People Ban: DC Update Page 3

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

DC Update

Library of Congress U nion Scores Win for Smokers
Dec. 20, 2013
Library of Congress employees have fewer options for smoke breaks around the Madison Building, but the grounds might not be as butt-free as management once envisioned.
U nion leaders for one of the largest employers on the Capitol campus notched a win this month, after spending half the year in a contentious workplace dispute about where smokers should be allowed to light up.
Under the terms of an arbitrator’s Dec. 11 ruling, the LOC must continue to allow smoking in the northwest quadrant of the Madison plaza, adjacent to the Cannon House Office Building, and must install benches to accommodate smokers at the back corner of the building, near Second and C streets Southeast.
The smoking policy showdown began this summer and centered on Madison Building, which houses approximately 2,375 employees — compared to the roughly 600 each at the nearby Adams and Jefferson buildings.
Since indoor smoking lounges closed in 2005, policy allowed employees to light up under a large portico across the front of the Madison Building, with a few signs directing smokers away from the main entrance. A narrow patio on the northwest side of the building and the tables on the large plaza were marked as “no smoking” areas.
Changes proposed in June would have banned smoking on the grounds, except for in a small area at the southeast corner of the building.
“Responding to numerous complaints about second-hand smoke near the Madison Building’s Independence Avenue entrance, Library management proposed a plan it felt was in the best health interests of our staff and patrons,” Gayle Osterberg, director of communications for the LOC, said in an email.
Management also assumed the changes would present a better appearance to the public by reducing the amount of cigarette butts and packaging littering the area. The LOC argued that its plan would prevent discoloration of the building’s marble facade, as was evident under the portico, according to documents from the case.
Seeing the issue as one of workers’ rights, leaders of the three u nions representing LOC employees — ranging from analysts, attorneys and librarians to technicians, secretaries and clerks who help stock books — sat down at the bargaining table for negotiations about the change.
All sides agreed it was in the best interest of the library staff to discontinue smoking on the portico, but the u nions suggested “the one corner for smoking proposed by management at the back of this large facility is inadequate,” Saul Schniderman, president of the LOC Professional Guild, AFSCME 2910, said in a statement provided to CQ Roll Call.
“Despite the challenges and limited options presented by the architectural footprint of the Madison Building, our guiding principle in these negotiations was to provide some seating and minimal shelter for smokers in places which at the same time protected the overwhelming non-smoking majority of employees from second-hand smoke,” Schniderman said, noting that the u nion conferred with Denise Bowles, an industrial hygienist who works with AFSCME on the national level.
The u nion proposed allowing smoking in the northwest alcove, an idea management rejected. Library management also opposed the idea of installing benches, not wanting to spend money to facilitate bad health habits.
Both parties laid out their differences during a Nov. 15 arbitration meeting with arbitrator Mary Jacksteit, the chairwoman of the Federal Service Impasses Panel that is responsible for resolving disputes between federal agencies and u nions representing federal employees.
Jacksteit ruled in favor of the u nion’s proposals, determining that the LOC proposals would ultimately push smokers onto public sidewalks, increasing second-hand smoke exposure.
“Smoking will also be much more visible, and the lack of cigarette and trash receptacles on the sidewalks will lead to littering there,” she wrote, in effect forcing employees to be “public nuisances.”
In response, Osterberg said library management was disappointed it could not implement the full plan and, “as a result won’t be able to provide the full public health protections we’d hoped.”
Schniderman told CQ Roll Call that the guild applauds the decision as a “more common sense and balanced approach.”

