PDA

View Full Version : Ohio Smoking Ban Covers Stadiums



Pages : [1] 2

BuckWoody
11-29-2006, 04:25 PM
from the Enquirer:


Smoking ban covers stadiums
BY CLIFF PEALE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s office today advised the Bengals and Reds to ban smoking completely in Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ball Park as a result of the smoking ban passed by Ohio voters earlier this month.

The ban will take effect Dec. 7, and the teams had requested guidance on how they should respond. Both the stadiums currently have designated smoking areas in concourses or stairs, and they felt the impact of the law on those areas was unclear. Smoking already is prohibited in the seating bowl of both stadiums.

In an e-mail sent this morning, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Nee Fong Chin advised the county to prohibit smoking, post no-smoking signs with a telephone number to report violations and remove all ashtrays or other receptacles. The county owns both stadiums.

“The smoking policy you sent me for PBS already prohibits smoking in many areas,” she wrote. “The law will now prohibit smoking on open-air stair landings, open ramps in designated areas if visitors can be influenced by second-hand smoke. Smoking will be prohibited in suites.”

Since the Bengals are in the midst of their home schedule, the prosecutor's opinion would have a more immediate effect than it has on the Reds, he said. The team's first home game after the law takes effect is Dec. 10 vs. the Oakland Raiders.

The Ohio Department of Health will develop rules, and the Cincinnati Health Department probably will end up enforcing the law and levying any penalties. The law covers any business with employees. It does not cover outdoor areas but bans smoking "immediately adjacent to the doorway."
E-mail cpeale@enquirer.com

guttle11
11-29-2006, 04:49 PM
Why don't they just get it over with and put a "make smoking illeagal" issue on the ballot?

I'm all for smoking bans in indoor public settings, but to say someone can't smoke outside is a little excessive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a designated smoking area on the concourse of an outdoor stadium.

My guess is by the time Opening Day rolls around it will be different.

Matt700wlw
11-29-2006, 04:57 PM
I don't see what's wrong with allwoing smoking in bars/bowling alley type places....kind of goes with the territory

WMR
11-29-2006, 05:00 PM
I've been at PBS and encountered the putrid cloud that arises from masses of concentrated, huddled smokers...

I'm cool wit it.

registerthis
11-29-2006, 05:05 PM
I don't see what's wrong with allwoing smoking in bars/bowling alley type places....kind of goes with the territory

Unless you happen to work in said establishment.

I'm willing to bet that the patronage of bars and clubs actually *increases* as a result of the ban. The DC smoking ban goes into effect on January 1, and I know that we'll be going out much more frequently than we are since we won't have to come back reeking of stale tobacco smoke.

Roy Tucker
11-29-2006, 05:06 PM
It's a good thing Marge isn't around. She'd have a fit.

After Riverfront became smoke-free, she'd come sailing down from her private box to her front row seats just a puffin' away. And sometimes the crowd would chant "smoke, smoke, smoke" and she would make a big show of putting out her cigarette.

Red in Chicago
11-29-2006, 06:22 PM
this is great news to me...i can't stand being around smoke...all because it's outdoors, doesn't mean it doesn't smack you right in the face when walking by it...and there's always someone who has to go beyond the designated areas...

unfortunately, i don't think my friend will be making the trip with me anymore, since he's the type that has to have at least four or five smoke breaks during a game...

Spring~Fields
11-29-2006, 07:12 PM
I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep the smoke away from others and causing some of us that do smoke to stop while we are out in public with no idea about other people's health issues that might be adversely affected by our smoke unbeknownst to us.

vaticanplum
11-29-2006, 07:26 PM
First trip to GABP this summer: a friend of mine, who now lives in Seattle, returns to his seat both aghast and gleeful of what he has just seen, which was a fight on the concourse that had broken out when one man was talking wildly with his hands and nailed an 8-year-old kid in the eye with his cigarette.

"Watch what the hell you're doing!"
"Tell your kid to watch where the he'll he's going!"

He still tells this story constantly. The next day we got stuck in a parade of hummers on our way to Chicago. We counted 65 of them. Good times.

Matt700wlw
11-29-2006, 07:28 PM
First trip to GABP this summer: a friend of mine, who now lives in Seattle, returns to his seat both aghast and gleeful of what he has just seen, which was a fight on the concourse that had broken out when one man was talking wildly with his hands and nailed an 8-year-old kid in the eye with his cigarette.

"Watch what the hell you're doing!"
"Tell your kid to watch where the he'll he's going!"




Now that's not good. Careless smoking.

Red in Chicago
11-29-2006, 08:02 PM
I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep the smoke away from others and causing some of us that do smoke to stop while we are out in public with no idea about other people's health issues that might be adversely affected by our smoke unbeknownst to us.

that's very considerate of you sf...i wish more people were like you...

my ma has emphazema and as a result, the least bit of smoke (from candles, cigarettes, burning leaves, etc) or even people with too much cologne or perfume on can set her off...there have been many times where we've had to leave a restaurant or even an outdoor event due to carry over smoke...

one thing that really annoys me with designated smoking areas, is when you go into an establishment and all the employees are right outside the front door smoking...tacky tacky tacky...

westofyou
11-29-2006, 08:12 PM
It's a good thing Marge isn't around. She'd have a fit.

After Riverfront became smoke-free, she'd come sailing down from her private box to her front row seats just a puffin' away. And sometimes the crowd would chant "smoke, smoke, smoke" and she would make a big show of putting out her cigarette.

http://borgman.enquirer.com/img/daily/2002/03/033102margesmoke600x383.gif

Cyclone792
11-29-2006, 08:15 PM
http://borgman.enquirer.com/img/daily/2002/03/033102margesmoke600x383.gif

Regardless whether smoking is allowed or not, that looks like GABP during September home games ...

... except when the Cubs are in town, of course.

Caveat Emperor
11-29-2006, 08:22 PM
I don't see what's wrong with allwoing smoking in bars/bowling alley type places....kind of goes with the territory

As much as I usually dispise government regulation of private lives -- I have to admit, I personally can't wait until I can go out on a Friday night and not have my laundry basket smelling like an ashtray and stinking the room up.

Spring~Fields
11-29-2006, 08:48 PM
that's very considerate of you sf...i wish more people were like you...

my ma has emphazema and as a result, the least bit of smoke (from candles, cigarettes, burning leaves, etc) or even people with too much cologne or perfume on can set her off...there have been many times where we've had to leave a restaurant or even an outdoor event due to carry over smoke...

one thing that really annoys me with designated smoking areas, is when you go into an establishment and all the employees are right outside the front door smoking...tacky tacky tacky...

I appreciate your kind response, though much to my chagrin now, it took me a long time to realize and to become cognizant that our smoking does affect others, it also can have tangible and intangible cost factors for everyone.

Oddly enough I cannot stand the smoke from other smokers in close proximity.

I am sorry to read about your mother as I can relate to her condition and know first hand how the list that you have shared does hinder the ability to breath and interfere with the quality of life for others. I voted for the bans in Ohio, there are just some things more important than my own personal addictions

guttle11
11-29-2006, 11:37 PM
As much as I usually dispise government regulation of private lives -- I have to admit, I personally can't wait until I can go out on a Friday night and not have my laundry basket smelling like an ashtray and stinking the room up.


See, indoor smoking bans are a good thing. There's no place for the stuff to go.

But if you're talking about an outdoor stadium, I don't see it. Take GABP. You can stand out in center field and smoke. What's wrong with that? Smoking is a habit and a choice, but so is beer drinking. Should we ban beer at the stadiums because some people get it spilled on them or have a drunken guy scream in their ear?

Obviously smoking is easier to annoy people with, but I think the point remains.

BuckWoody
11-29-2006, 11:48 PM
See, indoor smoking bans are a good thing. There's no place for the stuff to go.

But if you're talking about an outdoor stadium, I don't see it. Take GABP. You can stand out in center field and smoke. What's wrong with that? Smoking is a habit and a choice, but so is beer drinking. Should we ban beer at the stadiums because some people get it spilled on them or have a drunken guy scream in their ear?

Obviously smoking is easier to annoy people with, but I think the point remains.
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

Source. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

Not sure how many deaths are caused each year by having someone spill their beer on you but I'm guessing it's probably less.

guttle11
11-29-2006, 11:58 PM
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

Source. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

Not sure how many deaths are caused each year by having someone spill their beer on you but I'm guessing it's probably less.

Yes, but how much second hand smoke is spreaded outdoors? Fractions, very tiny fractions, of the amount spread indoors. And numbers like that have always, and will always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

It's a very loose interpretation of the law. (and I'll leave it at that to abide by forum rules) I think it will be changed in pretty short order, because smoking is still allowed in the indoor suites. That's hypocritical and won't stand when smokers hack up quite the opposition.

Yachtzee
11-30-2006, 12:18 AM
I was looking into the smoking ban for work a few weeks ago at the Secretary of State's website, and I think that one would have a good argument that designated smoking areas in outdoor stadia (ones without a roof) would be exempt as "outdoor patio areas." Really, what constitutes the "enclosed area" of an outdoor stadium?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/ElectionsVoter/results2006.aspx?Section=1874

Jpup
11-30-2006, 04:27 AM
I think it's BS, just my opinon.

Ltlabner
11-30-2006, 05:57 AM
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

Source. (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

Not sure how many deaths are caused each year by having someone spill their beer on you but I'm guessing it's probably less.


There were 42,850 highway deaths in 2002 http://www.roadandtravel.com/newsworthy/newsandviews03/2002highwaydeaths.htm with an estimated anuall societal cost of $230 billion dollars. When will we outlaw automobiles?

And there were 12,945 deaths by drivers .08 BAC and above and 16,885 "alcahol related" deaths in 2005 acording to NHTSA. http://http://www.madd.org/stats/1112 So when will we outlaw drinking in places other than your home?

Acording to the surgeon general's website (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_whatcanyoudo.htm 300,000 deaths each year can be atributable to obesity. So when will we outlaw fast food resturants and selling junk food?

Acording to this link http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm there were 30,136 "gun deaths" in the US in 2003 acording to the CDC. When will we outlaw the sale and ownership of guns?

Acording to the Bereau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0205.pdf there were 5,702 work place fatalities in 2005. When will we outlaw employers who have large machinery or provide company cars (two common forms of workplace deaths)?

I don't smoke or care to smell of smoke (thus I avoid places I know are smokey). I just wonder to myself where the line between "public health" and "nanny state" might be. I don't claim to know the answer and this is likely not the best place to discuss it. But while I generally agree with the idea, frankly regulations like this give me pause.

redsmetz
11-30-2006, 06:13 AM
See, indoor smoking bans are a good thing. There's no place for the stuff to go.

But if you're talking about an outdoor stadium, I don't see it. Take GABP. You can stand out in center field and smoke. What's wrong with that? Smoking is a habit and a choice, but so is beer drinking. Should we ban beer at the stadiums because some people get it spilled on them or have a drunken guy scream in their ear?

Obviously smoking is easier to annoy people with, but I think the point remains.

I think the ad campaigning that has been going on about second hand smoke is particularly effective. Your example falls apart as there are no adverse health effects from a spilled beer on you. There are genuine and proven detrimental health effects on second hand smoke. Even walking through the concourse, you can't avoid it. I'm glad to see it even though it will inconvenience smokers.

Not related to the outdoor part of the ban, I'm particularly glad to know that I no longer have to wait for a non-smoking section while smokers can just waltz by for the seating in the smoking section.

GAC
11-30-2006, 06:38 AM
Too bad the people of this state/nation couldn't come up with a common sense law/approach to address this situation.

But the fact of the matter is folks, with the "anti-smoking" crowd, it's not simply about protecting non-smokers from being exposed to second hand smoke. I agree they should be. If so, then the provision would have allowed for establishments to install enclosed, walled smoking lounges w/ smokeaters that prevented non-smokers from being exposed.

Problem solved.

The "anti-smoking" crowd doesn't want you to smoke period!

The next phase is already starting to be implemented/pushed in various states....

banning smoking in your private residence and cars where children are present. Some states want to define it under child abuse laws.

I'm a smoker, but not a heavy one. I'm lucky to smoke a pack a day.

I don't smoke in my house because of my children. I'll go outside on the deck or in the garage.

A majority of my smoking is at work during breaks/lunch, and in a designated fully enclosed smoking lounge with ventilation.

Some one explain to me what is wrong with that?

Honda just announced this week that as of Dec. 7th they will begin to institute a tobacco free policy that they say is in accordance with the law.

Really? Did the law involve chewing tobacco and snuff? Don't see it.

They are going to phase the program in.

Beginning Dec. 7th they will designate outdoor patio areas for smoking. Which, by the way, already exist.

On Feb 7th the total ban commences.

Now, according to the law, and Section 3794.01 on outdoor patios, Honda is within the stipulations of the law and could allow it.

But management has said THE LAW says they can't.

Some one is jerking someone's chain. ;)

You also can't go out and sit in your car, because it is on Honda property, and smoke during breaks and lunch.

But it's no big deal with me. I pretty much have decided to quit anyway. And since the majority of my smoking was done at work, Honda has taken care of that for me. ;)

But it is simply insane.

A common sense approach could have been made.

robmadden1
11-30-2006, 06:48 AM
I work at Mercy Hospital Western Hills. As of Jan. 1 you will not be able smoke on the grounds of any Mercy hospital. You also won't be able to go out and sit in your car and smoke, because it is Mercy's property. That goes for all employee's, patients, and visitors.

GAC
11-30-2006, 06:52 AM
It's going to be interesting to see how this is going to affect state's tax revenues that really depend on that tobacco (sin) tax money.

They're going to have to get/replace it somewhere else. ;)

GAC
11-30-2006, 06:58 AM
I'm making me up a bumper sticker that says....

THIS CAR SMOKES INSIDE AND OUT

remdog
11-30-2006, 07:12 AM
G-man:

"I'm lucky to smoke a pack a day."

Lucky!?! :eek:

Think about it.

Rem

Roy Tucker
11-30-2006, 07:23 AM
Should we ban beer at the stadiums because some people get it spilled on them or have a drunken guy scream in their ear?



Hey now, let's nip that kind of talk in the bud. Don't give them any ideas.

You’ll take my ballpark beer when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!

(actually, I think alcohol-free zones at the ballpark is a good idea)

GAC
11-30-2006, 07:58 AM
G-man:

"I'm lucky to smoke a pack a day."

Lucky!?! :eek:

Think about it.

Rem

Looking at the fact it is an addiction, yeah I am lucky that I only have smoked that much. ;)

I'll be a non-smoker by summer. Count on it. ;)

WVRed
11-30-2006, 08:14 AM
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/pregnant.asp#photo

Some things never get old.

GAC
11-30-2006, 08:19 AM
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/pregnant.asp#photo

Some things never get old.

So.... should the state be able to sue that pregnant mother because she smokes and possibly endangering her unborn child?

That's a slippery slope. ;)

beb30
11-30-2006, 09:03 AM
I cant wait for december 7th. I'm usually against Gov't interference but.....

