The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

Smoke ‘Em While You Got ‘Em

As you’re probably all aware, Oregon’s new smoking ban goes into effect on the 1st, meaning tomorrow is your last day to enjoy delicious tobacco in a bar. (Of course, smoking is banned in all bars in Eugene already. We’re way ahead of the curve in overbearing nanny-ism). But would you believe that the Oregonian had the cojones to run an anti-smoking ban opinion? Check it out:

The state could have considered offering tax breaks to smoke-free businesses, for example. Instead, it’s taking the most restrictive course possible, banning smoking in all but a few specialized shops and lounges. The fact that smoking gets such harsh treatment while workers in far more dangerous fields receive not an ounce of notice suggests that the ban actually has little to do with employee safety. Protecting workers is simply the polite fiction by which nonsmokers have imposed their will on an increasingly unpopular minority.

However, I liked the Willy Week’s more blunt take on the matter:

Congratulations, you busybody neo-Puritan health-crusade fuckwads: You win again. You have assured that the people who make a living distributing poison to addicts will not have to breathe the poison of other addicts. And the only collateral damage is the neighborhood dive: the hole-in-the-wall joint where beautiful people never congregated anyway. So one of life’s little consolations—a beer and a cigarette—is now illegal in Portland. Good work, team.

For the record, we at the OC have taken many firm stands against smoking bans local, state and national.

P.S. Don’t be too surprised to see newspapers coming out against the ban. Journalists are rather notorious smokers. See also: Edward R. Murrow, Hunter S. Thompson and apparently every reporter in China.

  1. Albatross says:

    Blowing smoke into baby’s faces is considered rude? Who knew…

    I guess that probably goes for ejaculations too, huh?

  2. CJ Ciaramella says:

    Ed Murrow lived back in the day when it wasn’t considered rude to blow smoke in a baby’s face. I’m pretty sure he’d find the idea of banning smoking in bars incomprehensible.

  3. Chris says:


  4. Vincent says:

    Yeah, and Bon Scott would’ve endorsed MADD if only he’d lived.

  5. CWC says:

    Funny that you would drop Ed Murrow in there. As I recall, his smoking took his fucking life at age 57 from lung cancer. Yeah, I’m sure he’d be furious about the ban.

  6. Vincent says:


    All a business should be required to do if they decide to allow smoking in THEIR PROPERTY would be to place signs on all entrances that say something like

  7. JMT says:

    To me this is all about violating PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    All a business should be required to do if they decide to allow smoking in THEIR PROPERTY would be to place signs on all entrances that say something like “WARNING, TOBACCO SMOKING IS PERMITTED ON THIS PROPERTY”.

    And I do NOT want to hear the “public accommodation” argument either b/c in many places the bans are extended INTO PRIVATE CLUBS for Pete’s Sake. Now I do not live in OR so I do not know if this covers those clubs or not & no offense to those of OR that are also disgusted by their state’s actions on a wide variety of issues BUT the more I hear about OR the more I am glad we do not live there.

    There are now bans that say ppl (even customers NOT just employees) are not allowed to smoke INSIDE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR OWN CARS (even with windows up). I have NO PROBLEM with private property owners/businesses that ban smoking inside their property (on their open decks/docks) HOWEVER I have a HUGE problem w/ govt entities (even through voter props) do so. The argument of “but that is what the ppl voted for!” b/c that can be used in a variety of ways. The majority is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. DO NOT FORGET that “back in the day” is slavery were put up for a vote the majority would have said “OKAY” to slavery BUT that would NOT have made it right.

    The “forced” employee argument is utter BS. If someone does not want to be around smoking & if my signage idea were the law then they would not even have to apply for the job b/c they would be warned by the door signs & would not even have to go in. What about ppl allergic to peanuts but they “want” to work in a candy store….should the state say that the employer should not be allowed to allow peanut products inside their private business? I should hope NOT.

    I am the eldest child in my family & for decades have been doing JUST FINE w/o a Big Brother & I do NOT need one now!

  8. Vincent says:

    By counterpoint, the Register Guard ran an opinion piece today welcoming the new era of clean air. My favorite bit:

    Smoking-ban opponents also made a spurious

  9. Kai Davis says:

    McShanes is far enough outside of the city limits that it allows smoking. Or will, until the smoking ban goes into effect in two days.

    McShanes is located at 86495 College View Rd. Phone is (541) 747-4031. Head over the hill towards Lane and keep going straight past LCC. You’ll come to the stop lights at the intersection to get onto I5. Keep going straight past the lights and the stop signs and the road will curve right. Follow that and McShanes pops up on the left.

    They have decent bar food, good drink prices ($2 wells on Tuesdays?), and let you bring in Hookahs and pipes.

    Also, they have TRICYCLE RACES on Tuesday nights. Free to enter, get there by 8pm to sign up, and they have prizes.

  10. Bob says:

    Here in Chicago, the ban is a year old. There are so many small “mom and pop” bars ignoring it that it’s fading into forgotten history. There have been no complaints from patrons, workers, or neighbors. The main complaints have been from neighbors of bars that comply. Al Capone is laughing in his grave.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.