a car, thanks for asking Laura and JNUKara who seems to agree with you. And my car puts out regulated emissions. Now, we’re regulating tobacco smoke.
Are regulations applied unfairly – you bet. Run for office and change the law if that’s your life’s passion.
BTW, I don’t think I have a right to drive a car either …
October 27th, 2009 at 11:43 am
kara – i don’t go to bars much, but i do seem to remember that the hangar (which you listed as smoke-free) had smoking in the bar right up until the change, so i’m not convinced by your data. on the other hand, my concern isn’t really for myself, raised in a smoking household, but for safe working conditions. if all of you who think it’s a “right” to smoke in a business or “private” establishment are also advocating for overturning all OSHA regulations, then i say “more power to you”. if not, then let’s not pretend that working in those conditions is a choice when we have the same choice to work in all risky jobs (mines, slaughterhouses, etc) which have regulations governing what sorts of conditions are safe and what are not.
all your data is great – thanks for posting. i agree that tobacco smoke is not the most harmful emission.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Whaaa, wa wa wa, whaaa!
Hitler and the Eagles….. Hmmm, does this mean that the chartable events and contributions to local non-profits must be only for the Aryan?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:50 am
i’m not sure what i posted that needs “moderation” but just in case it never gets posted, laura, i don’t think i have a “right” to drive a car – haven’t read that in the constitution anywhere – have you? maybe what’s confusing people is the use of the word “right”.
smoking is not a protected class – perhaps that should be all y’all’s mission in life, to create a protected class for smokers.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I’m not even a member you idiot!
October 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Adolph Hitler was a non-smoker, and passed some of the more restrictive smoking laws in the 20th century. Pretty much the same way the assembly passed this one. “Whatever we do, let’s make sure the voters don’t get a say in this. Quick pass a law, and let them fight it.”
October 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Well, thank goodness for them. It would not be wise to do so.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Certainly the Eagles and other clubs have non-smoking members who should not be subjected to a smoke-filled atmosphere. I would doubt that the Eagles care to be known as a private club for smokers only. Now, if there IS a private club that wishes to be only for smokers, or those who are willing to breath their noxious by-product, you will eventually have various lawsuits, like say from the unfortunate cocktail wait-person who quits smoking, but must either continue to work in an unsafe environment or lose their job. I support businesses having dedicated smoking rooms for smokers, which can pass muster and are properly ventillated – such as the exemplary one which the Island Pub was forced to abandon due to the ridiculously over-reaching city ordinance. My opinion is to give the smokers an indoor place to smoke that is separate and ventillated, but keep our public areas smoke-free.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Obviously, neither of you are members, or you’d be better informed.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I am an Eagle member and am proud to be part of an organization that helps people. I am a non-smoker and I choose to be a member. Just like all of the comments in this blog, you have a choice and a right to express your opinion. Watch out you may loose that right as well.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Of course it does. Government always knows what’s best for its citizens and must protect us from ourselves. lol
October 28th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The whole point of the ordinance is to protect human health in places that are deemed public. A private club doesn’t admit the public.
We’re giving away our rights. It’s wrong.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Well, I am thinking of making a private club that caters to the needs of those needing some companionship in town, if you know what I mean. If it is a private club, that should be ok, right. I can charge a tidy membership fee. All are happy, the club is member only, or is it those who have members?
Next stop, Opium den (members only please).
October 29th, 2009 at 8:36 am
What if it’s a cigar club?
October 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Sure they should be able to regulate it in private clubs the public pays the bill for all these guys health problems (one way or another) when they get sick and the system has to absorb the cost.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Perhaps, with all the concerns about health care costs for those of us who make poor decisions being supported by those who remain healthy, we should compromise.
Let’s allow all activities currently regulated – pollution? no problem. Toxic dumping in my backyard – sure, why not. Then, we’ll allow hospitals to turn away those folks without insurance – no ER visits for anyone that can’t pay right then. Insurance companies can do whatever they want – promise you you’ll have coverage, you’ve paid your premiums for 20 years and then you get sick and they dump you – guess you should have chosen a better company. Sucks to be you.
Then we can create huge walls of concrete with broken glass toppers around each of our houses, load up on firearms and heavy artillery, and defend our own “castles” – no government taking care of us, no community because we need to protect our own, and no socialist health care system.
Everyone’s happy now.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Juneau Empire – please take a few minutes and check through all the comments awaiting moderation. We’d like to see read those at some point please. Thanks.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:02 am
On a bigger issue. We need to move two bars, a liquor store, and the glory hole out of the downtown area. The downtown will be a sleazy pit until this happens. All other efforts are a waste of time.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I would liken this conversation to the issue of dry communities in Alaska. (Yes different in detail but like in idea). Is it proper for a city to say that the residents are not allowed to drink? Is it proper for the city and its administration to do what it sees as necessary to ensure the safety and health of its populous? Rules and laws are designed to guide and steer cultural norms and ideals. Most of us wouldn’t try to say that the dry communities are combating a systemic problem of alcoholism that has resulted in some pretty bad situations, why is the cigarette thing any different. While yes it is less public and obvious, but it is still a burden on the community and a source of problems, costs, and health issues. This is not to say that the city should not exclude other sources of problem in society, it is just that tobacco is the topic of the day.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Smokers are a nuisance no matter how you try to spin it. Dying from lung cancer is something I wouldn’t wish on anyone. Its slow and painful. Its they’re choice – they want to slowly die, let them.