- I'm tired of going to resturaunts sitting in the no smoking section yet it smells like Im in a smoking section.
- I'm also tired of my clothes smelling of smoke if I go out somewhere, where there are alot of smokers.
- It's dirty, disgusting, and It pisses me off when people light up when you are in and enclosed line such as waiting for a KI ride or waiting for a haunted house.
- If you want to try to kill yourself go ahead, but I dont want to be anywhere near you, nor do I want my health being affected by someone elses disgusting habits.
- People who smoke can hold off smoking for an hour in a resturaunt or 3 hours for a game.

BuckWoody
11-30-2006, 09:13 AM
There were 42,850 highway deaths in 2002 http://www.roadandtravel.com/newsworthy/newsandviews03/2002highwaydeaths.htm with an estimated anuall societal cost of $230 billion dollars. When will we outlaw automobiles?

And there were 12,945 deaths by drivers .08 BAC and above and 16,885 "alcahol related" deaths in 2005 acording to NHTSA. http://http://www.madd.org/stats/1112 So when will we outlaw drinking in places other than your home?

Acording to the surgeon general's website (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_whatcanyoudo.htm 300,000 deaths each year can be atributable to obesity. So when will we outlaw fast food resturants and selling junk food?

Acording to this link http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm there were 30,136 "gun deaths" in the US in 2003 acording to the CDC. When will we outlaw the sale and ownership of guns?

Acording to the Bereau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0205.pdf there were 5,702 work place fatalities in 2005. When will we outlaw employers who have large machinery or provide company cars (two common forms of workplace deaths)?

I don't smoke or care to smell of smoke (thus I avoid places I know are smokey). I just wonder to myself where the line between "public health" and "nanny state" might be. I don't claim to know the answer and this is likely not the best place to discuss it. But while I generally agree with the idea, frankly regulations like this give me pause.
Very interesting stats but I don't think that they are on point in this discussion. The main point, as I see it, is that one person's "personal decision" (public smoking) adversely affects the health of others around them.

Having an automobile accident is not a "personal decision", it's an accident. There are also several laws and regulations set forth to protect people; seat-belt laws, crash test standards, air bag requirements, etc. Operating a motor vehicle is regulated by the government out of concern for public safety.

While obesity is a big problem in this country, sitting in a restaurant with a hundred fat guys eating greasy burgers has no effect on your health at all. You can enjoy a salad and not gain any weight or increase your cholesterol count based on what the guy next to you is eating.

There are certainly very strict laws concerning driving under the influence and publicly discharging a firearm. Violate those and you are likely headed for jail. Those acts endanger others and are punishable.

The work place example is very similar to the automobile one. OSHA has tons of regulations that employers must meet in order to assure the safest workplace possible.

I'm no Carrie Nation when it comes to smoking. One should be able to smoke in one's car or home or private property but I believe that smoking around others does present a public health risk. The data we currently have available to us says so. The level of risk may be debatable; I certainly think that driving drunk or firing a weapon is incredibly more dangerous to others than lighting up a smoke. But who is to say what amount of risk is acceptable to someone else? Right now that decision in regard to public smoking rests largely with those who choose to smoke and after December 7th it will not. That is a good thing.

I don't mean to anger anyone and I apologize if I did. I'm just trying to voice my opinion on the subject. I love you all...well, most of you all. :D

registerthis
11-30-2006, 09:28 AM
I don't know why smoking is legal anyway. So it's banned now? Good.

Danny Serafini
11-30-2006, 09:51 AM
I'm willing to bet that the patronage of bars and clubs actually *increases* as a result of the ban.

No, it won't. We've been dealing with this issue in Toledo for several years now. The city instituted a total smoking ban. Eventually that was reduced to restricting smoking to separate areas with their own independent ventilation, then the smoking ban got overturned completely. Business in bars went down after the ban was implemented. Eventually business got better as the smokers started returning instead of staying home, but it didn't grow over what was there before the ban. All it did was cost bar owners money, partly from lost business and partly from having to make expensive renovations to create smoking sections, which have now been made worthless by this new law.

Johnny Footstool
11-30-2006, 10:28 AM
I cant wait for december 7th. I'm usually against Gov't interference but.....

- I'm tired of going to resturaunts sitting in the no smoking section yet it smells like Im in a smoking section.
- I'm also tired of my clothes smelling of smoke if I go out somewhere, where there are alot of smokers.
- It's dirty, disgusting, and It pisses me off when people light up when you are in and enclosed line such as waiting for a KI ride or waiting for a haunted house.
- If you want to try to kill yourself go ahead, but I dont want to be anywhere near you, nor do I want my health being affected by someone elses disgusting habits.
- People who smoke can hold off smoking for an hour in a resturaunt or 3 hours for a game.

Not to pick on you, beb30, but I've seen this point of view a lot, and I disagree with it.

It's basically saying that smokers should be forced to inconvenience themselves so that non-smokers can avoid inconvenience.

Instead of nonsmokers simply avoiding smokey places, they're forcing others to change their behavior so that they can go where they please.

I hate smoking just as much as you do. But I don't think it's right to outlaw something for convenience.

I think there are other ways to eliminate the health risk of secondhand smoke, like providing tax incentives to non-smoking establishments or allowing proprietors to purchase a "smoking license" if they want to allow smoking.

flyer85
11-30-2006, 10:31 AM
Why don't they just get it over with and put a "make smoking illeagal" issue on the ballot? far too much in taxes involved to ban it.

registerthis
11-30-2006, 11:01 AM
far too much in taxes involved to ban it.

Yep.

it's that proverbial "money thing" again.

GAC
11-30-2006, 11:19 AM
No, it won't. We've been dealing with this issue in Toledo for several years now. The city instituted a total smoking ban. Eventually that was reduced to restricting smoking to separate areas with their own independent ventilation, then the smoking ban got overturned completely. Business in bars went down after the ban was implemented. Eventually business got better as the smokers started returning instead of staying home, but it didn't grow over what was there before the ban. All it did was cost bar owners money, partly from lost business and partly from having to make expensive renovations to create smoking sections, which have now been made worthless by this new law.

Up in Windsor, where they also banned smoking, the casinos have reported a 30% drop in revenues. ;)

GAC
11-30-2006, 11:28 AM
I think there are other ways to eliminate the health risk of secondhand smoke, like providing tax incentives to non-smoking establishments or allowing proprietors to purchase a "smoking license" if they want to allow smoking.

How does purchasing a "smoking license" decrease the risk of second hand smoke and protect non-smokers? That is what this issue is all about.

Sounds more like another revenue generating scheme in which, yeah, smoking is bad and a huge health risk; but we'll look the other way and allow to have it for a price.

You're not a politician are you? :evil:

How about simply writing a law that states if you want to allow smoking, the you must thoroughly provide the means to protect non-smokers from exposure to second hand smoke, meaning, a fully walled in enclosure with ventilation that is designated "smokers only".

And if establishments don't or can't do it, then smoking is banned and/or complaint driven.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 11:28 AM
Up in Windsor, where they also banned smoking, the casinos have reported a 30% drop in revenues. ;)

Could Detroit and the lagging auto industry play into that 30% drop?

flyer85
11-30-2006, 11:32 AM
The death of private property. I am not a smoker so I avoid smoky places but I think business owners ought to be able to decide how their property is used. Each individual can use their own free choice to decide if they want to work or spend leisure time at an establishment.

GAC
11-30-2006, 11:43 AM
Could Detroit and the lagging auto industry play into that 30% drop?

No. Because they can smoke in the Detroit casinos which aren't seeing a drop.

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=5173964&nav=0RbQ

Here's a good article that lists several links to how smoking bans have hurt alot of businesses...

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

westofyou
11-30-2006, 11:48 AM
No. Because they can smoke in the Detroit casinos which aren't seeing a drop.

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=5173964&nav=0RbQ

Here's a good article that lists several links to how smoking bans have hurt alot of businesses...

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.htmlI was at a casino to see a concert a couple of months ago (Indigenous) I saw a guy with an O2 tank sitting at a one bandit next to a woman smoking away.

Just walking through that place made me retch.

registerthis
11-30-2006, 11:53 AM
I was at a casino to see a concert a couple of months ago (Indigenous)

not to derail this thread, but that's a great group. I have their first album, very good stuff it is.

registerthis
11-30-2006, 11:54 AM
Each individual can use their own free choice to decide if they want to work or spend leisure time at an establishment.

I just don't think there's much "choice" in smoking. You may choose to smoke when you're 16, but the tobacco companies pretty much makre sure your choice becomes automatic once you've started.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 11:57 AM
I just don't think there's much "choice" in smoking. You may choose to smoke when you're 16, but the tobacco companies pretty much makre sure your choice becomes automatic once you've started.

Back in the day they used to stand on the bridge between downtown and Riverfront on game day and hand out little sample packs of smokes with like 4-5 cigarettes in them. There would be boxes of them stacked on the side of the walkway with pretty girls handing them out to anyone who wanted them.

remdog
11-30-2006, 11:59 AM
California has had a similar smoking ban for years and business is just fine, thank you very much. And, the smokers have learned to live with it. (Pun intended.) :)

Rem

Spring~Fields
11-30-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm making me up a bumper sticker that says....

THIS CAR SMOKES INSIDE AND OUT

:laugh: :laugh: Aw shoot! :laugh:

westofyou
11-30-2006, 12:07 PM
California has had a similar smoking ban for years and business is just fine, thank you very much. And, the smokers have learned to live with it. (Pun intended.) :)

Rem

One of the best days in my life was the day that law kicked in.

minus5
11-30-2006, 12:11 PM
One of the best days in my life was the day that law kicked in.

Much the way I will feel about Ohio's. To be able to go to a club and not wind up with a sinus infection for it.....priceless.

pedro
11-30-2006, 12:14 PM
I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in designated outdoor areas on Stadium concourses but I am fully in favor of a total smoking ban in any public building whether it be a courthouse, a restaurant or a bar.

Smokers don't have the right to infringe on the health of others.

Plus what's the deal with all you folks who think the world is your ashtray and just throw your used butts on the ground? Do you have any idea how ignorant and disgusting that is?

registerthis
11-30-2006, 12:38 PM
Much the way I will feel about Ohio's. To be able to go to a club and not wind up with a sinus infection for it.....priceless.

Hear, hear. And DC's...which kicks in on January 1. My wife and I can't wait.

Redsland
11-30-2006, 01:55 PM
This former smoker is thrilled about the ban.

I, too, can't wait to spend a night on the town without having my eyes water, my nostrils burn, my lungs hack, my hair stink, and my clothes become hazmat zones.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 02:09 PM
This former smoker is thrilled about the ban.

I, too, can't wait to spend a night on the town without having my eyes water, my nostrils burn, my lungs hack, my hair stink, and my clothes become hazmat zones.

Yep... and I too once puffed away and blew it out and said " Tough crap for them."

Johnny Footstool
11-30-2006, 02:25 PM
Yep... and I too once puffed away and blew it out and said " Tough crap for them."

But now you guys are saying the same thing, just directed the other way.

As I've said before, basing the legislation on health concerns is one thing, and I'm fine with that. But I don't agree with legislation limiting smokers' rights because they're an inconvenience to non-smokers.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 02:50 PM
But now you guys are saying the same thing, just directed the other way.Yet, no one dies from it or gets sick, personally smoke makes me feel ill, so tough crap is what I say.

minus5
11-30-2006, 02:51 PM
But now you guys are saying the same thing, just directed the other way.

As I've said before, basing the legislation on health concerns is one thing, and I'm fine with that. But I don't agree with legislation limiting smokers' rights because they're an inconvenience to non-smokers.

An inconvenience is one thing....compromising someone else's health is another. I'm not sure how I feel about the stadium thing, they probably could have just done a better job at designating the smoking areas...the top of the stairs that everone else is using was never a good idea.

Redsland
11-30-2006, 03:27 PM
But I don't agree with legislation limiting smokers' rights because they're an inconvenience to non-smokers.
Nudists engage in an objectionable activity (and if you've seen any of them, you know I speak the truth;) ), so we make laws telling them to cover up.

Smokers engage in objectionable behavior, so we make laws telling them to take it elsewhere.

Same thing. If you're bothersome, you should expect to be asked to knock it off. That's what society is doing. It's shushing the loud talker in the library. If that person really needs to talk, he can go outside and do it without irritating the rest of us who are minding our own business.

gonelong
11-30-2006, 03:47 PM
Personally, I think its just selfishness.

I don't smoke. My wife can't really handle smoke. We don't hang around at BW3s because of this.

Sure we might head to BW3s once in awhile now ... but to me its not worth gaining that "Freedom" since it extracted from my friends and neighbors by force.

I'll be happy to support the removal of motorcyles, bicycles, etc from our roadways as they are a nuisance as they are hard to see. They are all over the roads and I can't avoid being near them. They make me nervous.

Just put it on the ballot, I'll be voting out of spite.

GL

registerthis
11-30-2006, 03:51 PM
I'll be happy to support the removal of motorcyles, bicycles, etc from our roadways as they are a nuisance as they are hard to see. They are all over the roads and I can't avoid being near them. They make me nervous.

Actually, I'd vote to keep cars off city streets. As a pedestrian/subway rider, I find crossing streets dangerous, and the pollution emitted by cars is hazardous to my health.

pedro
11-30-2006, 03:59 PM
Personally, I think its just selfishness.

I don't smoke. My wife can't really handle smoke. We don't hang around at BW3s because of this.

Sure we might head to BW3s once in awhile now ... but to me its not worth gaining that "Freedom" since it extracted from my friends and neighbors by force.

I'll be happy to support the removal of motorcyles, bicycles, etc from our roadways as they are a nuisance as they are hard to see. They are all over the roads and I can't avoid being near them. They make me nervous.

Just put it on the ballot, I'll be voting out of spite.

GL

personally I think expecting to be able to smoke wherever you want to is selfish. If you want kill yourself sucking on a cancer stick have at it, but do it outside or in your own home.

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:04 PM
I would just prefer whoever actually owns the property decide.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:10 PM
I would just prefer whoever actually owns the property decide.

Now, that's just ridiculous, expecting to be allowed to do what you want with your own property. In Communist Russia, cigarettes smoke you! :D

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:10 PM
I would just prefer whoever actually owns the property decide.


That's fine if you have no employees. I don't think it is fair to expect people who work in restaurants and bars to risk their health in order to make a living when those types of jobs are often the best paying postions they can get.

Johnny Footstool
11-30-2006, 04:10 PM
Nudists engage in an objectionable activity (and if you've seen any of them, you know I speak the truth;) ), so we make laws telling them to cover up.

Smokers engage in objectionable behavior, so we make laws telling them to take it elsewhere.

Same thing. If you're bothersome, you should expect to be asked to knock it off. That's what society is doing. It's shushing the loud talker in the library. If that person really needs to talk, he can go outside and do it without irritating the rest of us who are minding our own business.

It's not quite the same.

Public nudity was never considered an acceptable behavior by the majority of our society. Smoking was. Nudity is visual and can be offensive from a far greater distance and affect a lot more people. And can't the owner of a private establishment choose to allow nudity if he or she desires, as long as certain measures are taken? (no windows, adults only, no sex).

