Philip Dawdy, former award-winning Seattle Weekly writer whose blog, Furious Seasons, crusades for common sense on mental health issues, is so mad he's smokin'. Or not. Dawdy is effectively being booted from his longtime Capitol Hill apartment because the property manager changed the rules on smoking: Dawdy can't light up his cigarettes in the privacy of his own apartment anymore.
From Dawdy's perspective, that's bad enough, but worse is that his landlords appear willing to accept a double standard: They won't crack down on tenants who smoke pot, Dawdy says. And there are a good many pot smokers in his building he says, as well as in other "non-smoking" buildings around town. Dawdy is a pro-pot guy, a progressive with libertarian leanings, but he's furious at the hypocrisy that pot is somehow exempt from the rules. "There's a new cigarette in town and its name is marijuana," he writes.
He's also concerned about the growing nannyism in Seattle (a topic he covered at the Weekly as well) and he is astounded that the city's so-called liberals seem unconcerned about the unfairness of smoking crackdowns in general. He notes this isn't unique to Seattle: Many of the country's most liberal cities (San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, etc.) are both pro-pot and anti-smoking. He's also ever alert for how policies impact people with mental disabilities and is sensitive to class disparities he sees. Dawdy writes:
I know of multiple cases of people with mental illnesses who smoke cigarettes and who have been forced from their housing in Seattle due to the excessive hatred for smoking in Seattle, where we have the toughest anti-smoking rules (in public) of any big city in America. In fact, last year Reason magazine ranked Seattle as the number two Nanny State city in America (behind Chicago) based upon a number of factors, but primarily due to the city's warrior stance on smoking (I wrote the piece on Seattle, but was not involved in the rankings). All of those I know who've been displaced due to smoking (so far) are low-income and disabled, usually the precise group of people whom good, diversity-embracing Seattle progressive-liberals claim to be extra concerned about. I've even seen otherwise all-loving liberals harass homeless people for smoking on a sidewalk. I'm only a click or two above these folks when it comes to income. I doubt that Seattle prog-libs give a damn about me either.
Seattle's odd double-standard culture is a frequent topic of conversation. Our style of liberalism has a strong strain of Calvinist intolerance which cuts against our history of purporting to let people do their own thing. I've likened it to Seattle's own case of schizophrenia.
Clearly second-hand smoke is an issue, but the idea of driving smokers out of their homes and having a double standard for people who choose to smoke weed is inherently unfair and intrusive on people's right to privacy. If someone wants to commit suicide, as Kurt Vonnegut once said, by smoking unfiltered Pall Malls, or salve their anxieties with BC Bud, they ought to be able to do it.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 7:29 p.m. Inappropriate
Leaving aside the usual health and safety arguments...
Smoking stinks.
If you live in most apartment buildings along with smokers, the chances are you stink too. It comes in under the doors, through vents, and lingers in the hallways and elevators.
Yuck!
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 9:08 p.m. Inappropriate
the writers position is irrelevant in this city. seattle has been, is and will be a drug city - the mayor, city council, police and liberals of the city fabric don't care !
so who is the 'authority' that is going to do the right thing ?
why can't the writer find a liberal lawyer in this city to file a lawsuit ?
there certainly seems to be no shortage of underemployed attorneys looking for a gold mine.
Posted Wed, Jan 28, 10:06 p.m. Inappropriate
I certainly have compassion for those who face domicile distress due to tobacco addiction. And I definitely don't want people forced to find new housing, or even be on the streets, as a result. Perhaps we should turn to the tobacco companies for some sort of relief, or divert state tobacco lawsuit money toward the cause. Creative and fair approaches to issues are always preferable to extreme remedies.
At the same time, though, let's not forget that the odd alliance of smokers and their enablers at Phillip Morris fought all efforts to change the state smoking laws. They killed the bills in Olympia, and never worked toward any type of solution with those concerned about second-hand smoke. As a result, the most draconian initiative was put forward, and won handily statewide. Pretty bad decision for smokers to cast their lot with the corporations that care much more about making money and addicting society than minor matters like health and housing.
So while I agree that we're rapidly becoming a nanny society, our inclination to be self-serving rather than finding middle-ground often leads to extreme policies and unintended consequences.
Posted Thu, Jan 29, 12:11 a.m. Inappropriate
More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, which are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm
And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.
http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html
Posted Thu, Jan 29, 8:59 a.m. Inappropriate
When you reduce smoking deaths, which tend to be early deaths, deaths from other causes will go up. Why? Because we all die. As smoking has decreased, overall life expectancy has gone up. It is not a 1:1 relationship, but it has contributed.
And if you really think lack of smoking causes asthma, then you missed your calling writing 60's ads for the health benefits of menthol cigs.
I've always wondered why Seattle was negative on cigs and pro on pot. Both are addictive, both aren't ideal for your lungs. Both have real costs beyond the smoker.
Posted Thu, Jan 29, 11:42 a.m. Inappropriate
So what else is new, Knute? After living here for over 12 years, I've finally come to accept the ambivalence of Seattle's culture and persona. It's a completely passive/aggressive society where ambiguity thrives.
The seesaw votes on issues like the monorail and the Alaskan Way Viaduct are prime examples of the indecision that continues to cripple any signs of forward movement in this city. I have no idea how this will all turn out but we're our own worst enemy when it comes to making this a true world-class city. I keep telling my friends that Vancouver (BC, that is) has quietly evolved into the city that Seattle would like to grow up to be: A vibrant downtown that doesn't shut down at dusk, a truly multicultural population and a fantastic public transportation system that actually works in any kind of weather!
I'm not sure where we can begin to put us back on track but we'd better start some time soon before we start falling backwards any faster. Perhaps a topic for deeper thought by Knute.
In the meantime, back to the actual topic at hand again: As much as Seattleites are so adamant about their clean air and cigarette smoke, their rebellious side that tells them even smokers have rights subconsciously conflicts with their inner self. And smoking weed is everyone's God-given right too, isn't it? Oh my head is hurting - just too many conflicts for my inner ambiguity to handle.
Posted Sun, Feb 1, 11:42 p.m. Inappropriate
It's a landlord's right to ban smoking in his property. But to allow marijuana and not allow cigarettes — that is just stupid. And if it's a new regulation, it would have been nice of him to grandfather Dawdy in, as I assume that he has been a good tenant. I wonder what exactly "my property manager got my lease changed" means?
But yes indeed, so much for liberalism.
Reminds me of this letter I wrote to the Times a while back...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003532798_monlets22.html
This is the right way to implement a smoking ban — voluntarily, on the part of property owners ["Smoking foes bring the fight to apartment buildings," Local News, Jan. 16 — http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20070116&slug;=smoking16m].
Compulsion, regardless of a high degree of voluntary action, was why I opposed Initiative 901 [to restrict smoking in public], and its lack is why I have no problem with landlords' efforts to ban smoking in their buildings.
I do wonder, however, if this will result in only the well-off being able to smoke indoors. That should pose an interesting dilemma to the local progressive community — go Calabasas, Calif. [http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/secondhandsmoke.html] one better and ban it everywhere, for the sake of equity, or change sides in the name of tenants' rights?
I heard today they want to ban smoking in cars with children in Oregon (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/01/bill_would_ban_smoking_in_car.html)... that actually doesn't sound like such a terrible idea on the face of it. But isn't what people really want to ban cigarettes outright? Of course that wouldn't work, and what would the states do for revenue...?