Premium Cigar Association Supports D.C. Council Smoking Ban Proposal… Almost
January 20, 2010
Washington, D.C. – The International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association has come out in support of proposed Washington D. C. Council legislation to reduce under-aged smoking and against the same piece of legislation that would impact smokers’ rights outside businesses.
The proposal would assess new penalties on under-aged youth for purchasing or possessing tobacco products.? At the same time, the bill allows shop owners to post no-smoking signs in front of their establishments to include 25 feet of their front door or from the sidewalk.?
“As owners of premium cigar stores, we have very few people coming into our stores who are underaged and, if they try to make a purchase, they are carded without exception.? So the part of the legislation regarding underaged youth and tobacco is not a problem for us, unlike the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids which, ironically, opposes this aspect of the legislation,” said Chris McCalla, Legislative Director of the IPCPR.
“It’s the other part of the legislation that bothers us – no smoking outside of buildings – even though it contains no enforcement provisions,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR.
McCalla pointed out that the vast majority of premium cigar and pipe smokers are courteous and mindful of people around them when they are smoking.? However, he said, legislated smoking bans of any kind are anathema to the group and its individual members.
“Anyone who says there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke, including that which is found outdoors, is totally misinformed.? In fact, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set safe standards for secondhand smoke.? Those OSHA standards are 25,000 times higher than air quality levels found in restaurants and bars.? So, whatever wisps of smoke may occasionally waft into a building cannot possibly be unsafe, according to OSHA,” McCalla said.
Referencing those people who cite the Surgeon General’s report regarding the alleged adverse health effects of secondhand smoke, McCalla said:? “There is absolutely no evidence presented in the report that supports this claim.? These misinformed people have been brainwashed by neo-prohibitionists and tobaccophobes into believing otherwise,” he said.
“If store owners don’t want smoking in their places of business, they have the right to declare their property smoke-free.? And if these property owners don’t want people to smoke outside of their places of business, they have the right to ask people not to smoke there.? We support that.? But enacting legislation that gives the government authority over these individual property rights we do not support,” he said.
“Not only is it not justified from a medical standpoint, it is not a justified deprivation of our personal rights from a constitutional standpoint.? Next thing you know, the government will be running our nation’s auto companies, financial institutions and the entire health industry – or trying to.”
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678/493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com

Pouring In: At a Raft of New Bars, the Wine Comes First

December 26, 2007
By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

As a gaggle of 20- and 30-somethings crowded into Bistrot Lepic’s wine bar on a recent Tuesday night, jockeying for a chance to sample free glasses of wine from France’s Alsace-Lorraine and Languedoc, owner Bruno Fortin recalled how four years ago he and his partner were unsure whether the bar would succeed.

“I wanted a place where we could go have fun, smoke — when smoking was allowed,” he said. “We did it for ourselves. Then it became popular.”

“Popular” may be an understatement. In Washington and other cities across the nation, wine bars are opening at an astonishing rate. Although far from achieving the per-block saturation rate of, say, Starbucks, wine bars are enjoying an urban boomlet that has surprised even some of their proprietors.

“I didn’t realize the need in the market was so huge until [we] opened,” said Mark Maynard, manager of Sonoma Restaurant and Wine Bar, launched in August 2005.

On the other side of the country, Kevin Erickson — chef and owner of Seattle’s Bricco della Regina Anna — said he was shocked recently to learn there were at least a dozen wine bars in the Seattle area. Erickson began thinking about starting one with friends in 1997, when they were students at the University of Washington-Seattle. Bricco finally opened for business on New Year’s Eve in 2005.

“We started getting into wine because girls are getting into wine. We figured, what better than a wine bar?” he said. “For me, I think the market’s saturated, if anything.”

As with many food and drink trends born on the West Coast, Washington has been slower to catch on. Jens Strecker, who owns Seattle’s Portalis wine bar and shop, said it made perfect sense that these establishments sprang up first in wine-producing regions and that other cities are following suit. Piero Selvaggio’s new V-vin wine bar in Santa Monica, Calif., has been luring crowds since October, and New Yorkers are awaiting the opening of Daniel Boulud’s Bar Boulud in Manhattan.

Wine bars’ moment clearly has arrived in the nation’s capital: The wine-focused Proof opened in Penn Quarter in July, Veritas followed in Dupont Circle in September, Vinoteca opened at 11th and U last month, and at least three others — Cork near 14th and S streets, Enology at Wisconsin Avenue and Macomb Street and a wine bar section of Sova on H Street NE — are set to open in the first half of next year.

“This is really becoming a wine town,” said Veritas’s general manager, Mick McGuire, who oversaw wine at the District’s Charlie Palmer Steak, Sonoma and Mendocino restaurants before switching to his current post. “No, we’re not New York, and we’re never going to be New York. But are we up there with a Philadelphia? Yeah, if not more so.”

A number of factors account for wine bars’ growing popularity. Wine consumption has risen steadily in the United States over the past 15 years as wine production has expanded beyond Europe to Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries, increasing the range of wine offerings while lowering the price. Americans drank an average of nearly 2.4 gallons of wine in 2006 compared with 1.85 gallons in 1991, according to the Wine Institute, a California-based trade association. Every state in the country now boasts at least one wine producer, providing American consumers more domestic choices as well. And while it’s hard to calculate the impact of the Oscar-winning 2004 movie “Sideways,” the indie film clearly encouraged American wine drinkers to think beyond chardonnay and merlot.

