How close to the doors were they? According to the bill:

2) A person may not smoke or carry any lighted smoking instrument within 25 feet of the following parts of public places or places of employment:
(a) Entrances;
(b) Exits;
(c) Windows that open; and
(d) Ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area.

How close? They were all far enough away from those video crack machines not to be plunking money into them.

I thought the 25 feet was Washington State. Our intrepid local news crews have been saying 10 feet and marking it off on camera with tape measures.

local news crews have been saying 10 feet and marking it off on camera with tape measures.

Duct tape, anyone?

The sign by the door to my workplace, just put there since 12/31, says 10 feet.

Had to share - a few years ago a group of businessmen from China were touring downtown pdx and one gentleman expressed surprise that there were so many prostitutes in our city. You know, all those nicely dressed women standing around on the street by shop back doors, smoking ...

I drove past the VQ last night where several well-dressed patrons were huddled in the doorway smoking and avoiding the rain. It looked like a nicotine-clogged clown car.

If there were ever any hopes of rounding them all up to expel them from Oregon, this would be the time.

All the brochures and info we've gotten from the state says 10 feet. It's 25' in Washington.

Even 10' is going to be really difficult in some spots, where there isn't more than 20' between doors/windows/vents/etc.

Of course I don't think it is an offense for a person to be smoking too close. From what I have seen bars can get in trouble if they allow it inside, but I don't think a bar can control what someone does on public property once they are on the sidewalk.

They might as well make it that you can't smoke within 10' of someone who doesn't want to breathe the second hand smoke. Or just ban it in all public places including sidewalks, and roads unless you are smoking in your car with all the windows, doors, and vents closed.

This is exactly what we need during an economic collapse. Nothing to see here just keep on moving

Here is a very large second hand smoking study. Note the very large, long term, sample size, which gives it a lot of credibility (although I have seen attacks on it.):

Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.
Setting Adult population of California, United States.
Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.
....
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

from: BMJ VOLUME 326 17 MAY 2003 (some bold added) bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Any credible criticisms of this study? (Please no “oil company funded” it type arguments.)

Thanks
JK

mmm...karlock.

Oops, it is 10 feet. The 25 feet came from the Senate version before the House amended it (is my understanding).

This is stupid. Why can't we have a bar for smokers? Where only smokers are allowed. That way they can smoke, gamble, drink and keep warm.

"Why can't we have a bar for smokers?"

The state could make a fortune auctioning off the rights to be each neighborhood's exclusive smoking bar.

Start the bidding ...

"Why can't we have a bar for smokers?"

It makes more sense to have indoor places where they can do their thing and non-smokers can just stay away. (Hmmm, kind of like we had a few days ago.)

As is, they're going to be out on the streets. I live across from the side of a non-smoking coffee shop where people have always smoked out front. The piles and piles of butts and garbage become the public's problem.

And as soon as someone figures out that the smokers out front are within 10 feet of the door, they're going to move around the side and I'm going to be staring at them from my front window. Yippee.

It makes more sense to have indoor places where they can do their thing and non-smokers can just stay away.

Not when you consider that the business will have the liability of second-hand inhalation by employees.

I've always thought that the simple answer to smoking / no smoking would be to pass a sign law. If a business chooses to allow smoking, they would be required to post a sign by the front door saying "Smoking Allowed". Heck, make it red. Businesses that choose to not allow smoking would be allowed but not required to post a sign that said "Smoking Not Allowed" by entrances. Make that one pretty forest green. Then, allow the free market to decide. I can assure you that if one type of business was packed and the other type was going broke, changes would be made quickly.

Workers could decide what type of business they wanted to work at, and make appropriate choices. No tougher than the rest of us that choose what type of job we want to have. I think during the change there would be ample opportunity to change to whatever type of establishment you wanted to work at. Since cooks typically work in the kitchen with forced ventilation hoods, they shouldn't be affected one way or the other.

I do not and can not understand the willingness of people to allow the government one more intrusion in all our lives. A good friend once told me that when the Government wants to infringe on our civil liberties they'll do it in the name of "safety" or "public good". As we allow more and more intrusions into our lives, I hope you're all going to be comfortable with the "safety" and "public good" the powers at be seem to have in mind.

I feel like a frog in a pot of water and boy, is it me or is it getting really warm all of a sudden...??

Workers could decide what type of business they wanted to work at, and make appropriate choices.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Especially musicians who depend on getting booked to make a living

"In theory, yes. In practice, no. Especially musicians who depend on getting booked to make a living"

I understand the smoking ban will be hardest on them. They'll just have to do without until they leave the "no smoking" venue....;-)

Yeah...How about all those professional performance artists who insist upon smoking real prop cigarettes?

I think they should be censored.