The "shushing the loud talker" metaphor doesn't work too well. You've already sent the loud talkers outside; now you're saying "all public places are libraries, including bars and stadiums, and the owner's of those establishments don't have any say in the matter."


That's fine if you have no employees. I don't think it is fair to expect people who work in restaurants and bars to risk their health in order to make a living when those types of jobs are often the best paying postions they can get.

That's a choice the employees must make. Greater pay or less health risk? The employees have a right to a safe workplace, but if the employees themselves are smokers, who are you really protecting?

And one could argue that without the patronage of smokers, restaurant and bar owners would no longer be able to offer the best paying positions.

Redsland
11-30-2006, 04:12 PM
I would just prefer whoever actually owns the property decide.
That was the existing system, and people were so unhappy with it they stuck a referendum on the ballot. Turns out, most voters didn't care for that older system.

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:13 PM
That's fine if you have no employees. I don't think it is fair to expect people who work in restaurants and bars to risk their health in order to make a living when those types of jobs are often the best paying postions they can get.Nobody forces to people to work somewhere they don't want to.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 04:14 PM
Now, that's just ridiculous, expecting to be allowed to do what you want with your own property. In Communist Russia, cigarettes smoke you! :D

Communism... or its biggest rival...individuality and commerce!!!

The kind of thing that painted this daily scenario for many of us back in the day your in a friends parents cars, in the back seat the parents in the front, both puffing away, windows up... none of us wearing seat belts....

But now we know better.

or do we?

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:15 PM
That's fine if you have no employees. I don't think it is fair to expect people who work in restaurants and bars to risk their health in order to make a living when those types of jobs are often the best paying postions they can get.

We also don't think it's fair to expect people with peanut allergies to risk their health in order to make a living when those types of jobs are often the best paying positions they can get. Therefore we must ban all peanuts in bars and stadiums, because they prevent people from working at those establishments.

And who will think of the alcoholics? Shouldn't they have a right to work in pubs without suffering the mental anguish of being around all that booze? It's the best paying position they can get, so we should remove the alcohol from the location, too.

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:17 PM
Nobody forces to people to work somewhere they don't want to.

That doesn't absolve the employer of their requirement to provide a healthy environment for the workers that work there.

If I had a bar that was in a radon filled basement do you think that'd be cool too?

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:17 PM
That was the existing system, and people were so unhappy with it they stuck a referendum on the ballot. Turns out, most voters didn't care for that older system.But once it starts where does it end when the public can force a property owner to use their property in what is deemed best for the public interest? At that point "private property" becomes a misnomer.

If cigarette smoking is that bad and nasty then the sale of such an unhealthy and addictive product should be banned and it's prodcution made illegal.

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:18 PM
We also don't think it's fair to expect people with peanut allergies to risk their health in order to make a living when those types of jobs are often the best paying positions they can get. Therefore we must ban all peanuts in bars and stadiums, because they prevent people from working at those establishments.

And who will think of the alcoholics? Shouldn't they have a right to work in pubs without suffering the mental anguish of being around all that booze? It's the best paying position they can get, so we should remove the alcohol from the location, too.

That's BS Zombie.

Johnny Footstool
11-30-2006, 04:18 PM
That was the existing system, and people were so unhappy with it they stuck a referendum on the ballot. Turns out, most voters didn't care for that older system.

Voters shouldn't really be deciding what a private business does, at least not to this degree.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:19 PM
But now we know better.

or do we?

Nope! :D

You also know that you suffer a risk of disease if you have unprotected sex, so we should ban that as well. Sure, you're the one willingly subjecting yourself to the risk, but the parent state knows best.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 04:20 PM
Nope! :D

You also know that you suffer a risk of disease if you have unprotected sex, so we should ban that as well. Sure, you're the one willingly subjecting yourself to the risk, but the parent state knows best.

Smells like herring every time you post...

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:21 PM
That's BS Zombie.

Nope, just the bottom of the slippery slope your argument began on. :D

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:22 PM
That doesn't absolve the employer of their requirement to provide a healthy environment for the workers that work there.

If I had a bar that was in a radon filled basement do you think that'd be cool too?This issue really isn't about smoking it is about the ability of the government to regulate a perfectly legal activity of your life. Cigarette smokers are just the offending class du jour but it will soon be something else.

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:23 PM
Nope, just the bottom of the slippery slope your argument began on. :D


No, it's BS.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:25 PM
Smells like herring every time you post...

Smell what you like, but I'm not the one espousing the abridgement of personal freedoms upon privately-owned property. That would be you.

But they were 'bad' freedoms anyway, weren't they? ;)

NJReds
11-30-2006, 04:26 PM
It's basically saying that smokers should be forced to inconvenience themselves so that non-smokers can avoid inconvenience.


You can smoke before you go into the restaurant and smoke when you leave. I don't see that as an incovenience.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 04:26 PM
But they were 'bad' freedoms anyway, weren't they? ;)

Let me ask my aunt, she's smoked for 50 years and has lung cancer, my neighbor quit 20 years ago, they buried him last week for the same thing.

guttle11
11-30-2006, 04:27 PM
- People who smoke can hold off smoking for an hour in a resturaunt or 3 hours for a game.


Smoking is an addiction. One that effect the way you live your life. It also happens to be legal in the eyes of the law.

There is nothing in this law that says smoking in staduims is now banned, it's just the prosecutor's personal beliefs effecting how she interprets it.

The worst part about it is they are walking a fine line with segretating a large segment of their fanbase. For the regular Joe Smoker, he's not allowed to light up in the staduim, but for the suite purchasing business or person, they can.

Again, I personally have no problem with general smoking bans, but have some common sense in dealing with PEOPLE. Smokers should have rights too, especially in an outdoor setting. In GABP, keep smoking in the CF area, and in PBS, keep in in the far corners of the concourses, as far away as possible from the masses. Common sense.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:27 PM
No, it's BS.

A masterful response, sir! I have been undone by your rapier-sharp wit and superior command of the issue!

Or, optionally, you can get back to me when you have a response that consists of something more than an acronym.

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:28 PM
Let me ask my aunt, she's smoked for 50 years and has lung cancer, my neighbor quit 20 years ago, they buried him last week for the same thing.then shouldn't such a terrible health hazard be made illegal?

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:30 PM
80% percent of americans over 18 DON'T smoke.

I don't see why 20% of the population seems to think it's OK to poison everyone else and throw their butts in the street as if it wasn't littering and then whine because THEY think they are being inconvenienced.

I certainly would uphold anyone's right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body but not to the extent that it actively harms others and it has been proven that 2nd hand smoke can cause cancer.

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:30 PM
I really can't wait until the smoking police are controlling every corner. We will have our own American Streltsy.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 04:31 PM
then shouldn't such a terrible health hazard be made illegal?

From being forced upon those who chose not to participate?

Yep.... oh wait, that's what we're talking about.

I got confused when alcoholics and peanuts came into the circle.

guttle11
11-30-2006, 04:32 PM
Let me ask my aunt, she's smoked for 50 years and has lung cancer, my neighbor quit 20 years ago, they buried him last week for the same thing.


Everybody makes choices in their own lives. Every choice has a potential consequence. Unfortunately, the dangers of smoking were not fully known or made aware of until fairly recently.

Luckily now we're starting to make changes so that non-smokers aren't subject to being around smoke when they don't want to be.

But I'm still finding it hard to believe that second hand smoke is anything more than a microscopic nuisance in an outdoor stadium. Probably much less of a hazard than those barges that chug by during games.

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:34 PM
A masterful response, sir! I have been undone by your rapier-sharp wit and superior command of the issue!

Or, optionally, you can get back to me when you have a response that consists of something more than an acronym.


yeah your comparison of cigarrette smoke to peanuts was shear brilliance. :rolleyes:

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:34 PM
From being forced upon those who chose not to participate?your examples were two people who chose to participate.

flyer85
11-30-2006, 04:37 PM
Personally I think they ought to ban such a dangerous drug altogether but our hypocritical government is way to addicted to the taxes that tobacco generates to do that.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:39 PM
80% percent of americans over 18 DON'T smoke.

I don't see why 20% of the population seems to think it's OK to poison everyone else and throw their butts in the street as if it wasn't littering and then whine because THEY think they are being inconvenienced.

I certainly would uphold anyone's right to do whatever the hell they want with their own body but not to the extent that it actively harms others and it has been proven that 2nd hand smoke can cause cancer.

The butt thing is irrelevent to the discussion, and littering laws have not changed as a result of the smoking ban. So this statement is totally irrelevant.

While the fact that secondhand smoke can cause cancer has been proven, the science behind the tractor-beams that drag innocent non-smoking victims into smoke-filled bars and restaurants is still a bit shaky.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:41 PM
From being forced upon those who chose not to participate?

Yep.... oh wait, that's what we're talking about.

I got confused when alcoholics and peanuts came into the circle.

Forced?

When someone hits you over the head with a sock of nickles and drags you into a smoke-filled room, get back to me.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 04:45 PM
Forced?

When someone hits you over the head with a sock of nickles and drags you into a smoke-filled room, get back to me.

People used to smoke everywhere, in college classes, elevators, Krogers, AMC Pacers, everywhere... somehow they managed to stop smoking in most of those places.

Amazing what a little thoughtfulness can accomplish.

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:45 PM
yeah, we'll just all stay home so the smokers can puff away. Get cancer quick and die though, I'm getting awful sick of y'all.

Johnny Footstool
11-30-2006, 04:46 PM
It's really not the rights of smokers or non-smokers I'm concerned about. It's the rights of the proprietors of the bars and restaurants. Every other group involved still has a choice (smokers can stay outside, non-smokers can go to less smoky establishments, employees can seek jobs elsewhere), but the owners don't.

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:47 PM
It's really not the rights of smokers or non-smokers I'm concerned about. It's the rights of the proprietors of the bars and restaurants. Every other group involved still has a choice (smokers can stay outside, non-smokers can go to less smoky establishments, employees can seek jobs elsewhere), but the owners don't.

Yeah, but if all establishments don't allow smoking then it levels the playing field for all business owners. California doesn't allow smoking in bars and they're still as crowded as ever.

Redsland
11-30-2006, 04:48 PM
But once it starts where does it end when the public can force a property owner to use their property in what is deemed best for the public interest? At that point "private property" becomes a misnomer.

If cigarette smoking is that bad and nasty then the sale of such an unhealthy and addictive product should be banned and it's prodcution made illegal.
So governmental regulation is evil, and should be replaced with governmental edicts?

westofyou
11-30-2006, 04:48 PM
Yeah, but if all establishments don't allow smoking then it levels the playing field for all business owners. California doesn't allow smoking in bars and they're still as crowded as ever.

That's just for the quiche at happy hour.

pedro
11-30-2006, 04:49 PM
That's just for the quiche at happy hour.

and to plot a communist overthrow of the government and the rolling of all smokers down a slippery slope.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2006, 04:52 PM
People used to smoke everywhere, in college classes, elevators, Krogers, AMC Pacers, everywhere... somehow they managed to stop smoking in most of those places.

Amazing what a little thoughtfulness can accomplish.

While thoughtfulness can accomplish much, your statement accomplishes nothing.

There are established non-smoking restaurants and pubs. Unfortunately, those aren't enough for the non-smoking folks, and now they want to force business-owners to make their establishments smoke-free. Pub revenues in Cincinnati will plummet even further while smokers - and their non-smoking friends who accept the smoking to hang out with their friends - cross the river and bolster NKY's economy even further.

guttle11
11-30-2006, 04:56 PM
Not being able to smoke in the bars/clubs won't detract people from coming. All you have to do when you want a smoke is just step outside for 5 minutes. Heck, it could be quiet time to get a phone number...

However, it could detract a group of people from attending a Reds game if you can't smoke for 3-4 hours. (Bengals games will be sold out no matter what.)

pedro
11-30-2006, 05:02 PM
Not being able to smoke in the bars/clubs won't detract people from coming. All you have to do when you want a smoke is just step outside for 5 minutes. Heck, it could be quiet time to get a phone number...

However, it could detract a group of people from attending a Reds game if you can't smoke for 3-4 hours. (Bengals games will be sold out no matter what.)


again, I don't believe it's necessary to ban smoking in open air places (such as a stadium) as long as there are designated smoking areas removed enough that they can be avoided by people who don't want to inhale 2nd hand smoke.

westofyou
11-30-2006, 05:03 PM
While thoughtfulness can accomplish much, your statement accomplishes nothing.

Right back at cha... I live in an area doing what you don't want and loe and behold the world still spins on its axis.

Redsland
11-30-2006, 05:04 PM
and now they want to force business-owners to make their establishments smoke-free.
The "they" you speak of is the voting public. And we the public have stated that we want public places to be smoke-free. That's the only kind of property subject to this law: property that is open to the public.

Property owners could have prevented this law by choosing to give us what we want sooner, but as you noted, too few did so. All this law does is give the majority what they've wanted. And property owners who don't want to go smoke-free can move their businesses elsewhere, close themselves to the public, or construct an outdoor patio.

It's hard for me to drum up sympathy for businesses owners who have that many ways to comply with a law that the majority of their customers want.

KittyDuran
11-30-2006, 05:05 PM
Not being able to smoke in the bars/clubs won't detract people from coming. All you have to do when you want a smoke is just step outside for 5 minutes. Heck, it could be quiet time to get a phone number...

However, it could detract a group of people from attending a Reds game if you can't smoke for 3-4 hours. (Bengals games will be sold out no matter what.)Well, at the Dragons games, the smokers have to go outside the ballpark (IIRC its one gate on Monument Street) but are allowed back in.

guttle11
11-30-2006, 05:05 PM
again, I don't believe it's necessary to ban smoking in open air places (such as a stadium) as long as there are designated smoking areas removed enough that they can be avoided by people who don't want to inhale 2nd hand smoke.


I understand that. I was just pointing out that a smoking ban probably will not effect the business of a bar type place.

Bowling Alleys maybe.

pedro
11-30-2006, 05:09 PM
I understand that. I was just pointing out that a smoking ban probably will not effect the business of a bar type place.

Bowling Alleys maybe.

understood. I was just reitterating for the benefit of others who seem to feel that smoking bans in enclosed public places are the first step in the road to communism that I don't think a total ban in outdoor stadiums is necessary as I agree with your presumption that such a ban may keep people from going to ballgames.

OTOH, smoking isn't allowed in movie theatres and somehow people still go see movies.

guttle11
11-30-2006, 05:10 PM
OTOH, smoking isn't allowed in movie theatres and somehow people still go see movies.


Let me tell ya, it ain't always easy.;)

registerthis
11-30-2006, 05:11 PM
[QUOTE=flyer85;If cigarette smoking is that bad and nasty then the sale of such an unhealthy and addictive product should be banned and it's prodcution made illegal.[/QUOTE]

FWIW, I'd have no problems with this whatsoever. The public costs of smoking are astronomical, not to mention all of the well-known health effects--not only to those who smoke, but to those who are around smokers.

registerthis
11-30-2006, 05:15 PM
Right back at cha... I live in an area doing what you don't want and loe and behold the world still spins on its axis.