The small-plates trend in restaurants has created an atmosphere more conducive to wine bars. Cyril Frechier, Northwest U.S. sales representative for the D.C.-based wine importer Robert Kacher Selections, said restaurant patrons increasingly are seeking out drinks that complement tapas and other small portions.

“This kind of food works very well with wine as opposed to cocktails,” Frechier said as he conducted a tasting at Portalis, one of Seattle’s first wine bars.

Real estate development in urban centers, coupled with city residents’ desire to eat out, has provided wine bars with a broader customer base. Erickson, who estimated that many of Bricco’s customers come in three or four nights a week, described his place as “an extension of their living room.”

Most of the Washington wine bars that have launched or are getting ready to open cater to their particular locale. Proof is very much a freshly minted Penn Quarter establishment, with exposed brick and images from the National Portrait Gallery posted on TV screens above the bar; Vinoteca hopes to capitalize on U Street’s expansion; Veritas feels more like a Dupont-Circle-aspiring-to-be-New-York-City hangout.

“We wanted to be in this neighborhood and be a part of this neighborhood,” Veritas’s McGuire said.

More than any other factor, women are driving the current wine bar boom. Almost every owner and manager interviewed for this story estimated that 90 percent of their customers are female, even though they do not market specifically to women. The lack of hard liquor and of televisions blaring sports events may play a role in these bar’s popularity among women, along with women’s increased financial independence.

“I’m 38 and I do have the disposable income to spend,” said Kathy Swift, who works for a Chicago-based wine importer and supplier and said she patronizes the Bricco wine bar three times a week. “Now it’s going for a nice meal, having a good glass of wine with friends.”

As the number of wine bars multiplies, many owners are seeking to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Adam Mason, who owns Veritas along with Joe Englert, called his new establishment “the only true wine bar in D.C.”

“From the logo, from the moment you walk in to when you sit down and order a glass, it’s all focused on the wine,” says Mason, who used to manage Sonoma. “The wine is first, the food is second, and it’s not dinner.”

Veritas’s 68 wines from nine foreign countries and four U.S. states vastly outnumber the cheeses, p¿t¿s and cured meats on its menu. The restaurant has a tiny kitchen with two sinks, and it doesn’t even serve slices of lemon and lime because, under the city health code, that would require a third, produce-only sink. But it has an advanced storage system that keeps whites at 50 degrees and reds at 68 while pumping nitrogen into open bottles to keep the contents drinkable for more than two weeks.

By contrast, Bistrot Lepic’s wine bar, directly above its main dining room, offers the restaurant’s full menu, because diners started demanding more than appetizers with their drinks when the bar first opened. But with its Filipino furniture, whimsical pig paintings and dark lighting, the room has a distinctly different feel from the sunny yellow decor of the main restaurant. It offers between 12 and 14 whites and reds, all of them French.

Because French wines are labeled by region rather than grape varietal, Bistrot Lepic’s managing partner, Cyrille Brenac, said he and Fortin decided to hold a free weekly tasting with winery representatives “to democratize the French wine, if you will. Our system is confusing to Americans. We don’t go by grapes; we go by region.”

Proof offers an extensive, elaborate menu — which during a recent visit outshone its wines by the glass — but it highlights the wine with long rows of stacked bottles. Capitol Hill’s Sonoma, which has two lounges upstairs in addition to its small downstairs dining room, offers 50 wines by the glass and recently revamped its cheese list to ensure that the restaurant’s food is both local and organic.

“It’s a California, relaxed atmosphere,” Sonoma’s Maynard said. On a typical night, he said, his restaurant hosts 170 to 200 diners and 200 to 250 lounge patrons.

Many of these bar owners amount to evangelists, aiming to convince their customers that wine is not as intimidating as it might seem. Sonoma trains its servers to be “down-to-earth in the way they explain the wines to people,” Maynard said, while Veritas and Bricco sell half-glasses to encourage wider sampling, and Proof has glasses in three sizes: 2, 6 and 8.5 ounces. Portalis offers a free Sunday afternoon tasting; customers who pay to attend tastings on other nights receive a $10 in-store certificate they can apply to either a bottle or food from the restaurant.

