Where There's Smoke
The Butt Stops Here
Is the state's no-smoking law lighting up creativity?
By Amy Linn, 10-05-09
As Montana bars dealt with their first smoke-free weekend since the state’s indoor smoking ban went into effect, ingenuity ruled. In Missoula, according to a great piece by Michael Moore in the Missoulian, the Rhino Bar gave smokers their very own place to light up: a Butt Hutt, created by Dave Golden of Well Done Welding and Jim Bell, a general contractor. Moore describes the hut as a 4-by-8-foot “metal smoking dugout” in the alley behind the Rhino in Missoula.
The no-smoking laws spark the type of debate that never seems to get extinguished. Pro-smokers argue that the bans hurt bars and restaurants. On the other hand, scores of studies show that exposure to secondhand smoke hurts the economy far more, causing heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses that exact huge tolls.
In Montana, meanwhile, the ban is apparently inspiring some creative new developments. In Great Falls, the City-County Health Department encouraged people to go to bars—to show their support for the new smoke-free environments, according to KFBB TV. (Rarely do health departments urge people to bar hop, but hey, non-smoking laws seem to be heralding a new day.)
In downtown Choteau, the popular Antler Bar accommodated smokers with private digs in what was formerly a garage in the back of the bar. The new light-up zone, complete with garage-like ambiance, includes picnic tables, heaters, and plenty of ash trays.
Other bars will almost certainly be devising plans and smoking spots of their own in the coming months. (NewWest.net would love to hear about the solutions you’re seeing out there.)
In the meantime, here’s other news and views as Montana heads into its first smoke-banned work week.
-- According to two medical journals—Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology—cities in the U.S. and abroad that have banned indoor smoking in public places have experienced an average of 17 percent fewer heart attacks in the first year of the ban, compared to cities that allowed such smoking. In subsequent years, the smoke-free towns had an average 26 percent decline in heart attacks, compared to their smoking brethren.
-- Thirty eight states and the District of Columbia now have local laws that require 100 percent smoke-free workplaces, restaurants or bars, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. To see a list of communities with smoking bans, plus nifty maps, click here.
-- The 13 states without general smoking bans are: Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
-- In 1975, Minnesota became the first state to ban smoking in public spaces. California followed suit in 1998. (For a handy recap of anti-smoking actions in recent decades, click here.)
-- What really got the smoking bans rolling? In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General published “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke,” a study that said “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” People exposed to it increase their risk of developing heart disease or lung cancer by up to 30 percent, the report concluded.
-- Montana’s ban took effect Oct. 1 because of the 2005 Montana Clean Air Act, which set a deadline by which the state would reduce exposures to secondhand smoke in public places.
[End of article]
I wonder how the outdoor air quality will be affected as the ban continues. I noticed as I walked past a popular bar in downtown Missoula this weeked that there was a heavy smell of smoke outside. Perhaps we've taken this in the wrong direction. Private businesses should be allowed to determine whether or not they'll allow smokers, but smoking should not be allowed outdoors, in public buildings and schools, and on public transit.
Comment By WestRight, 10-06-09And who should we trust on this 'science' about 2nd smoke that deives our courageous do-gooders? The same political scientist that claim CO2 is a pollutant, the same scientist that claim amrgerine is better than butter or that DDT cannot be used in Africa or that the world cannot feed it's population in 1990....I say you better protect yourselves from the freedom grabbers, these sel righteous do-gooders really don't know what they don't know.
Comment By Jay Greene, 10-06-09I think it is foolish to argue that second-hand smoke is harmless.
Comment By Scott Rouse, 10-06-09I can only assume that WestRight was attempting to be ironic. Anything else would certainly make us question his or her level of intelligence.
Comment By Tom, 10-06-09I smoked from 2- 5 packs a day for 33 years so I know what it's like for a smoker to be told he can't light up. Like telling a drug addict he can't have drugs. It took a heart attack and a week in the hospital for me to quit. That was in 1993 and now I'm healthier than I ever thought I could be. I get sick whenever cigarette smoke drifts my way.
That being said, I just don't think it's right to tell American citizens they don't have a right to smoke. If you want to stop something in bars, how about drinking? How many peoople sit in a bar and smoke, then go out and run down an innocent kid or go home and abuse their wife and kids? Second hand smoke is bad, but what about send hand alcohol? Let's not be hipocritical here.
Frankly, tommie, I don't give a sh*t whether you smoke or not. I am very happy, however; that the government has told you you can no longer pollute my air with your second hand bad breath...
Comment By The Fonz, 10-07-09I am not a smoker, and therefore prefer not to be around cigarette smoke. Unfortunately, many of my favorite bars in Bozeman allow smoking so I deal with it or leave. You know why? Because I value my liberties and the liberties of my countrymen more than my own health. It is easy enough to find a place to hang out that prohibits smoking if that is what you prefer.
I say leave the personal property owner to decide weather or not to allow smoking on his/her premises.
This is my stance for many other issues at hand. The less government intervention the better.
All you conservatives scared of losing your "freedoms" need a reality check.
1. No one is telling you not to smoke. Just do it outside.
2. YOUR tax money pays for the smoking-related illnesses to the tune of billions of dollars every year, including for people who've never smoked but had to work around it. Are you okay with that? I thought you were against "socialism" and "sharing the wealth"? Yet for some reason you have no problem sharing the wealth when it comes to our tax dollars and other people's illnesses. And don't give me the "find another job" argument. You know that's not likely in this economy, and not possible for people who go to school or are otherwise occupied during the day.
3. Alcohol does not seep into the air and deliver 69 cancer-causing chemicals into my lungs. Cigarette smoke does. Comparing the two makes absolutely no sense, so stop wasting our time with those ridiculous arguments.
All you liberals don't understand what "freedoms" are, and need a history lesson.
1. Why not let the business owners decide whether to allow smoking or not? It's not an illegal substance... Consumers can choose to do business there or not, and employees CAN choose to work their or not.
2.The "find a different job" is a completely relevant argument. Even in a tough economy, there's always a way to get by, you just have to put the effort in. I have a job, I don't make much, but I get by on my own. And by the way, I do believe that every able person should work to contribute to society, but I have no problem with helping the sick/needy.
3. Alcohol is a more direct hazard to those around the "user" than tobacco. Second hand smoke may kill you in years, a drunk driver could kill you in seconds.
As I said above, the LESS government interaction, the better. I'm happy for basic law enforcement, but leave our liberties alone!!!
Side note: I'm NOT a smoker.
Perhaps not; but your are a rightwingcrazy.
Comment By The Fonz, 10-15-09Dang... I was afraid of that! Haha!
I have heard this term before, what IS "right-wing-crazy"?
All work and no play?
It was my spouse & friend who built the Montana Butt Hut that resides in the alley behind the Rhino Bar in Missoula. I agree that business owners should HAVE A CHOICE. They own the property, pay the taxes & insurance.... neither of the MTBH creators smoke, but we have friends that do. Some of those friends have kicked drug & alcohol habits, but this one is kicking them. I guess my thought is going after the companies selling the cigarettes & make them pay for everything the state has invested in. Contact Jim or Dave if you want a MTBH for your business @
Comment By horst, 10-21-09Is jim your spouse or your friend?
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_butt_stops_here/C559/L559/