Montgomery County, MD (where I work) has been smoke free for over a year. And yet the restaurant/bar scene in Bethesda is as big as any in the DC area. And all you have to do is hop on the metro for a quick trip across the District line or down to Virginia and you can puff away, yet people still come up to Maryland. Can't imagine why that would be.

Roy Tucker
11-30-2006, 05:15 PM
The Government controls legal behavior all the time.

Drinking beer is legal for people over 21. But if I take a 6 pack into a Bob Evans to have with my meatloaf, I believe that if I persist after the manager has spoken to me, the sheriff will be there soon.

I think a lot of public establishments have been chicken to completely ban smoking because a.) they don't have to, and b.) if they do, they lose some customers.

I believe the pendulum will swing back a little bit and smoking will get licensed by the state and select establishments will get a smoke-em-here license. The difference here is that allowing smoking will not be the default case.

TeamCasey
11-30-2006, 05:32 PM
I would just prefer whoever actually owns the property decide.

Exactly.

TeamCasey
11-30-2006, 05:35 PM
That was the existing system, and people were so unhappy with it they stuck a referendum on the ballot. Turns out, most voters didn't care for that older system.

I've stated this when bars went smoke-free in NY state.

Businesses have always had the right to go non-smoking, Why didn't they? Because it's hurts their bottom line. I don't think the government should come in and do that for them.

registerthis
11-30-2006, 05:49 PM
Businesses have always had the right to go non-smoking, Why didn't they? Because it's hurts their bottom line.

When competing businesses exist who can attract smokers, certainly.

I have a harder time buying this argument when the ban effects all businesses within the same geographic locale. I suppose the smokers could just stay home, but from where I'm sitting I don't see that happening.

TeamCasey
11-30-2006, 06:03 PM
I suppose the smokers could just stay home, but from where I'm sitting I don't see that happening.

Oh, I do.

Personally, I have no issue going outside.

I also despise when people throw butts out their car windows ....... as much as I hate seeing the roads littered with cans and bottles and other trash.

It's the smaller businesses that I worry about. It's the neighborhood places that get hurt by this, not the big homogenous, dull Cheesecakes Factories, Hooters and Applebees.

registerthis
11-30-2006, 06:13 PM
Oh, I do.

Really?

Because I work in the middle of Bethesda, MD--which is filled with restaurants, bars and clubs of all sorts. Not only is Bethesda situated in a county where smoking is banned, but it is adjacent to two different areas (DC and VA) where smoking is permitted. And yet, the restaurants, bars and clubs in Bethesda are thriving.

Here's the point about smoking bans: the argument that non-smokers can simply stay away from smoking establishments doesn't particularly fly, when pretty much every single bar/club/nightspot in the vicinity of where we live (DC) is populated with smokers. Essentially, our "choice"--if we wish to go out in our own neighborhood--is simply to suck it up and head out to one of these places, and take home the accompanying eye-watering, nostril-burning, clothes-saturating tobacco smoke reek. Or simply not go out at all.

A ban on smoking does not place similar restrictions on smokers. People who smoke are welcome at any establishment they like, they simply have to refrain from partaking in their disgusting habit while indoors. A smoker refraining from smoking while inside an establishment is not subjected to the same hardships as a non-smoker tolerating smokers.

DoogMinAmo
11-30-2006, 06:13 PM
TC, exempt from the smoking ban are family owned and operated businesses.

If cigarrettes had filters on the other ends of them, I don't think people would care as much. It is the fact that one smoker can be detrimental to the health of all around them.

Recently I took my girlfriend to a swank establishment, great food and nice atmosphere. Towards the tale end of dinner all of a sudden I could smell something, and it was disgusting to me. One smoker in the bar on the other side of the room was effecting the dining experience for everyone else.

I personally can not wait for the law to go into effect. It may be selfish, but my health is important to me. I WILL go out more when I know I wont reek of smoke, and wont be ingesting it. I loved it when I lived in California, and am ecstatic now.

And gutte11 in rregards to your smoking outside issue, I have left many establishemnts that are non-smoking (including UC buildings) and have encountered what seems to be a cloud of stale smoke just sitting there, even without a smoker in sight. And that is outdoors. I am glad that issue 5 included a "no smoking within a distance of an entrance or exit" clause.

Oh, and I am amazingly proud the Ohio public wasn't duped into passing Issue 4.

DoogMinAmo
11-30-2006, 06:16 PM
When competing businesses exist who can attract smokers, certainly.

I have a harder time buying this argument when the ban effects all businesses within the same geographic locale. I suppose the smokers could just stay home, but from where I'm sitting I don't see that happening.

Keep in mind Cincinnati is right next to northern KY, whose bar scene is already stealing a good portion of Cincinnati's business. The option exists.

TeamCasey
11-30-2006, 06:25 PM
TC, exempt from the smoking ban are family owned and operated businesses.

I wasn't aware of that. Good.

registerthis
11-30-2006, 06:49 PM
Keep in mind Cincinnati is right next to northern KY, whose bar scene is already stealing a good portion of Cincinnati's business. The option exists.

As it does where I am, as well. The opportunity to go elsewhere to smoke does not appear to be having an appreciable effect on the bars and restaurants where I work.

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 06:59 PM
All I know is that I worked at a bar/restaurant in New York (that was ALL-SMOKING before the ban went into effect, no non-smoking section) when the ban went into New York. And public outcry was huge before it happened. And I don't know one person, not one, who doesn't love that ban. And business where I worked took no hit whatsoever. The smokers went outside to smoke. As a waitress, I loved it, even when I was a smoker myself. The smoking never bothered me too much when it was allowed. But that first week of the ban when I came home and took my hair down and realized that it didn't smell, I went to bed feeling cleaner. It was great.

I have quite a few friends who have quit smoking since the ban, because when they were faced with indoor smoke they noticed it more than they had previously and it bothered them. I myself am in this category.

People who continued to smoke grew to appreciate the outdoor breaks. It actually became code for when you needed to speak to somebody privately: "Want to go smoke?" Probably more people were getting action due to this ban, thus relieving stress, thus lessening the need to smoke.

I was against the ban on principle: I didn't like the idea of a bunch of white guys in Albany deciding what was best for every person and every business in New York City, from Jamaica Queens to midtown Manhattan. I'm a fan of personal freedom. But the improvement of life was too much for me to ignore. You wonder afterwards how a civilized society ever allowed it in the first place.

TeamCasey
11-30-2006, 07:05 PM
People who continued to smoke grew to appreciate the outdoor breaks. It actually became code for when you needed to speak to somebody privately: "Want to go smoke?" Probably more people were getting action due to this ban, thus relieving stress, thus lessening the need to smoke.


:laugh: Well, if that's the tradeoff then no problem! :thumbup:

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 07:12 PM
:laugh: Well, if that's the tradeoff then no problem! :thumbup:

It's the truth, I'm telling you. Some great outdoor conversations and "conversations" are had by all.

By the way, TC, the business I'm referring to (where I worked) was a small privately owned business, and as I said, took no hit. The place had been all-smoking before and sold cigarettes too. It's honestly a trade-off for the small businesses, I think: at this point there are non-smokers who stay away from places because they're too smoky; those people will now be more likely to go to them. The reason my bar was not split was because the bar (which had to be smoking) was not legally far enough away from the "dining area" for there to be separate areas. So it had been the business's choice: all smoking or all-non. They went with, because it was that kind of place. But the size of the restaurant probably had kept some fussy non-smokers out, no matter how good the food and the atmosphere.

Something happened in New York that is bound to happen in Ohio when things settle down: some bars started breaking the law after a certain time. There were certain bars that were known to be "post-midnight" or "post-2 am" smoking bars, especially on the weekdays. Food away, cigarettes came out. Cops went through periods of cracking down, but most of the time they knew where it went on and turned a blind eye to it. And we had one of those bars right around the corner from us, and our bar business didn't hurt either.

In the end, people go are basically creatures of habit and they go where they want. I really think that smoking will prove to be a far lesser factor on the business side than some people believe. As far as I know, this has been true in every state in which the law has been enacted so far.

TeamCasey
11-30-2006, 07:49 PM
I suppose it'll all flush out. Many of the areas you guys mention are pretty urban. I'm from an area of snowmobiles, shotguns and fishing tourneys. The bars are places where grumpy old men congregate. Hell, they can still get Black Label there ..... because most are mom and pop joints, and they'll order it in special. Half the trucks have deer hanging off the tailgate this time of year.

GAC
11-30-2006, 08:04 PM
I read that in Ohio that the law is gonna be complaint driven. It's not like there are going to be anti-smoking police walking all over the place.

They have the ban in Columbus, yet people still smoke outside all over the place.

And I'm sure that in alot of your little local bars and taverns, those out of the way places, they'll still get away with allowing smoking.

Would you want to be the person who walks into there and then files a complaint?

I guarantee it will be the last time they'll step foot in there. :lol:

I'm going to end up being a non-smoker by summer anywhere. That decision was made before this law went into effect.

I don't smoke at home because of the kids, and since my work is banning it they are really making the decision for me.

And I realize it's all for the better.

But again, I think a more common sense approach (law) could have been written to satisfy both "groups".

It would have been more of an imposition on establishments that wanted to allow smoking; but IMHO, that is the way it should be in order to protect non-smokers from an obvious health hazard.

If you, the establishment want to allow smoking, then erect the enclosure that provides for it and protects non-smokers.

See how easy that would have been? ;)

Question: since I have seen outside smoking being allowed - people standing outside next to establishments, etc. And I don't think that situation presents as much of a high risk of exposure to second hand smoke - will that "pacify" the anti-smoking crowd? Or is that there next objective? ;)

Ltlabner
11-30-2006, 08:56 PM
While obesity is a big problem in this country, sitting in a restaurant with a hundred fat guys eating greasy burgers has no effect on your health at all. You can enjoy a salad and not gain any weight or increase your cholesterol count based on what the guy next to you is eating.

To me, this is the heart of the issue. In your example a person chose to eat a salad rather than the hamburger. They made a choice not to expose themselves to the health hazzard. In the same way, people can make their own choices to avoid smoke without having laws passed and regulations imposed.

If you don't like smoke in a resturant, don't go there. There are plenty of totally non smoking resturants. If your favorite pub is too smoky talk to the manager and see what can be done. If nothing can be done, drive down the street....there are lots of other pubs out there. If you don't like to wait because the non-smoking section is full complain to management. Trust me, if they get a flood of complaints they'll enlarge the non smoking section. Complain to management if their ventilation isn't adequte. All the smokers huddle outside the door and you have to run the gauntlet, either talk to said smokers yourself or talk to building management.

If someone is rudley blowing smoke your way, get up and ask them to stop. Deal with the issue yourself. Why does government have to get involved to solve your inconvenece?

But it's a health issue you say? The societal costs? That's where my examples in my original post come into play. All of those examples involved health issues, societal costs or both. Yet they are dealt with differently than smoking. Why? Smoking harms those around you - people don't go out with an intent to kill others with their smoke. Autos kill other people - generally people don't drive with an intent to kill others with their car. Why is one outlawed and the other acceptable? You say drinking doesn't hurt other people...what about the health care costs of heavy drinking over time? That isn't a societal cost?

The plain fact is people engage in a plethora of unhealty and disgusting personal habbits that harm others to one level or another. Currently it's vogue to be anti-smoking. My biggest concern with this legislation is what is the next taboo that will be outlawed?

minus5
11-30-2006, 09:05 PM
Would you want to be the person who walks into there and then files a complaint?

I guarantee it will be the last time they'll step foot in there. :lol:



There will be plenty of people that will complain. I can tell you right now that my wife would be first in line......she be back too ;)

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 09:51 PM
I suppose it'll all flush out. Many of the areas you guys mention are pretty urban. I'm from an area of snowmobiles, shotguns and fishing tourneys. The bars are places where grumpy old men congregate. Hell, they can still get Black Label there ..... because most are mom and pop joints, and they'll order it in special. Half the trucks have deer hanging off the tailgate this time of year.

I see your point. I wonder how much the smoking ban will be enforced there, especially if a lot of cops smoke. I have no idea how this affected urban parts of California, for example. In New York State the smoking band statewide didn't go into effect until a year after it did in New York City, but it did ultimately go in to effect, though I have no idea how strictly it was enforced.

pedro
11-30-2006, 11:28 PM
Perfect example. I don't have the NFL network. I wanted to watch the game. My only choice? Endure nasty clouds of smoke. The screwed thing is that maybe 2 out of 10 folks there were smoking but the rest of us had to inhale it. That sucks IMO.

Yachtzee
12-01-2006, 12:44 AM
Usually I'm a fan of protecting private property, but in this instance I'm not really upset for a few reasons:

1. The issue was voted on by the people, including many of those property owners. Believe it or not, many business owners support the ban. In Summit Co., we had a ban for a short period of time, until two of the largest cities, Akron and Cuyahoga Falls, declared that their smoking ordinances superceded the county ordinance. If those two cities weren't going to abide by the ban, no one else would. But during that brief time when business owners had to be smoke free, they actually liked it. They went back to allowing smoking because the large cities next door weren't going to follow it. They just wanted a level playing field. So many of the "private property owners" who are supposedly harmed are just as likely as to have voted for the ban.

2. The rule treats owners of truly private property differently than those who operate a place of employment, particularly a place of "public accommodation." If you open yourself up to the general public, you're going to have to accept that you're surrendering some property rights in exchange for that public business. It's the same reason why business owners can't discriminate on the basis of race. Private residences, private clubs, and family-run businesses where all employees are family members are exempt.

3. As the father with a small child with asthma, I have an understanding for what some people go through when it comes to second-hand smoke. When I smoked in my younger days, I figured as long as I blew my smoke away from people and stayed in designated areas, it was no big deal. I had no problem smoking outside if necessary. I quit smoking mostly because cigarettes got too expensive in Chicago. But then I had a son and he developed asthma at a young age. I've seen first-hand how a kid with asthma can get after being exposed to smoke, even outdoors. It's no fun staying up half the night with a child who sounds like he's going to cough up a lung.

TeamCasey
12-01-2006, 05:42 AM
I see your point. I wonder how much the smoking ban will be enforced there, especially if a lot of cops smoke. I have no idea how this affected urban parts of California, for example. In New York State the smoking band statewide didn't go into effect until a year after it did in New York City, but it did ultimately go in to effect, though I have no idea how strictly it was enforced.

I want to say that the health department actually enforces it, but I'm not certain.

registerthis
12-01-2006, 09:13 AM
To me, this is the heart of the issue. In your example a person chose to eat a salad rather than the hamburger. They made a choice not to expose themselves to the health hazzard. In the same way, people can make their own choices to avoid smoke without having laws passed and regulations imposed.

They really can't, though. This is a misconception. As I stated earlier, if my wife and I--or my friends and I--wished to go out in DC, pretty much any bar/pub/club is going to be infested with smokers. There aren't any "non-smoking" bars, at least that I'm aware of. Thus, so long as there are smoking establishments, no bar wants to lose that potential business, so there's no incentive for them to go "smoke free." So our choice is: go out and deal with the unhealthy and disgusting effects of the smoke around us, or simply don't go out.