In a town as geeky as Washington, wine knowledge is an easy sell. “People want to know more,” McGuire said. “It’s like why I got into wine. I wanted to be the guy who got handed the wine list.”

And for customers who are not experts, the staff at these places is more than happy to help. One waitress at Proof, for example, described an Italian red during a recent visit as “tar and leather” (she advised against it) while suggesting that a California white held out the promise of “rocks and bananas.” Granted, we still weren’t sure what the wine would taste like after those descriptions, but we appreciated the effort.

Although it remains unclear whether wine is, as Mason put it, “the next coffee,” the current crop of urban wine bars is at least guaranteed to change the bar scene in Washington and other American cities.

“The role is a very social role in bringing people together in the same way, amazingly enough, bars in the ’30s and ’40s did,” Kacher’s Frechier said. “It’s not a fad.”

SKYLINE SCHMOOZING: The Rooftop Scene
Hitting the Roofs

April 5, 2007

Except for the unmistakable sound of people having a great time floating down from above, the city’s rooftop bars can be easy to miss. But when warmer weather arrives, the after-work and after-class crowd in the know heads directly there. And because many are smoker-friendly, they are good spots for the posses huddling on the street all winter as a result of the District’s smoking ban to resume mingling with nonsmokers.

Local 16 on U Street opens its roof up for dining and drinks whenever the weather allows, with supplemental warmth from those umbrella-style patio heaters. The outdoor area, which overlooks U Street, has been open consistently for the past three weeks. About 250 people, including smokers, can squeeze in, with bargoers roped off from diners. Free. Friday-Saturday 5:30 p.m.-3 a.m., Sunday-Thursday 5:30 p.m.-2 a.m. 1602 U St. NW. 202-265-2828.

The rooftop deck at Clarendon Ballroom opened a little early this year, so revelers have been able to catch air on the smoker-friendly level since last Thursday. But it’s been closing early as it grows colder during the night, and it’s not likely to be open at all this weekend. Expect it to be open regularly come mid-April or early May. 5 p.m.-midnight Wednesday, 5 p.m.-2 a.m. Thursday and Friday. Saturday hours subject to change because of private events. 3185 Wilson Blvd., Arlington. 703-469-2244.

The lagoon-themed bar The Reef in Adams Morgan has been keeping its rooftop bar and dining area open year-round for a few years, thanks to its umbrella heaters and wind-abatement walls. Warmer weather has had the post-work crowd rushing the roof on midweek nights lately; because fewer than 100 people are generally allowed up there at any given time, lines can be long. Smoking is fine. This view is of 18th Street NW and a few city rooftops. While pretty, this roof doesn’t seem to catch much of a spring breeze (you can thank those abatement walls for that). Monday-Thursday 5 p.m.-2 a.m., Saturday 1 p.m.-3 a.m., Sunday 11 a.m.-2 a.m. 2446 18th St. NW. 202-518-3800.
— Lavanya Ramanathan

Allen sings with attitude

February 19, 2007

British songstress Lily Allen is a study in contrasts. A diminutive 21-year-old with long, shiny black hair who wears fake eyelashes and girlish gowns every chance she gets, Miss Allen also has a penchant for Nike sneaks and “round-the-way girl” gold.

She creates bouncy little pop tunes with a sunshiny ska vibe and coos sweetly, and yet her lyrics argue that size really does matter, blokes at the bar should just buzz off, and cheating boys deserve revenge.

The queen of MySpace and toast of critics, Miss Allen is more than just audacious little ditties; she’s an explosive bundle of attitude.

She brought both songs and sass to the 9:30 Club on Friday when she performed as part of MTV’s first “Discover and Download” tour (essentially her and a low-temp warm-up DJ).

The warbler built her set around her full-length debut album, “Alright, Still,” (currently number 23 on the charts after its late-January U.S. release), and threw in a few supplements — “so you’re getting your money’s worth,” she said.

A packed crowd of twenty- and thirtysomethings happily devoured everything she fed them, from snarky singles “LDN” and “Smile,” to a thoroughly lovely reggae interpretation of Keane’s “Everybody’s Changing.”

While her stinging lyrics evoked outspoken chanteuses such as Nellie McKay and Amy Winehouse, her delivery oscillated between breezy, Jem-like crooning and whimsical, Princess Superstar-like rapping. (In more hushed moments, one sensed the presence of some serious vocal effects.)