Let the fat people eat cake -
its not just them making health care costs rise, just like auto insurance costs rise due to uninsured motorists, our ins costs rise bec people aren’t insured.
Smoking stinks and I think if one bar will allow them to smoke inside – more power to them. Lower the membership fee and send them all there.
Offer a two for one. Boost your sales, get the smokers off the street. Offer free rides frm downtown – that should do it.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:56 am
Hey Porcupine kisser… I am sure you will find this links as educational and up lifting as I did… The Original Flintstones… Just like I remembered it when I was growing up. Please listen carefully to the little catchy tune at end… As a kid I sure did… Don’t be afraid it is a legitimate link.
http://www.fugly.com/view_video.php?viewkey=26312bfc0fe30da00959
October 30th, 2009 at 5:35 am
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………DON’T YOU JUST GET TIRED OF BIG BROTHER……………………………………………………………………………
October 30th, 2009 at 9:53 am
No smoking anywhere! I’m for coming down on the gov’t for allowing and supporting tobacco in this country when they know the damage it causes, all for the almighty dollar.
I image every smoker would really love to quit and I know it’s difficult. Is there a sure fire way that works?
My son smokes and it’s actually very difficult to be around him, because I get nauseated from his body and clothes smell. It saddens me that I get sick from his hugs but I wouldn’t never want to stop them. More so, I’m saddened that he misses the hugs his children turn away from and so he then misinterprets their not wanting to be around him because they don’t want to tell him he stinks. He’s wonderful guy with a bad habit. What is the answer, in addition to personal responsibility?
October 30th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Two words:
HELL NO!!!
October 30th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Smokers are pariahs. They export poisonous smoke to non-smokers and damage furnishings and walls, putting people who clean at high risk from third-hand smoke. Non-smoking patrons and employees have a right to clean air. Smokers need to “first, do no harm” to others.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:50 am
There is nothing good about tobacco use. No matter how you spin it smoking or chewing of tobacco is a problem in so many ways. We spend billions chasing a few people that smoke pot but allow a much worse drug to be legal it makes no sense. It has and will always be about money.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
As a non-smoking Eagle’s member of over 15 years, first let me say that I made a choice to join. I enjoyed going into the Aerie when it was smoking and I still do. I do not believe that I have ever asked anyone to campaign on behalf of my right to clean air, nor will I. Too many self-righteous people cannot tell the difference between their prejudices and the right of others to have a different opinion.
RaininAK, two things. Your analogy of opening a private club for ‘companionship’, compares something that is illegal anywhere, anytime to something only illegal by location or age. But I have seen many other bloggers making similar comparisons. Second, dry villages got that way by a vote of the community, not by municipal proclamation.
And finally, when my grandfather died of lung cancer, I did not see the government, insurance or anyone other than family paying his medical bills. So the incessant whining about having to pay smokers healthcare, strikes home with me, but not in the way intended.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I have to agree that you, the smoker have every right to smoke, dumb decision or not, but we as a nation do not have to allow the tobacco companies capitalize on the addicted. Don’t think of the high tax as a way to screw you out of your money, think of it as a way to screw the tobacco companies out of their customers. Happier?
November 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
Do you think it’s time the Empire got a new question? This one has been here for 9 days now. Let’s all stop posting, and maybe they will move on.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Kara you should move on!
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
I just had a bowel movement. I named it ‘”Hitler”. Then I flushed it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Haa haa haa, ToddP. Keep up the humor!
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I don’t care.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Very classy response ToddP. Shows your character I guess.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Simple thing to follow really. If you don’t like smoke, don’t where it is at. If you don’t mind the smoke, welcome to the club. It is still a free country that is until we regulate who will be allowed those freedoms and who won’t. You like regulating who can do what, when and how? Let me know when we get to the point of only blonde haired, blued eyed people being the only ones who are considered perfect. The last big club I was with said “smokem if you gotem”. It was a simple club, designed with protecting your freedoms. If you don’t like freedom, the border is not that far away. You are free to go.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
HEY LETS GET ANOTHER QUESTION TO COMMENT ON! HEY LETS GET ANOTHER QUESTION TO COMMENT ON! WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP!
November 12th, 2009 at 4:58 am
“They export poisonous smoke to non-smokers and damage furnishings and walls, putting people who clean at high risk from third-hand smoke.” That is a new one. Although firmly unsupported by science, it is a new creative angle by the non-smoking lobby. Never mind that real research shows little risk to people walking down the same street as a smoker. Is second hand smoke dangerious? Yes, in a confined space with no ventalation, but you have a choice weather to be there or not.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Private means Private, not a public opinion matter, the next step is to tell you what else you cannont do in your own home. These places should be at least allowed the option to decide for themselves. If it is a private club, then one would assume that they would like similar things, if they want to smoke let them smoke, if you don’t like it dont go there then.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
With Big Brother and the New Order communist GOV in control of our Towns and country.Nothing can ever be anything private until we have some kind of revolution.Hopefully it will only be a political revolution.But so far they do not listen to WE THE PEOPLE!!WE THE PEOPLE say get out of our lives GOV!!!Get out of our private clubs!!!
December 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Right on Laura Thate….
December 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Depends on what your smoking.