I used to play in a band in Columbus, and every single venue we played in (with the exception of Woody's at OSU) was a smoking establishment. Thus every time we went out to play somehwere, I'd come home with watering eyes, a scratchy throat, inflamed nostrils and reeking of tobacco smoke. Again, my alternative at that point would have been to simply not play in the band. Sorry, but if these are the choices I am left with--versus implenting a ban that greatlye xpands those choices--like WOY says, tough crap.

If the ban is enforced equally and non-arbitrarily, I don't see the issue. As I said, smokers are still welcome in any establishment they like. They just can't smoke in them. If we can have office buildings, restaurants and movie theaters as smoke-free establishments, then certainly expanding that to bars and pubs isn't unreasonable. Like I said, preventing smokers from smoking inside is not a comparable hardship to forcing non-smokers to deal with the cloudy haze of tobacco smoke.

Chip R
12-01-2006, 09:23 AM
Keep in mind Cincinnati is right next to northern KY, whose bar scene is already stealing a good portion of Cincinnati's business. The option exists.


If the local establishments in Cincinnati are losing business to NKY because of the smoking ban, there are other ways to increase business. For example, sell cheaper food and drinks. There are other ways as well. But I suspect that a person who has a favorite establishment doesn't go there just so he/she can smoke. There are usually other reasons why they frequent the bar they do.

minus5
12-01-2006, 09:40 AM
Proximity is going to play into the NKY thing. I mean really, if you frequent a neighborhood bar in West Chester, are you really going to start driving to NKY so that you can smoke at the table or are you just going to step outside of you local pub for 5 minutes?

Yachtzee
12-01-2006, 09:41 AM
I want to say that the health department actually enforces it, but I'm not certain.

Yep. Health Department will investigate complaints. All no smoking signage is now supposed to include a phone number where you can lodge a smoking complaint.

Ltlabner
12-01-2006, 06:58 PM
They really can't, though. This is a misconception. As I stated earlier, if my wife and I--or my friends and I--wished to go out in DC, pretty much any bar/pub/club is going to be infested with smokers. There aren't any "non-smoking" bars, at least that I'm aware of. Thus, so long as there are smoking establishments, no bar wants to lose that potential business, so there's no incentive for them to go "smoke free." So our choice is: go out and deal with the unhealthy and disgusting effects of the smoke around us, or simply don't go out..

So non-smokers are the majority right? Non smokers outnumber smokers and want all of these non-smoking places right?

Seems to be there'd be plenty of incentive for people to want to open a non-smoking bar. The same reason people opened non-smoking resturants. MONEY.

BTW, here are some links to some non smoking bars (or non-smoking resturants that serve drinks/have a bar) in your area.

http://www.tdbistro.com/about.html

http://www.smokefreedc.org/restaurants.htm

http://home.digitalcity.com/washington/bars/sine-irish-pub-and-restaurant/v-115739794

Seems like it would have been a lot easier for people to do a simple websearch instead of going to the time and expense getting legislation passed to do the work for them.

pedro
12-01-2006, 07:52 PM
BTW, here are some links to some non smoking bars (or non-smoking resturants that serve drinks/have a bar) in your area.

http://www.tdbistro.com/about.html


Yep, driving to BALTIMORE from DC because you don't want to have to inhale other peoples smoke sounds like a great plan.

Ltlabner
12-02-2006, 12:24 AM
Yep, driving to BALTIMORE from DC because you don't want to have to inhale other peoples smoke sounds like a great plan.


Oppss....I didn't scan down the page far enough.

Of course, that doesn't diminish the other links I found does it? Or the fact that people choose to walk into a place that is smokey and can just as easily go somewhere that isn't. It shouldn't take an act of congress for people to just excersize their own judgement should it?

pedro
12-02-2006, 01:24 AM
Oppss....I didn't scan down the page far enough.

Of course, that doesn't diminish the other links I found does it? Or the fact that people choose to walk into a place that is smokey and can just as easily go somewhere that isn't. It shouldn't take an act of congress for people to just excersize their own judgement should it?

I don't believe smoking indoors in public places is a right.

I do believe that not having to inhale other peoples second hand smoke in public places is a right.

This isn't a matter of personal freedom. Smokers are more than welcome to huff away outside or in their own home or in the homes of those that wish to endure it, but not in public places.

Ltlabner
12-02-2006, 07:48 PM
This isn't a matter of personal freedom. Smokers are more than welcome to huff away outside or in their own home or in the homes of those that wish to endure it, but not in public places.

Well, I guess we are starting to go round and round then so we'll have to just disagree. But cause if you believe the above, then to be consistent you have to believe that people can only drink at home because if they drink in public it effects their judgement and leads to an increased risk of being killed/injured in an auto accident. So their drinking definatley increases the risk of harm to others and increses societal costs due to health care just as smoking does.

In addition to the increased risk of harm to others and the societal costs, those drinking can be obnoxius and ruin your dinner out just as smoke can.

Maybe that's the next law that should be passed.

pedro
12-02-2006, 10:49 PM
Well, I guess we are starting to go round and round then so we'll have to just disagree. But cause if you believe the above, then to be consistent you have to believe that people can only drink at home because if they drink in public it effects their judgement and leads to an increased risk of being killed/injured in an auto accident. So their drinking definatley increases the risk of harm to others and increses societal costs due to health care just as smoking does.

In addition to the increased risk of harm to others and the societal costs, those drinking can be obnoxius and ruin your dinner out just as smoke can.

Maybe that's the next law that should be passed.

Your logic is flawed.

2nd hand smoke in a bar directly effects those patrons who are exposed to it.

OTOH, the act of having a drink in a bar does not harm the other patrons directly and there are already laws in place to deal with drunk driving should it occur.

guttle11
12-02-2006, 10:56 PM
Your logic is flawed.

2nd hand smoke in a bar directly effects those patrons who are exposed to it.

OTOH, the act of having a drink in a bar does not harm the other patrons directly and there are already laws in place to deal with drunk driving should it occur.


Doesn't take away from the fact that people under the influence of alcohol can cause deaths, as well as be quite the nuisance.

Ltlabner
12-02-2006, 11:07 PM
Your logic is flawed.

2nd hand smoke in a bar directly effects those patrons who are exposed to it.

OTOH, the act of having a drink in a bar does not harm the other patrons directly and there are already laws in place to deal with drunk driving should it occur.

Yes. 2nd hand smoke directly effects other patrons. It increases their risk of developing certian cancers but it doesn't not follow that if you are exposed to 2nd hand smoke you will definatley get cancer. There's no research to support this of which I am aware.

In the same way, it doesn't follow that if you are in a resturant where others are drinking that you will definatley be injured in an drinking related accident. Just as with smoking, people drinking in a bar only increases the risk of fellow drivers of being harmed in an auto accident.

We allow the increased risks of injury from drinking in public, but deam that the increased cancer risks from 2nd hand smoke are totally unacceptable. That is the inconsistency I see and where the logic of "it's all for other peoples safety" is flawed. There are plenty of risky activities that we allow to occur in society despite their societal costs, so I am currious (1) where the line of "acceptable" risk is drawn and (2) what is the next risky behavior that the general public will decide that state/federal legistlatures must protect them from.

Yachtzee
12-02-2006, 11:10 PM
Doesn't take away from the fact that people under the influence of alcohol can cause deaths, as well as be quite the nuisance.

Alcohol has no effect on those who do not drink it. Equating alcohol to second-hand smoke = comparing apples to oranges. Nobody ever got a contact buzz by sitting next to some else drinking a beer and no one has ever contracted cirrhosis from working in a bar. One must consume the alcohol oneself.

As far as someone doing something stupid after drinking alcohol, that is the person's fault, not the alcohol. That person has a responsibility to control his own behavior. He chooses to drink too much. He chooses to do something stupid. The law holds him accountable accordingly.

Ltlabner
12-02-2006, 11:23 PM
Alcohol has no effect on those who do not drink it.

I'll be repeating my previous post so I'll keep this short.

* Consumption of alcohol impaires judgement and motor skills. This increases the risk of injury to fellow motorists should the indivdual be driving. This is true whether the person is legally intoxicated or not. I'd say increasing the risk of harm to every driver you pass on the way home from the bar would qualify as an "effect on those who do not drink" don't you?

* People who drink in public can become louder, less inhibitted and generally obnoxous. Some people are repulsed by the slightest hint of smoke. Others are repulsed by the general obnoxiousness of those who drink. It's interesting that those who find it vile, annoying and disgusting if they catch a wiff of smoke would then discount the irritation suffered at the hands of those who's nice, quiet dinner with their spouse was runied by a bunch of loud, rowdy drunks. Or who's children are exposed to graphic and vulgar language. So both behaviors can be obnoxious. One is considered a travisty of societal justicace that must be stamped out. The other is considered just part of life and if you don't like it tough luck.

vaticanplum
12-03-2006, 12:05 AM
I'll be repeating my previous post so I'll keep this short.

* Consumption of alcohol impaires judgement and motor skills. This increases the risk of injury to fellow motorists should the indivdual be driving. This is true whether the person is legally intoxicated or not. I'd say increasing the risk of harm to every driver you pass on the way home from the bar would qualify as an "effect on those who do not drink" don't you?

And laws are in place for that. No sane person on the planet advocates drunk driving or believes it should go unpunished.


* People who drink in public can become louder, less inhibitted and generally obnoxous. Some people are repulsed by the slightest hint of smoke. Others are repulsed by the general obnoxiousness of those who drink. It's interesting that those who find it vile, annoying and disgusting if they catch a wiff of smoke would then discount the irritation suffered at the hands of those who's nice, quiet dinner with their spouse was runied by a bunch of loud, rowdy drunks.

There are laws in place for that too. It's called public intoxication, drunk and disorderly conduct. And it rarely gets to that point, really, I can say this from working in bars, because bartenders also reserve the legal right to kick out people who are acting this way, and they do exercise it. In the past, bartenders had no right to kick out people who were harming others by smoking. Now, they have the law behind them.

Ltlabner, the smoking thing is not a totally invalid position, but the way you're presenting it, you're literally proving the other side's point. Every comparable example you bring up already has laws in place to limit the behavior or dictate its legal extent. By that logic, pubic smoking deserves the same thing.

SandyD
12-03-2006, 12:43 AM
There are ordinances against public drunkeness and laws against drunk driving. It is possible for people to drink in public without affecting others.

Everyone who smokes in public affects others. Every time. It's not possible to avoid it.

I would like to see outdoor stadiums find a way to accomodate smokers in an area away from heavy traffic.

GAC
12-03-2006, 05:48 AM
I would like to see outdoor stadiums find a way to accomodate smokers in an area away from heavy traffic.

I think they could do so too; but the city attorney is interpreting the law in accordance to his own biases against smoking, and not fairness and the allowances the law provides.

After reading the section on outdoor smoking patios, and stated requirements, it could be done to everyone's satisfaction at GABP.

Does this mean they can't use the smoke stacks at GABP or shot off fire works? Creates alot of second-hand smoke that poses a health hazard if inhaled and to the environment. :evil:

SandyD
12-03-2006, 12:32 PM
The thing is, at an outdoor sports venue, it's easier to take a strong non-smoking stance because it's harder to enforce one that leaves gray areas.

Maybe if the Reds and Bengals approached a city attorney with a plan they feel is reasonable and enforceable, he would reconsider his interpretation.

Ltlabner
12-03-2006, 01:26 PM
And laws are in place for that. No sane person on the planet advocates drunk driving or believes it should go unpunished. .

I'm not advocating drunk driving. I'm just making the point that 1 drink increases the risk of someone else being harmed. It's not illegal yet it's still effecting others. If those who want laws to deal with smoking want to be consistent than the same arguments for smoking bans should be applied to many other behaviors. That's my biggest hangup with the anti-smoking laws. Using the "it increases the risk of harm to others" line of reasoning then all drinking in public should be banned because it "increases the risk of harm to others".


There are laws in place for that too. It's called public intoxication, drunk and disorderly conduct. And it rarely gets to that point, really, I can say this from working in bars, because bartenders also reserve the legal right to kick out people who are acting this way, and they do exercise it. In the past, bartenders had no right to kick out people who were harming others by smoking. Now, they have the law behind them.

Ltlabner, the smoking thing is not a totally invalid position, but the way you're presenting it, you're literally proving the other side's point. Every comparable example you bring up already has laws in place to limit the behavior or dictate its legal extent. By that logic, pubic smoking deserves the same thing.

Society allows the exposure to the increased risk of drinking related accidents up to a certian level (.08 BAC is common). Society allows the exposure to the risk of certian workplace accidents up to a certian limit (usually governed by OSHA). Society allows the exposure to the risk of many health issues from eating poorly and unhealthy foods with virtually zero restrictions. Society allows the exposure to increased risks of harm from many, many activities. But the pro-smoking laws folks are saying that there should be no exposure to increased risks. No threshold. To me, this opens up 2 very clear controdictions about these laws that trouble me.

1) Since research hasn't shown that XYZ amount of exposure to XYZ potency of 2nd hand smoke = XYZ greater risk of health issues we just don't know what the acceptable level of risk is. We can't establish the threshold between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk. Thus the argument becomes we can't have any level of acceptable risk. If you can't accept any level of risk with 2nd hand smoke than you have to not accept any level of risk from any other risk factor to be consistent.

2) The lack of threshold means that you have to assume that all exposure to 2nd hand smoke carries an equal amount of risk. Common sense tells us this isn't true. Sitting in smoky bars every day for your entire life can't hold the same risk as occasonally going out to eat in a resturant with a heavy duty ventilation system. One slight wiff of stale smoke can't equal the same increased risk as a constant stream of smoke directly off the end of a cigarette. It just doesn't make logical sense that ANY exposure of ANY amount of ANY "quality" of 2nd hand smoke has an dead equal risk factor. And if it did, if one wiff of 2HS increased your risk for cancer the same as a lifetime of expsure, then the sale of cigerttes should be banned completely.

I don't like smoke and I don't care to smell of smoke. I'm not against limiting the health risks. I just don't care for the sledgehammer way it's being accomplished and the logical falacies that get continued because some have found it a trendy bandwagon to jump on.

vaticanplum
12-03-2006, 01:45 PM
I'm not advocating drunk driving. I'm just making the point that 1 drink increases the risk of someone else being harmed. It's not illegal yet it's still effecting others.

In and of itself, no it doesn't. Injesting alcohol does not harm other people. The ony way that one drink can increase risk to others is if harmful actions are taken as a result of it. Those actions are illegal. If a drunk person punches somebody in the face, the punch is what is punished. If a drunk person drives and harms someone else, it is the driving while drunk that is punished. There's no second step in secondhand smoking. The action itself is what is harmful to others. It's not a possibility of risk. It is risky.