Meanwhile, six male back-up musicians, including a three-piece horn section, gave the artist’s island vibe a boost in both decibels and energy. Each player was so handsome that one wondered if Miss Allen hadn’t chosen them as much for their looks as their auditions. (We wouldn’t put it past her.)

As the septet forged their way through the evening and the audience cheered them on, the singer’s rebellious streak found its way into the show. Within an hour and a half, she managed to break D.C.’s smoking ban twice, throw back enough drinks to get her “sufficiently drunk,” purposefully break at least two glasses onstage, and make some disparaging Dixie Chicks-esque remarks about her homeland in response to the four Brit Awards she failed to take home earlier in the week.

“It’s nice being appreciated in your own country,” she joked, before spouting some expletives about Britain and alternately voicing her love for America.

As the talkative crowd slowly — almost dreamily — drifted out, it was clear America loves the spunky starlet, too.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
February 2, 2007
Not Everyone Loves a Smoking Ban

Gay strip club turns straight?
February 02, 2007

Smoking Ban Roundup: Good News, Bad News
January 16, 2007
Two weeks into the D.C. smoking ban, and we’ve got news, both good and bad, to report.
Smoking Bans are Fleeting: This month’s issue of The Atlantic brings us news that will be music to the ears of the District’s disgruntled smokers. According to the magazine, smoking bans have a long and rich history — and are usually overturned. Whether Pope Urban VIII’s proclamation of a worldwide smoking ban in 1624 or Adolf Hitler’s German experiment in 1942, few smoking bans have survived the passage of time. But don’t get too excited just yet, smokers. The Vatican’s ban lasted until 1779, while a prohibition imposed by Russia’s Czar Michael in 1634 lasted 32 years. (It bears mentioning that Michael’s ban was overturned after a two-year stint during which smokers faced the death penalty.) You may get to smoke again one day in District bars, but you may also be a little old to be frequenting those bars by then. You win some, you lose some, right?

Seattle Smoking Foes Take On Buildings: Yes, the District smoking ban in bars is pretty much absolute (exemptions do exist for bars that lose a significant percentage of their business as a result of the ban), but it’s not nearly as bad as what Seattle smokers may have coming their way. According to the Seattle Times, smoking foes are looking to push landlords in residential buildings to ban smoking in their units. But even if that pressure never comes to pass, Seattle’s smokers still face a much more hostile environment than their District counterparts — an initiative endorsed last year prohibits smoking within 25 feet of the entrance of any public place or work setting.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
Tuesday, January 2, 2007

NEWS RELEASE

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
District Smoking Ban Threatens Economic Liberty
District of Columbia Smoking Ban in Effect January 2
Freedom Snuffed Out in Capital City
News Release
by CEI Staff
January 2, 2007
Contact: Christine Hall, (202) 331-2258

Washington, D.C., January 2, 2007 — The District of Columbia today became the newest city in the nation to embrace the trendy smoking ban phenomenon. District bars, taverns and nightclubs no longer have the right or freedom to offer customers the option of smoking.

CEI Policy Analyst Brooke Oberwetter, offered the following statement on the ill-conceived ban:

The interest groups that pushed for the ban are hailing the ban as a victory for non-smokers’ rights. Making this an issue of rights — a right to clean air versus a right to smoke — is a ploy designed to illicit sympathy for non-smokers, but it’s a gross mischaracterization of what smoking bans are all about. To a certain extent, it’s a matter of personal liberty; certainly in places where smoking is banned outdoors — everywhere from sidewalks to beaches to public parks, personal liberty is at stake. But in the case of DC, the bigger threat behind the ban is the threat to the economic liberty of business owners.

Freedom Snuffed Out in Capital City

1/2/07
By Brooke Oberwetter

This morning, the residents of the District of Columbia awoke to find themselves in a non-smoking city, as the District’s much debated smoking ban took effect in bars, taverns, and nightclubs at midnight last night. Although many bar and restaurant owners fear that the smoking ban will drive their smoking customers across the Potomac, to smoke-friendly Virginia, the interest groups that pushed for the ban are hailing the ban as a victory for non-smokers’ rights; as activist group SmokeFree DC notes in its online FAQ section, “Everyone has the right to breathe clean air.”

Making this an issue of rights — a right to clean air versus a right to smoke — is a ploy designed to illicit sympathy for non-smokers, but it’s a gross mischaracterization of what smoking bans are all about. To a certain extent, it’s a matter of personal liberty; certainly in places where smoking is banned outdoors — everywhere from sidewalks to beaches to public parks, personal liberty is at stake. But in the case of DC, the bigger threat behind the ban is the threat to the economic liberty of business owners.

When I talked to bar and restaurant owners and managers while running Ban the Ban, almost without fail, they’d mention that the reason they opened a bar or restaurant was to create a particular atmosphere that attracts a particular kind of patron, possibly patrons willing — and eager — to expose themselves to any risks that may be associated with smoking or secondhand smoke. Basically, they wanted to open the sort of places where they and their friends would enjoy hanging out. But a smoking ban tells business owners that they can’t cater to the legal preferences of their customers, which just doesn’t make sense, especially since everyone from patrons to barbacks is there voluntarily; banning smoking is as arbitrary as banning loud music or spicy food. It tells business owners and their customers that they’re just too stupid to make their own decisions about the risks they take. And with secondhand smoke, we’re talking about some pretty tiny risks.

Rather than a ban, consumers should decide the preferences bars and restaurants should cater to, by voting with their wallets. Although bars especially have been slow to react to the changing demands of consumers, letting customers speak for themselves will result in a balance of smoking and non-smoking establishments that is more in line with majority preferences; whenever I debate a pro-ban person, I’m always quick to concede that the industry is out of sync with popular preferences, just as the industry would be out of sync with preferences if all bars were goth bars and all restaurants only served sushi; that wouldn’t be a good reason to ban sushi and goth bars, but it would be a good reason to open a fried chicken shack or a hip-hop club. The tide is turning against smoking and against places that allow it. It may be going slower than some people would like, but there’s really no need to add an additional regulation on the District’s already heavily regulated service industry.

READ: Temporary DC Smoking Ban Regulations (12/29/06)

THE WASHINGTON POST “GOING OUT GURUS”
Smoked Out

January 8, 2007
By Fritz Hahn

After the first weekend of life under Washington’s new smoking ban, the verdict is in: Wait until it gets colder.

In Adams Morgan on Saturday, the Reef’s rooftop was at capacity, so customers who wanted fresh air had to mill about in the second-floor bar, waiting for someone to leave. There were no tables open on Soussi’s large patio, and people waited for spaces on Bourbon’s back deck — but that could have been because customers wanted to enjoy the unseasonably mild weather, not just due to the need to light up.

On 18th Street itself, the narrow sidewalks were jammed with crowds hanging out and smoking, and some barhoppers — including me — found it easier to walk in the street than try to fight through the congestion. (I have a feeling this could lead to problems in the future, but a pedestrian’s probably going to have to get hit by a car before anything changes.)

Another consequence: Lines to get in and out of bars seemed longer than normal, as smokers had to get back in line to re-show their IDs or of-age handstamps to bouncers when they were ready to head back inside. (Drinks may have arrived slower, too, because I spotted at least one bartender outside having a quick cigarette.)

At the Black Cat, where there are now separate “in” and “out” doors to improve the traffic flow for smokers (and other patrons), the mood was more like a party, as hipsters gathered out front to talk about the band they’d just seen. The in-and-out process — tell the door guy you weren’t really leaving for the night, have a cigarette, show bouncer your admission stamp to reenter — ran without any visible hitches. (One possible explanation: the combination of a midnight screening of “Heavy Metal Parking Lot” on the mainstage and the ’60s DJ night the Wag on the backstage didn’t exactly lead to record-breaking crowds.) Once it gets cold and — heaven forbid — snowy, though, I’m guessing there will be far more grumbling about having to go outside, and then waiting in the cold to reenter the club.

Smokers, how were your experiences this weekend? Did everything go smoothly, or are you already fed up with the system? . . .

Is Change to D.C.’s Smoking Ban a Puff Away?
1/5/07
The law has only been in effect for a few days and now new D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty wants to change the ban on smoking in the District.

City seeks to save our lives again, like it or not

January 4, 2007
Tom Knott

City officials have implemented their smoking ban in order to save lives, the feel-good justification that has no legislative end.

The call to save lives is sounded in support of red-light cameras, speed traps and burdensome parking regulations.

There is always another life to be saved in a sign-stuffed city endeavoring to stamp out all death.

The trans-fat brigade is expected to follow the smoke police soon enough. Ice-cream parlors should be on alert, too.