Society allows the exposure to the increased risk of drinking related accidents up to a certian level (.08 BAC is common). Society allows the exposure to the risk of certian workplace accidents up to a certian limit (usually governed by OSHA). Society allows the exposure to the risk of many health issues from eating poorly and unhealthy foods with virtually zero restrictions. Society allows the exposure to increased risks of harm from many, many activities. But the pro-smoking laws folks are saying that there should be no exposure to increased risks. No threshold. To me, this opens up 2 very clear controdictions about these laws that trouble me.

Again, same thing. Those things are not harmful. They could be, but alone they are not. Smoking around others hurts them, period.


1) Since research hasn't shown that XYZ amount of exposure to XYZ potency of 2nd hand smoke = XYZ greater risk of health issues we just don't know what the acceptable level of risk is. We can't establish the threshold between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk. Thus the argument becomes we can't have any level of acceptable risk. If you can't accept any level of risk with 2nd hand smoke than you have to not accept any level of risk from any other risk factor to be consistent.

2) The lack of threshold means that you have to assume that all exposure to 2nd hand smoke carries an equal amount of risk. Common sense tells us this isn't true. Sitting in smoky bars every day for your entire life can't hold the same risk as occasonally going out to eat in a resturant with a heavy duty ventilation system. One slight wiff of stale smoke can't equal the same increased risk as a constant stream of smoke directly off the end of a cigarette. It just doesn't make logical sense that ANY exposure of ANY amount of ANY "quality" of 2nd hand smoke has an dead equal risk factor. And if it did, if one wiff of 2HS increased your risk for cancer the same as a lifetime of expsure, then the sale of cigerttes should be banned completely.

If we don't know all the risks yet, we have to err on the safe side. Maybe in 20 years they will determine that secondhand smoke causes no serious harmful effects at all. Do you really think that will happen? Regardless, in the meantime, limiting involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke serves two purposes: 1) it is possiby saving lives of cancer and other serious diseases that may caused by secondhand smoke. I know you're going to compare this to other "possibilites of risk" and you're close, but it's still different from the examples you present. The difference is that we KNOW that drunk driving runs a higher risk of accidents, that once you cross x threshold of danger at a physical job, it becomes more dangerous. If the serious health effects of second-hand smoke are UNKNOWN, then it is wise, I think, to err on the safe side and save a lot of lost lives and lawsuits later on. 2) it stops the effects of second smoking that ARE already known. You definitely know people who encounter them personally and maybe you do yourself. Watery eyes, coughing, quality of air, Yachtzee's son whose asthma is exacerbated by smoke, on and on. These range from temporary health effects to a simple nuisance. And simple nuisances are addressed by the law every day. The example you brought up of drunk and disorderly conduct is one of them. If a person is acting bizarrely due to the effects of alcohol in public, he can be punished by the law. That isn't affecting anyone's long-term health or causing anyone bodily harm. But it's a nuisance that affects the quality of life for people in a public spot. if you want to ignore the health effects of secondhand smoke, known and unknown, fine. There's another argument to back that up as well.

As for your argument that there are differences in the amounts of smoke one can inhale, it's true, but a line just has to be drawn, which it is: indoor public places. People can still smoke in parks, on the street, crowded sidewalks, etc. It's the indoor places where smoke affects people the most, in any quantity. What else can they do? Tell every customer that he can smoke, but only one cigarette per hour?

Chip R
12-03-2006, 02:10 PM
I would like to see outdoor stadiums find a way to accomodate smokers in an area away from heavy traffic.

I tend to agree with this. I think there are more people who would not go to a game if smoking were banned than would not go to a certain bar if they did not allow smoking.

Ltlabner
12-03-2006, 02:12 PM
There's no second step in secondhand smoking. The action itself is what is harmful to others. It's not a possibility of risk. It is risky.

If the serious health effects of second-hand smoke are UNKNOWN, then it is wise, I think, to err on the safe side and save a lot of lost lives and lawsuits later on.

What else can they do? Tell every customer that he can smoke, but only one cigarette per hour?

Exposure to 2HS increases your risk of cancer. Consuming any level of alcahol and driving increases the risk of harming others. I fail to see a difference. If the crux of the argument is increased risk of harm, then an equal standard should be held or a threshold of acceptable risk established (see more below).

If someone harms someone while drinking they are punished (car wreck, fist fight, etc), that is true. Are you advocating smokers should be arrested and jailed because their 2HS is harming others? That is the logical continuation of that line of reasoning. If you are inflicting harm then it should be made illegal and carry some consequences, shouldn't it?

These laws basically say that it's ok for them to harm others at home with their 2HS, just don't do it in public. Ok..lets apply that logic to other laws. It's ok to kill people in your home, just don't do it in public. Makes no sense does it.

Erring on the side of caution. Ahhh...sounds good doesn't it. We don't know the risks of exposure to large amounts of watching TV. Perhaps we should pass a law that regulates that just to be safe? We don't know the risks of exposure to many hours of online computing. Perhaps we should pass a law that regulates that too just to be safe?

What else can "they" do? I'd say if 2HS is so risky that even the smallest exposure is unsafe then we should look more closely at banning smoking alltoghether.

westofyou
12-03-2006, 02:25 PM
then we should look more closely at banning smoking alltoghether.

Sounds good to me.

Where do I get to vote on it?

Ltlabner
12-03-2006, 02:27 PM
Sounds good to me.

Where do I get to vote on it?

Right after you vote for banning drinking, eating poorly, sky diving and driving since they also present a risk to the person and those around them.

westofyou
12-03-2006, 02:28 PM
Right after you vote for banning drinking, eating poorly, sky diving and driving since they also present a risk to the person and those around them.

Then I'll vote no on those and yes on the ban on smoking.

Mostly because I'm driven by personal interest when I vote.

And I quit smoking.

vaticanplum
12-03-2006, 02:30 PM
Exposure to 2HS increases your risk of cancer. Consuming any level of alcahol and driving increases the risk of harming others. I fail to see a difference. If the crux of the argument is increased risk of harm, then an equal standard should be held or a threshold of acceptable risk established (see more below).

I don't know how many times I can say this. The difference is that the smoking itself is harmful. So is drunk driving. And drunk driving is illegal. Why shouldn't public smoking in confined spaces be? Drinking in and of itself is not harmful to anyone but the drinker. Thus, it is legal.

You understand that when someone is arrested for drunk driving, he's arrested for the driving part, right? If he had walked home blind drunk, there'd be no cause to arrest him.


If someone harms someone while drinking they are punished (car wreck, fist fight, etc), that is true. Are you advocating smokers should be arrested and jailed because their 2HS is harming others? That is the logical continuation of that line of reasoning. If you are inflicting harm then it should be made illegal and carry some consequences, shouldn't it?

I don't know what the punishment of smoking in a place where smoking is illegal is. Whatever it is, as long as it is relative and fair according to the law, yes, I advocate it. There's such a thing as appropriate punishment. There are levels of punishment.


These laws basically say that it's ok for them to harm others at home with their 2HS, just don't do it in public. Ok..lets apply that logic to other laws. It's ok to kill people in your home, just don't do it in public. Makes no sense does it.

That's a preposterous analogy and you know it. Murder is illegal no matter where it happens. It is taking someone's life and generally the person whose life is taken would not have agreed to it given the choice. Smoking is a legal activity in private places. You set the rules in your house. And there are varied rules in-home: some smokers are not allowed to smoke inside, etc. A guest in your home knows you, knows you smoke, is coming over purey to spend time with you, and so the secondhand smoke is far more a choice. A guest in a restaurant is coming there to eat, to patronize the restaurant, not to spend time with a known smoker. And others have already covered the business risks of the smoking laws being dictated by individual restaurants.


Erring on the side of caution. Ahhh...sounds good doesn't it. We don't know the risks of exposure to large amounts of watching TV. Perhaps we should pass a law that regulates that just to be safe? We don't know the risks of exposure to many hours of online computing. Perhaps we should pass a law that regulates that too just to be safe?

Once again, apples and oranges. Whatever risks are involved in those things, they are not physical or health risks. There is zero possibility that any study done in the next 20 years will prove that watching a lot of TV or spending a lot of time on the computer can directly, physically kill you with no other factors involved.


What else can "they" do? I'd say if 2HS is so risky that even the smallest exposure is unsafe then we should look more closely at banning smoking alltoghether.

And that will come about eventually, I imagine.

That's all I have to say on this.

westofyou
12-03-2006, 02:31 PM
I don't know what the punishment of smoking in a place where smoking is illegal is.$100 fine for first time offenders in San Francisco... oh and it's the establishment who gets fined, not the smoker.

Ltlabner
12-03-2006, 02:56 PM
People get hung up on DRUNK driving but overlook drinking and driving. You don't have to be legally drunk to cause harm to someone else in an auto accident. It's LEGAL to have 1 or 2 drinks, yet you are increasing the risks of being harmed to all those you pass on the way home. Check out this information. http://www.madd.org/stats/1182

This is why I believe that 2HS issues and exposure to people drinking around you are equivelent. Exposure to 2HS doesn't give you cancer (that we know of) it increases your risk of getting it. Exposure to those who drink and drive (regardless of BAC) doesn't mean you will be in an accident it increases your risk of being in an accident.

I don't think it makes any sense to send people to jail for reckless endangerment or involentary manslaugther for some actions that cause harm to others, but only give a ticket to someone for increasing risk of CANCER for those around them. This is an area of the bans and the unintended consequences that I think people don't really think about when jumping on board with these bans.

Johnny Footstool
12-03-2006, 03:01 PM
TC, exempt from the smoking ban are family owned and operated businesses.


That's interesting. The current laws in Kansas ban smoking in all businesses, regardless of ownership.

vaticanplum
12-03-2006, 03:07 PM
That's interesting. The current laws in Kansas ban smoking in all businesses, regardless of ownership.

In New York, the law was that if you made more than 10% of your profits from smoking-related things, you were exempt. Hence, cigar bars, smoking clubs, that kind of thing, were allowed to operate as they had previously.

vaticanplum
12-03-2006, 03:09 PM
People get hung up on DRUNK driving but overlook drinking and driving. You don't have to be legally drunk to cause harm to someone else in an auto accident. It's LEGAL to have 1 or 2 drinks, yet you are increasing the risks of being harmed to all those you pass on the way home. Check out this information. http://www.madd.org/stats/1182

And if you do cause an accident and harm others, you're punished, just as anyone who causes a car accident is. Again, it is the reckless driving that CAUSES the harm, not the drinking alone.

Obviously, I lied about the previous post being my final word on the subject :)

pedro
12-03-2006, 04:10 PM
Right after you vote for banning drinking, eating poorly, sky diving and driving since they also present a risk to the person and those around them.


sky diving?

Lots of people dying from skydvers falling on them where you live?

GAC
12-03-2006, 09:09 PM
sky diving?

Lots of people dying from skydvers falling on them where you live?

Hey! Every tme I leave the house I'm watching the skies. :evil:

With me, the issue (or comparison) with smoking is about personal (individual) health.

I agree that efforts (laws) needed to be enacted to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke.

But the other side of the coin why alot of non-smokers and the "anti-smoking" crowd want smoking banned is due to rising health/insurance costs to us all.

And that is a valid concern.

But when it comes to those other issues and individual behaviors that also affect health/insurance costs, it's no longer as important.

And there are alot of personal behaviors/habits WE ALL partake of that could easily fall into that classification, and alcohol and various foods/eating habits are a couple of them.

But alcohol is a "common sin" or indulgence that both smokers and non-smokers indulge in, regardless of it's health implications. Then it's considered an acceptable, personal risk unless of course you kill someone via drunk driving.

I'm waiting though for states to institute that Big Mac tax! :lol:

remdog
12-04-2006, 06:54 AM
Argue all you want but the fact of the matter is that smoking bans are the trend as people realize the advantages of going that route. And while many comments in this thread pertain to local situations smoking bans are gaining ground around the world. For anyone that has been to Europe you know that smoking is far more prevalent there. Yet France, one of the heavier smoking countries, will go smoke free in public places beginning next year. From the LA Times:

France gets on the global bus with plan to ban public smoking
December 3, 2006


WHEN John Banzhaf III, an executive for an anti-smoking group, was in Paris for the ninth World Congress on Tobacco or Health in 1994, he couldn't help but notice the irony. After sitting in meetings lobbying for nonsmokers' rights, he would walk outside into clouds of smoke.

"I rode on a bus, and the smoke was so thick I couldn't breathe," Banzhaf says. He forced open a window, and his fellow riders complained loudly about the chilly air. When they asked him to shut the window, he asked them to put out their cigarettes. They refused, and he refused to shut the window. The result was a standoff.

ADVERTISEMENTWhat a difference a dozen years can make.

Next year, France is due to go smoke-free — or, as Banzhaf terms it, "virtually smoke-free" — in public places. In 2008, French bars, nightclubs, restaurants and hotels (but not guest rooms) will have to ban smoking.

The French action is part of a trend. Worldwide, more countries are choosing to go smoke-free, says Banzhaf, executive director and chief counsel of Action on Smoking and Health, a Washington, D.C.-based anti-smoking organization.

In recent years, 15 countries have voted to prohibit smoking in most public places. Bans are already in place in Ireland, Italy, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Bhutan and Uganda. Northern Ireland, Iceland and Finland will restrict smoking next year, he says; Lithuania in 2008.

In November, Hawaii became the 14th state to go smoke-free.

"It's a case of policy finally catching up to the science," says Ross Hammond, a spokesman for Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, another Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for smoke-free policies globally.

As the smoke-free movement gains in popularity, additional countries will feel the pressure to take similar measures, experts say. When Ireland went smoke-free in 2004, it inspired policymakers in other countries to consider restrictions too. The thought was, "If the Irish can do it, we can do it," Hammond says.

A recent treaty is also fueling the trend. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, signed by member countries of the World Health Organization, went into effect in 2005 and provides protection to citizens from tobacco smoke exposure in workplaces, public transport and indoor public places.

"People are going to begin to expect smoke-free air when they travel," Banzhaf says.

Some hotel chains are banning smoking too. Marriott International took its 2,300 U.S. and Canadian properties smoke-free this fall, says Stephanie Hampton, a Marriott spokeswoman.

"It's been embraced enthusiastically by most of our guests," she says.

Westin Hotels introduced a smoke-free policy in 2005.

But smoky pockets remain. Among the worst: Eastern Europe and Indonesia, but others are still cloudy too. "China and Japan are far from smoke-free," Banzhaf says. "South America is still rather smoky."

He offers tips to make your travels as smoke-free as possible:

• Ask tour operators for a guarantee that there will be only no-smoking rooms and restaurants on the itinerary.

• Verify when making your own hotel reservations that the room and the property are smoke-free.

• When you arrive at a hotel at which you have reserved a nonsmoking room, ask to visit the room before accepting the key. If the room smells smoky, it's easier to change if your luggage has not yet been delivered and you're not yet in possession of the key.

For more tips, see ash.org/intltravel.

Rem

Chip R
12-04-2006, 09:15 AM
Wow! As if the French weren't nasty enough already. :eek:

registerthis
12-04-2006, 09:35 AM
So non-smokers are the majority right? Non smokers outnumber smokers and want all of these non-smoking places right?

Seems to be there'd be plenty of incentive for people to want to open a non-smoking bar. The same reason people opened non-smoking resturants. MONEY.

And yet, they don't. Sound nice in theory, doesn't work in practice. Why is that?

Quick, prior to the smoking ban being enacted, can you tell me one bar/pub that advertised itself as "smoke-free"? Can you tell me one bar/pub/club that people you knew went to due to its non-smoking atmosphere? As I mentioned in my post that you quoted, I can't name a single bar in DC that does this. If there are, they don't advertise as such, I have never been in them, and I am not aware of them.

The fact is, smokers represent a sizeable minority of people who go out to bars and pubs. And no bar wants to be seen shutting the door on that potential business when they don't have to--because non-smokers still tend to show up and grin-and-bear it. So long as you can draw both the smoking ADN non-smoking crowd, why would you shut your bar off to the smoking establishment? Particularly when your competitor next door is not?

A complete ban that equally effects all establishments is the only way to go.

And I still haven't seen the argument addressed as to why we can have non-smoking restaurants, cinemas, museums, office buildings, etc. but NOT bars and clubs. What is it--tradition? A symbolic stand for the last bastion of accepted indoor smoking? What makes bars so special that they can't ask their smoking patrons to partake in their obnoxious habit outdoors?

registerthis
12-04-2006, 09:38 AM
Yes. 2nd hand smoke directly effects other patrons. It increases their risk of developing certian cancers but it doesn't not follow that if you are exposed to 2nd hand smoke you will definatley get cancer. There's no research to support this of which I am aware.

When I am exposed to cigarette smoke, my eyes water up and begin burning, my nostrils become inflamed, my throat becomes dry and parched, and I come home with my clothes and hair reeking like a ten year old ashtray.

Getting cancer is pretty far down my list of concerns.

registerthis
12-04-2006, 09:42 AM
BTW, here are some links to some non smoking bars (or non-smoking resturants that serve drinks/have a bar) in your area.

http://www.tdbistro.com/about.html

http://www.smokefreedc.org/restaurants.htm

http://home.digitalcity.com/washington/bars/sine-irish-pub-and-restaurant/v-115739794

Wow, so you found links to a bar in Baltimore, a bar in Arlington, VA--neither of which are anywhere near my home--and a list of restaurants that are smoke free in DC, which is not surprising because MOST restaurants in DC are smoke free. restaurants aren't what I'm concerned about, because I can't tell you the last time I had a meal in a smoking establishment.


Seems like it would have been a lot easier for people to do a simple websearch instead of going to the time and expense getting legislation passed to do the work for them.

Your lack of knowledge of the DC area seems to indicate that you think I don't know what I'm talking about--when in fact you're actually proving my point.

Johnny Footstool
12-04-2006, 09:52 AM
And yet, they don't. Sound nice in theory, doesn't work in practice. Why is that?

Quick, prior to the smoking ban being enacted, can you tell me one bar/pub that advertised itself as "smoke-free"? Can you tell me one bar/pub/club that people you knew went to due to its non-smoking atmosphere? As I mentioned in my post that you quoted, I can't name a single bar in DC that does this. If there are, they don't advertise as such, I have never been in them, and I am not aware of them.

Johnny's Tavern in south OP, KS advertised itself as "smokeless". The place was small and the food was terrible, but it was always packed to the brim. There are several other Johnny's Taverns around KC, but they were never as busy as the smokeless one.


The fact is, smokers represent a sizeable minority of people who go out to bars and pubs. And no bar wants to be seen shutting the door on that potential business when they don't have to--because non-smokers still tend to show up and grin-and-bear it. So long as you can draw both the smoking ADN non-smoking crowd, why would you shut your bar off to the smoking establishment? Particularly when your competitor next door is not?

A complete ban that equally effects all establishments is the only way to go.

No, because then you give a huge economic advantage to corporate restaurants like Applebee's, TGI Friday's, etc. who have an extensive menu and millions of advertising dollars. Local bar-and-grill places can't compete on a level playing field because there is no level playing field.

I think the Ohio law and the NY law vaticanplum mentioned make a lot more sense than a total ban.


And I still haven't seen the argument addressed as to why we can have non-smoking restaurants, cinemas, museums, office buildings, etc. but NOT bars and clubs. What is it--tradition? A symbolic stand for the last bastion of accepted indoor smoking? What makes bars so special that they can't ask their smoking patrons to partake in their obnoxious habit outdoors?

The whole "den of sin" idea. People want a getaway where they can engage in mild debauchery. And people who smoke tend to drink, I imagine, so bars want their business.

Ltlabner
12-04-2006, 10:01 AM
Your lack of knowledge of the DC area seems to indicate that you think I don't know what I'm talking about--when in fact you're actually proving my point.

You got me on this one. You are right. I don't know the DC Area. But since little ole Cincinnati seems to have figured out how to make non-smoking bars, I just naturally assumed that the repository of all wisdom and know-how that is Washington DC would figure out how to open a business (without having to resort to passing laws and doing things in a hamfisted way). Silly me.

http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/ret/227325766.html


4. Sitwell's
324 Ludlow Ave., Clifton, 513-281-7487
An oasis for the hip at the heart of Clifton's Gaslight District, Sitwell's is a completely non-smoking bar and restaurant that offers guests free WiFi and a beatnik vibe to surf in as well as a computer terminal for $3 per hour. ... from bestofcincinnati.com http://www.best-of-cincinnati.com/topten.html

Ltlabner
12-04-2006, 10:04 AM
When I am exposed to cigarette smoke, my eyes water up and begin burning, my nostrils become inflamed, my throat becomes dry and parched, and I come home with my clothes and hair reeking like a ten year old ashtray.

Getting cancer is pretty far down my list of concerns.

Let me ask you....and I am asking serriously because I don't know. What level of smoke does it take for you to experience these side effects. Is it a slight wif? Mild exposure? Full on smoke fest?

Again, no snarkyness. I don't have these problems so it might be helpfull to hear from someone who goes through this.

BTW, from this post, is it safe to say your support of these bans is weighted heavily on the "it's a nusence" issue rather than the health concerns?

westofyou
12-04-2006, 10:07 AM
Quick, prior to the smoking ban being enacted, can you tell me one bar/pub that advertised itself as "smoke-free"?

The Doug Fir

http://www.dougfirlounge.com/

The Doug Fir opened with a strict non smoking policy for the performers sake, several other clubs followed suit, including Berbatis Pan, a place that was awash in smoke that would make Greg Dulli blush.

registerthis
12-04-2006, 10:28 AM
Let me ask you....and I am asking serriously because I don't know. What level of smoke does it take for you to experience these side effects. Is it a slight wif? Mild exposure? Full on smoke fest?

Again, no snarkyness. I don't have these problems so it might be helpfull to hear from someone who goes through this.

BTW, from this post, is it safe to say your support of these bans is weighted heavily on the "it's a nusence" issue rather than the health concerns?

If I'm around a steady amount of cigarette smoke for more than 5-10 minutes, I begin having these reactions. In other words, in less time than it would take me to consume a beer, I am in physical discomfort.

My concerns are both at a nuisance level and from a health perspective. One is immediate, one is long term, but both require attention. While under no pretext do I assume that the inhalation of second-hand tobacco smoke does not bring with it an assortment of health-related concerns, and I would thus be happy merely avoiding it due to that point alone, the physical symptoms which I described to you are more of a nuisance variety. i believe either are valid reasons behind a ban.

registerthis
12-04-2006, 10:42 AM
You got me on this one. You are right. I don't know the DC Area. But since little ole Cincinnati seems to have figured out how to make non-smoking bars, I just naturally assumed that the repository of all wisdom and know-how that is Washington DC would figure out how to open a business (without having to resort to passing laws and doing things in a hamfisted way). Silly me.

We live in a DC neighborhood known as Logan Circle. Our neighborhood alone has a number of night spots in its own right--but is also in close proximity to more well-known and popular DC destinations such as DuPont Circle, Adams-Morgan and U St.. I've spent considerable time in each neighborhood, and know the area probably as well as anyone. I'm familiar with most nightclub establishments in all of these neighborhoods, and there isn't one that I have been to that is a smoke-free establishment. Same goes for the music clubs in our area (the 930, the Black Cat, various jazz clubs, etc.) Hell, even one of my favorite hangouts--Kramerbooks--has a smoking bar in it (albeit located away from the racks of books I frequently peruse.)

I can also say the same for places I have been to in Georgetown, Capitol Hill and Penn Quarter. A few restaurant bars are non-smoking, but that's it.

Now, that's not to say that in Cleveland Park, or Friendship Heights or Shaw, there doesn't exist a non-smokign establishment or two--a la the Cincinnati example you presented. But, if there is, it's not located in close proximity to us, and I haven't heard of it/been to it. I simply don't feel that I should be relegated to searching out the small handful of potentially non-smoking bars (which may or may not be otherwise enjoyable establishments) in neighborhoods away from where I live in order to be able to enjoy an evening out sans the difficulties I experience in the post I listed above.

registerthis
12-04-2006, 10:52 AM
No, because then you give a huge economic advantage to corporate restaurants like Applebee's, TGI Friday's, etc. who have an extensive menu and millions of advertising dollars. Local bar-and-grill places can't compete on a level playing field because there is no level playing field.

In the 'burbs, perhaps, but not in most urban environments, and certainly not where we live. There is a Buca di Bepo approximately 10 blocks from our home, and that is the only chain restaurant that I can think of within even remote proximity to our place of residence. The only businesses in central DC--with extremely rare exception--are local, independent establishments. If the ban didn't effect them--which the upcoming DC smoking ban certainly will--then the ban would essentially be pointless.

Even assuming that places like Applebees and TGi Fridays were competing with local, independent establishments, most people I know and associate with don't go to such chain restaurants for a night out. Now, having grown up in Ohio I can see how that necessarily wouldn't be the case, but speaking as a DC resident I can say that that the local boutiques enjoy far greater success--and are far more popular--than chain establishments.


The whole "den of sin" idea. People want a getaway where they can engage in mild debauchery. And people who smoke tend to drink, I imagine, so bars want their business.

I have no qualms whatsoever about people smoking. I have problems with the societal financial cost associated with smoking-related illnesses, but that's another debate for another time. I just get sick of dealing with the associated ailments which i have listed every single time I go out. I hardly view it as outrageous the idea of asking smokers to partake in their habit outdoors, where those of us who don't share in the joys of inhaling rank nicotine-laced smoke aren't forced to. If smokers are able to do that, then they're welcome into any establishment they wish.

Ltlabner
12-04-2006, 10:55 AM
I simply don't feel that I should be relegated to searching out the small handful of potentially non-smoking bars (which may or may not be otherwise enjoyable establishments) in neighborhoods away from where I live in order to be able to enjoy an evening out sans the difficulties I experience in the post I listed above.

That's fair and I totally understand why you'd want to avoid the misery listed above. Sounds like it totally sucks. I guess it would be interesting to know the percentage of people who suffer severe reactions to smoking versus it's just yucky. If the percentage of severe reactions are small that might explain why most people just put up with it and why those with the severe reaction might be forced to serch out the small, out of the way places.

I'd like to enjoy a night out without having listen to babies scream, kids run around or jerks yacking on their cellphones. I'd guess (maybe I'm wrong) that most people would also like to avoid those irritants. But I don't think a child ban makes much sense. Either I should deal with the inept parent directly or go to a different establishment. A total ban just because it's irritating seems like a hamfisted way of dealing with things. Frankly, for some (not all, of course) I think they like the bans because it takes the responsibility of dealing with the irritation off of their shoulders and helps them avoid having to have any uncomfortable conversations (sir, could you perhaps smoke after I leave, it's really bothering me....). For others, I understand, who have severe reactions to smoke, and there aren't any other places to go, that makes your options limited and choices difficult.

That's just focusing on the "nuscence" side of the equation. You throw in the health issues and that changes things. That I fully understand.

But strictly looking at the "pain in the butt" factor, I have a hard time squaring up the difference between irritation from smoking and irritation from other common sources in resturants/bars/public areas and the best way to deal with them.

registerthis
12-04-2006, 10:56 AM
Ltlabner, I would totally support a child ban in restaurants!

But I think I'd have a harder time drumming up support for that one. :)

flyer85
12-04-2006, 11:52 AM
Here is the official annoucement the company put out for the office building I work in


In response to the voter approved non-smoking law that goes into effect on December 7, 2006, our landlord, ... has determined that their properties will be entirely non-smoking. This includes the buildings, approaches to the buildings, and the parking lots. On December 6, .... will dismantle the previously designated smoking areas and place no smoking reminder signs near the building entrances.

There are a number of people(interestingly mostly women) who go to to the side entrance of the building 10-15 times a day to smoke. I have no idea what they are going to do now.

westofyou
12-04-2006, 12:00 PM
Ltlabner, I would totally support a child ban in restaurants!

But I think I'd have a harder time drumming up support for that one. :)

Let's ban all skydiving children who might become drinkers from all the restaurants!!

vaticanplum
12-04-2006, 05:58 PM
Argue all you want but the fact of the matter is that smoking bans are the trend as people realize the advantages of going that route. And while many comments in this thread pertain to local situations smoking bans are gaining ground around the world. For anyone that has been to Europe you know that smoking is far more prevalent there.

I think Europe is heading in the same direction as the States at about the same rate, actually, at least Western Europe. Ireland has banned smoking in bars. England...England has either passed the law but hasn't enacted it yet or is pushing hard to pass the law.

remdog
12-05-2006, 12:11 PM
I'm waiting though for states to institute that Big Mac tax! :lol:

Is this close enough? :laugh:


Tuesday December 5, 11:42 AM EST


NEW YORK (AP) — The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the first city in the nation to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants — from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

The board, which passed the ban by a unanimous vote, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July, and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of its foods by July 2008.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said recently that officials seriously weighed complaints from the restaurant industry, which argued that it was unrealistic to give them six months to replace cooking oils and shortening and 18 months to phase out the ingredients altogether.

Trans fats are believed to be harmful because they contribute to heart disease by raising bad cholesterol and lowering good cholesterol at the same time. Some experts say that makes trans fats worse than saturated fat.

Rem

savafan
12-05-2006, 12:15 PM
Okay, I've heard that this ban includes semi-trucks that are owned by the trucking companies...drivers won't be allowed to smoke inside these trucks.

What about open air festivals and amusement sites like King's Island and the Ohio Renaissance Festival?

registerthis
12-05-2006, 12:16 PM
What about open air festivals and amusement sites like King's Island and the Ohio Renaissance Festival?

I don't think you can smoke at Kings Island now, but I could very well be mistaken.

Ltlabner
02-01-2007, 07:11 AM
Well, the first stories of bizzaro-ness related to the anti-smoking ban have started to surface.

A pizza parlor in Norwood, Ohio who uses wood fired ovens has been sent a notice by the city health department to quit using the ovens as they are using "burning plant matter" inside the establishment.

Apparently the statute uses the phrase "burning plant matter" somewhere in it. He's been told by the city health commish "not to worry about it" but it's by no means resolved. As the statue is written now, he will be in violation and will be subject to $2,500/day fines.