There are a zillion ways to die, some more statistically improbable than others, but government is moving to take all the risk out of living, if not the joy.

The capacity of individuals to make decisions for themselves is an old-fashioned concept that no longer is applicable in an enlightened society.

Fatties who dine in fast-food restaurants are no longer held responsible for the quality of their calorie intake. That responsibility has been passed along to the cholesterol-peddling dens of doom.

It apparently comes as a shock to fatties that fast-food cuisine is hard on the arteries.

The elimination of smoking in the city’s saloons is possibly a neutral measure to the neighborhood drunks and weekend partygoers, many too inebriated to notice the difference.

The neighborhood drunks and weekend partygoers are not making good choices either. Their legislative moment will come to pass, too.

For now, a drunk smells better than a smoker, and a drunk poses no health risk to the innocent servers, previously condemned to a life of second-hand smoke that they had no choice but to make.

More than a few servers apparently were bound and gagged and ordered to work in the smoke-filled establishments.

If the smoking ban hurts the small-business owner, at least the person will be able to shut down the operation with clean lungs and stench-free clothes.

Proponents and opponents of the smoking ban have debated the financial effect endlessly.

Oddly enough, many of the lawmakers who passed the measure never have had to balance the books of a mom-and-pop restaurant/bar. They either don’t grasp or don’t care that the moms and pops of the city work with a fragile profit-margin line.

A loss in gross revenue of $1,000 a week means nothing to a chain such as TGIF. That loss could mean everything to the moms and pops operating establishments that gross less than $1 million a year.

This concern was sounded repeatedly by the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington, all too aware of the smoking ban’s effect on small businesses in Montgomery County.

The concern was trumped by the act of saving lives, although the science on second-hand smoke is not unlike the science on global warming, steeped in contradictory research and political agendas.

Not surprisingly, new Mayor Adrian M. Fenty wants to strengthen the smoking ban’s hardship provision on those bleeding businesses that eventually seek an exemption.

He has trotted out New York City’s threshold of a 15 percent drop in business as a potential barometer.

The 15 percent threshold, or a similar figure, will be small solace to mom and pop. A precipitous decline in gross revenue won’t be a cue to seek an exemption.

It will be a cue to either attempt to sell their business or close it.

The city has a curious relationship with the small-business owner. It champions the small-business owner in theory while being instinctively distrustful of big business.

In practice, though, big business is far better equipped than a small-business operator to deal with the city’s onerous bureaucracy and legalese.

The city’s lawmakers undoubtedly would find it off-putting if too many establishments were granted an exemption from the smoking ban.

That just might give the masses the element of choice, and our lawmakers are convinced we lack the brain power to choose between a bar that has smoking and one that does not.

We are like children in that way.

Fortunately, our self-appointed parents are looking out for our best interests.

Smokers hit D.C. ‘prohibition’

January 2, 2007
Tom Ramstack

Grumbling smokers in the District of Columbia yesterday said they were considering their options about frequenting their favorite nightspots as they braced for a citywide workplace ban on smoking in bars and nightclubs that takes effect today.

“I generally have a problem with prohibition,” said Farrel Lever, 34, an independent filmmaker from Philadelphia, as he held a cigarette in front of the Diner restaurant at 2453 18th St. NW. “I think it’s fascist.”

His only alternative, he said, was to “smoke outside.”

The D.C. Council approved a ban on indoor smoking a year ago. It took effect in restaurant dining rooms in April. The expansion of the ban to bars and nightclubs is the last phase.

Other smokers in Adams Morgan were unwilling to tolerate the ban without looking for options.

Andreas Serafini, a Manassas auto technician, said he might avoid bars and restaurants in the District.

“I’m probably going to end up more in Virginia,” said Mr. Serafini. “It’s more convenient.”

Virginia does not have a similar workplace smoking ban.

The Maryland suburbs of Montgomery, Prince George’s and Howard counties ban smoking inside bars and restaurants.

Balazs Czifra, a Web designer in the District, said he might seek out bars that accommodate occasional smokers like him during the winter months.

“There are some places that are going to have heat lamps outside,” he said.

At the Black Cat nightclub on 14th Street Northwest, owner Dante Ferrando organized a “Smoke Night” yesterday for smoking customers to get together for one last evening of puffing.

Bar and restaurant owners and managers said they must enforce the smoking ban, despite complaints from customers.

“I don’t think it will hurt the business,” said Jacquie Chauvet, manager of La Fourchette restaurant at 2429 18th St. NW.

However, the risk to her business was not her main complaint.

“The point is you are in a free country, and that’s not freedom,” she said.

Unlike some of the patrons at bars and nightclubs where he plays the drums, Chilly Willy Vasquez welcomes the ban.

“It’ll be healthier for me now,” he said as he sat on a park bench in front of Madam’s Organ bar and restaurant on New Year’s Day.

“I’ve got my respiratory problems like everybody else.”

He said he sometimes would realize the effects of secondhand smoke only after he arrived home from his job.

His children would say, “Hey, you smell like cigarettes.”

Hernando Cano, bartender at T.S. Muttly’s tavern at 2427 18th St. NW, said few of his customers complained about the ban.

When the city of Miami, where he used to live, enacted a smoking ban, bars and restaurants hardly noticed a difference, he said.

“Maybe initially, but not too much,” he said.

Stubbing Out Freedom
December 20, 2006
The Dec. 11 editorial “Stub It Out,” in support of smoking bans in bars and restaurants, signals yet another regrettable step in the rise of the nanny-state. What ever happened to freedom of choice? No one is forced to frequent or work in establishments where patrons smoke. If, as The Post asserts, “there is growing evidence that more people will frequent restaurants and bars when a smoking ban is in place,” nonsmoking establishments will proliferate. Hospitality workers will thus have choices, as will patrons, as to whether they wish to expose themselves to secondhand smoke.
Furthermore, The Post’s analogy to poisoned food is silly and specious. Surely many people frequent a restaurant to enjoy a cigar after a nice dinner or smoke cigarettes while having a few beers. How many people do you know who go to a restaurant of their own volition to be poisoned?
Yes, we get it: Smoke is not good for you. However, it may not be nearly as harmful as the systematic asphyxiation of the right to exercise free will.
KENNETH A. COHEN
Alexandria

Smokefree DC balks at smoking ban rules

By Michael Neibauer, The Examiner
Dec 9, 2006

Washington, D.C. — The advocacy group that led the push for the looming D.C. smoking ban is urging the D.C. Council to reject proposed regulations for administering the prohibition.

Smokefree DC, an organization focused on banning smoking in District workplaces, is reacting with disdain to rules submitted by Mayor Anthony Williams earlier this week. They will be automatically adopted after 60 days if the Council takes no action.

“We hope that you will do everything in your power to ensure that the D.C. Council rejects this draft and adopts a better set of regulations that are truly consistent with the intent of the law,” Angela Bradberry, Smokefree DC co-founder, wrote in a Dec. 4 letter to Council Member David Catania, chairman of the health committee.

The smoking ban takes effect Jan. 2 in all bars, restaurants and most indoor workplaces. Mayor-elect Adrian Fenty, a strong supporter of anti-smoking laws, takes office the same day and could rewrite the regulations if they haven’t already been approved.

With regard to Williams’ proposal, Bradberry is especially concerned with the process by which a business would obtain an economic hardship waiver — a way around the ban.

To be eligible for a waiver, Williams wants proof of a 5 percent sales reduction over three consecutive months, plus evidence of either unanticipated revenue losses, falling food or alcohol sales, or reduced staffing levels. But anti-smoking activists are demanding that D.C. mirror New York’s law, which requires a 15 percent drop in sales with no wiggle room for other considerations.

The mayor’s plan would “undermine” the ban by establishing “a wide-open process that would grant permanent waivers with a very low threshold for demonstrating ‘damage,’ ” Bradberry wrote.

“On this matter, I will follow the lead of the advocates,” said Council Member Phil Mendelson. “I’ve been very supportive of what they’re trying to do.”

In his transmittal letter to Council Chair Linda Cropp, Williams said he sought protections for the hospitality industry to ensure “it does not suffer indiscriminately because of this policy decision,” which he opposed.

Anti-smoking activists sought tougher ban rules
Mayor Williams’ proposal eases way to waiver for businesses
THE RULES OF SMOKING
Inside proposed smoking ban: waivers
Michael Neibauer, The Examiner
Dec 7, 2006
Obtaining a waiver to sidestep the District’s impending smoking ban would not be nearly as difficult for businesses as anti-smoking activists had hoped, if rules proposed by outgoing Mayor Anthony Williams, long an opponent of the prohibition, are adopted.
Read

Read More: DC Update Page 2
Read More: DC Update Page 1