Meanwhile the number of reported bars/pubs that are ignorning the ban continues to grow. At least, as reported on local (Cincy) talk radio and news reports.

LoganBuck
02-01-2007, 07:47 AM
Well, the first stories of bizzaro-ness related to the anti-smoking ban have started to surface.

A pizza parlor in Norwood, Ohio who uses wood fired ovens has been sent a notice by the city health department to quit using the ovens as they are using "burning plant matter" inside the establishment.

Apparently the statute uses the phrase "burning plant matter" somewhere in it. He's been told by the city health commish "not to worry about it" but it's by no means resolved. As the statue is written now, he will be in violation and will be subject to $2,500/day fines.

Meanwhile the number of reported bars/pubs that are ignorning the ban continues to grow. At least, as reported on local (Cincy) talk radio and news reports.

Yep, Democracy at its finest.

max venable
02-01-2007, 08:04 AM
Do the Detroit Tigers visit GABP this year? Will that smoking ban apply to Jim Leyland in the dugout? It does, right? What's he gonna do? I hope he lights up and gets arrested during a game. That would be sweet. :p:

GAC
02-01-2007, 08:10 AM
I still say they should have written a common sense law that, yes, put the "burden" on smokers and establishments that wanted to allow smoking, by making them have separate enclosed/ventilated areas where the non-smoker could not be exposed.

There are several bar/restaurants up this way that did just that a few years ago. And the owners are now furious because they invested over 20 grand in creating these separate facilities/rooms where non-smokers would not be exposed, yet they are NOW in violation of the new law.

And the Reds and Bengals could still allow smoking (outdoor patio areas) that would easily meet the requirements of the new law.

registerthis
02-01-2007, 09:45 AM
Meanwhile the number of reported bars/pubs that are ignorning the ban continues to grow. At least, as reported on local (Cincy) talk radio and news reports.

I hope they crack down on it, then. these bans will only be effective if there is legitimate enforcement behind it.

Matt700wlw
02-01-2007, 03:41 PM
I hope they crack down on it, then. these bans will only be effective if there is legitimate enforcement behind it.

Next time they want to pass some stupid law that infringes people's rights, maybe they should actually have the regulations worked out.

They tried to pull a fast one on the voters, and unfortunately, most of them fell for it.

Of course if you can't enforce it (yet), is it really a law?

minus5
02-01-2007, 03:49 PM
[QUOTE=Matt700wlw;1235860]
They tried to pull a fast one on the voters, and unfortunately, most of them fell for it.
QUOTE]

I'm not sure they tried to pull a fast one. I don't live in Ohio and understood, plainly the differences in the two Ohio issues.

Matt700wlw
02-01-2007, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE=Matt700wlw;1235860]
They tried to pull a fast one on the voters, and unfortunately, most of them fell for it.
QUOTE]

I'm not sure they tried to pull a fast one. I don't live in Ohio and understood, plainly the differences in the two Ohio issues.

So did I....but a lot of people didn't.

The put 2 smoking "bans" on the ballot right next to each other. One sponsored by the tobacco insdusty (the less restrictive one) and one sponsored by the Cancer society (the one that passed). If 5 passed (which it did) the result of 4 didn't matter....

That's complicated for some.

I'd like to see it on the ballot again, and have it be clear on what exactly it's purpose is, and see what happens

Yachtzee
02-01-2007, 04:36 PM
So did I....but a lot of people didn't.

The put 2 smoking "bans" on the ballot right next to each other. One sponsored by the tobacco insdusty (the less restrictive one) and one sponsored by the Cancer society (the one that passed). If 5 passed (which it did) the result of 4 didn't matter....

That's complicated for some.

I'd like to see it on the ballot again, and have it be clear on what exactly it's purpose is, and see what happens

Actually, you have that backwards. Issue 4 was the tobacco industry measure and was a constitutional amendment. If it had passed, Issue 5, the one that did pass, would not have mattered. I think most people understood full well what each one entailed. Of the voters I spoke with, they didn't like Issue 4 because it was a constitutional amendment. There were just way too many constitutional amendments this past election for issues that do not rate the level of a constitutional amendment. They may not have liked the totality of Issue 5, but they obviously wanted a smoking ban and one that did not amend the Ohio Constitution.

Issue 4 was not without its problems and was filled with so many loopholes that some suggested it was simply a veiled attempt by the tobacco industry to make smoking a constitutional right in Ohio. Issue 5 has its problems, but at least it isn't a constitutional amendment, so those problems can be easily fixed. It's highly flexible because the Ohio Dept. of Health has the ability to issue new guidelines to solve issues like the "pizza shop" problem. The 6 month lag before the Dept. of Health needs to have regs in place has definitely created a problem with uncertainty as to whether the rules are enforceable or not. However, the proposed regs have already been posted for comment and final regs should come down soon.

I have a feeling those places that have been honoring the ban will make out better than the ones that have been ignoring it. Those that have banned smoking will have quite a jump on the businesses that have ignored it and their customers will have already become acclimated to the new rules. If I were a business owner who wanted to cater to my smoking clientele, I'd be working on that outdoor patio rather than defying the ban. It's not going to just go away.

Matt700wlw
02-01-2007, 04:51 PM
I guess I sound pretty dumb, now. :p:

I had it all figured out back in November :D

redsmetz
02-01-2007, 10:19 PM
Well, the first stories of bizzaro-ness related to the anti-smoking ban have started to surface.

A pizza parlor in Norwood, Ohio who uses wood fired ovens has been sent a notice by the city health department to quit using the ovens as they are using "burning plant matter" inside the establishment.

Apparently the statute uses the phrase "burning plant matter" somewhere in it. He's been told by the city health commish "not to worry about it" but it's by no means resolved. As the statue is written now, he will be in violation and will be subject to $2,500/day fines.

Meanwhile the number of reported bars/pubs that are ignorning the ban continues to grow. At least, as reported on local (Cincy) talk radio and news reports.

I saw that in this morning's paper, but the state health department ruled that it was inapplicable. It seemed pretty bogus and I'm not too sure the reporting of a violation might have been from someone who was against the new law to attempt to point out the law went too far. Plus they reported that the restaurant was allowing smoking and the owner was smoking. The owner said that he's been non-smoking for three years and that he doesn't smoke either.

I am loving being able to just walk into a restaurant and sit anywhere I want and have clear air.

Caseyfan21
02-01-2007, 11:36 PM
I am loving being able to just walk into a restaurant and sit anywhere I want and have clear air.

I've been enjoying that in Columbus ever since I started at OSU a few years ago. It was a welcome change for me from Dayton.

In regards to understanding the law, I think most voters did understand the difference. If a person had any access to any form of media they don't have an excuse. The news programs went over differences as did the local paper and I even received literature in the mail from both sides. If someone didn't understand the difference it was by their own choosing.

I personally love the smoking ban because cigarette smokes affects my allergies. I can't stand the smell and the negative health effects. I do feel bad for smokers on one hand but I think activities of the minority should not be able to negatively affect the majority (smoking is clearly in the minority in our society now). I can see why some think it is a ban of a personal right but I say on the other hand every human should have the right to clean air. That's just my $.02.

I think enforcement of the law will have to be strict if it has any chance of working. I was bowling last Friday and there were several guys smoking in the locker room/bathroom area. I did notice a cop showed up a little later and the smoking stopped so maybe he had something to do with that.

Ltlabner
02-02-2007, 06:43 AM
It's highly flexible because the Ohio Dept. of Health has the ability to issue new guidelines to solve issues like the "pizza shop" problem. The 6 month lag before the Dept. of Health needs to have regs in place has definitely created a problem with uncertainty as to whether the rules are enforceable or not. However, the proposed regs have already been posted for comment and final regs should come down soon.

I didn't realize this. Thanks. While that still means buracrats are in change of the guidelines (which leaves the door wide open for stupidity on a grand scale) you are 100% right that it's light years better than a constitutional admendment. I don't like either option, but a constitutional admenedment would have been an umittigated disaster.

gonelong
02-02-2007, 10:35 AM
I am loving being able to just walk into a restaurant and sit anywhere I want and have clear air.

I have to admit that Mrs Gonelong, Gonelong Jr, and I recently stopped at a BW3s for a bite to eat. We wouldn't have stopped their with Jr in the past because of the smoking.

That said, I still disagree with the ban.

GL

GAC
02-02-2007, 09:07 PM
I'm not sure they tried to pull a fast one. I don't live in Ohio and understood, plainly the differences in the two Ohio issues.

Alot of the people in Ohio (where I reside) didn't really research the "details" of this law, and what it all involved (how far reaching some of the bans were, and what some of the allowances are).

If there's such confusion and ambiguity by state officials on some of the language in this law, what is covered and how to enforce it, then how were the voters suppose to figure it out?

And the supporters of the law didn't really go out of their way to see that they got it. I'm not saying voters couldn't have gotten the info (I did); but you had to really do some research. And let's be honest - most voters simply don't do it, and yes, it's their own fault.

The law basically "dumped" the enforcement aspect on local Health Boards, without giving them the monies/people to enforce it. And these departments are simply overwhelmed and "throwing their hands in the air" because most are not equipped to handle it and the guidelines aren't clear.

Again - there was no reason why a common sense law couldn't have been written that accommodated both "groups". Non-smokers should not have to be exposed to, and protected from, second-hand smoke. But many establishments, years ago at great financial cost to themselves, built separate enclosed areas with ventilation for smokers only, and where non-smokers could not be exposed. Those areas are now illegal according to the new law.

And as far as outdoor smoking - the law dictates guidelines concerning smoking patios that, IMO, seem fair. They are legal designated areas under the new law, and yet I've heard some non-smokers complaining abut those. And I disagree with a non-smoker who then complains that they don't even like the smell if they happen to walk by a smoking patio. I doubt any exposure you may encounter in that brief moment you happen to walk by an open-air area is gonna damage you. Just my take.

Dom Heffner
02-03-2007, 12:22 AM
It comes down to this: You either have the right to breathe clean air or you don't.

If you believe the latter, you need your head examined.

Ltlabner
02-03-2007, 05:24 AM
It comes down to this: You either have the right to breathe clean air or you don't.

If you believe the latter, you need your head examined.

So I guess banning cars, busses, RV's and trucks is next since they foul the clean air?

And coal fired electric plants since they infringe on these "clean air rights"?

And any industry that produces any substance that fouls the "clean air" (which means pretty much about any industry that manufactures things)?

Can't wait to live in my cave and huddle around my fire. Will we still have high-speed internet in our caves?

GAC
02-03-2007, 08:36 AM
It comes down to this: You either have the right to breathe clean air or you don't.

If you believe the latter, you need your head examined.

reminds me of a joke along these lines I heard a few months back....

A guy walks into a bar, grabs a bar stool, and the guy next to him lights up. Immediately the non-smoker screams at the bartender.... "Hey bartender! What's going on here? I come in here to get ripped on alcohol and possibly hope to get lucky and pick up a girl for some unprotected sex later..... AND THIS GUY IS BLOWING SMOKE IN MY FACE! :beerme:

Matt700wlw
02-03-2007, 01:37 PM
)?

Can't wait to live in my cave and huddle around my fire. Will we still have high-speed internet in our caves?


Yes, but no farting.

Methane....bad for you.

DoogMinAmo
02-05-2007, 05:53 PM
So I guess banning cars, busses, RV's and trucks is next since they foul the clean air?

And coal fired electric plants since they infringe on these "clean air rights"?

And any industry that produces any substance that fouls the "clean air" (which means pretty much about any industry that manufactures things)?

Can't wait to live in my cave and huddle around my fire. Will we still have high-speed internet in our caves?

Hybrid and hydrogen fule cell cars.

Clean burning coal.

Green building movement. Green manufacturing. Green energy.

Yes, they are banning them. Well, actually they are making them clean up their act. The whole global warming thing is a bit different than cigarette smoking, but in the end health and longevity are key.

Soiling our surroundings is not a sign of progress, maintaining our daily lives in a similar manner while not harming anyone or anything around us definitely is.

DoogMinAmo
02-05-2007, 05:54 PM
I have to admit that Mrs Gonelong, Gonelong Jr, and I recently stopped at a BW3s for a bite to eat. We wouldn't have stopped their with Jr in the past because of the smoking.

That said, I still disagree with the ban.

GL

How can you be so hungry after just eating all that cake you have? :D

gilpdawg
02-05-2007, 07:07 PM
A lot of smaller places are still smoking, and show no signs of stopping. A local small bar and a medium sized bowling alley. I went to the bowling alley a couple of weeks ago for the late night bowling and it was like smoke machines at a concert. I don't smoke anymore, but it doesn't bother me to be around it, so I don't care, but it was interesting, seeing as how there's a huge "no smoking" sign on the door.

GAC
02-05-2007, 08:13 PM
They said that the hardest places to enforce it will be in the southern parts of Ohio (the "hills") where you have remote taverns. Alot of the locals smoke and the owners are not gonna stop them. And one can say that about alot of the remote parts of Ohio where you have those little "out of the place" taverns and bars.

I wanna see someone walk in there and then tell those "patrons" they can't smoke, or that they are violating the law. Not if they value their lives. ;)

Yachtzee
02-05-2007, 09:22 PM
The way it looks, enforcement will likely come when someone who doesn't like the smoke calls into the state-wide reporting number. It's not like they're going to have police patrolling the bars or anything. I think the idea is to allow those who wish to complain to make a complaint without getting into a confrontation with the owner or other patrons. I think that's probably the best way to handle it so long as health inspectors charged with doing the investigations are educated to look for actual violations so that businesses aren't written up based on hearsay.

Ltlabner
02-05-2007, 09:33 PM
Hybrid and hydrogen fule cell cars.

Clean burning coal.

Green building movement. Green manufacturing. Green energy.

Yes, they are banning them. Well, actually they are making them clean up their act. The whole global warming thing is a bit different than cigarette smoking, but in the end health and longevity are key.

Soiling our surroundings is not a sign of progress, maintaining our daily lives in a similar manner while not harming anyone or anything around us definitely is.

Exactly my point!

All of the industries that most would consider "polluters" were given the opportunity to employ technologies to allow them to continue to persue their business interests while greatly reducing/eliminating their polution output.

Resturant and bar owners were not given such an opportunity. No implementation of different "smoke eater" technologies. No improvements to the ventillation systems. No improvements to resturant designs and floorplans. Any money a resturant owner poured into better ventillation systems in the past few years to meet what was the previous standard....opps. Sorry bout your luck.

Nope. The population at large jumped on the cause dejour and banned something they find "yucky" simply because it doesn't effect them negativley in any way once the ban goes into effect. Yet, I imagine if we employed the same "no tollerence" pollicy to industries that would effect their lives (ie. no more eletric power) folks would not be so likely to jump on the band wagon.

If the issue is really "clean air rights" as Dom said, then lets really go after "clean air". But when you step back and really think about what that means, it becomes clear that the issue isn't "clean air" rather it's people trying to prohibit other people's behaviors they find distastefull. (Which, BTW, is fine by me, I'd just rather people were honest about it).

Yachtzee
02-05-2007, 09:50 PM
Exactly my point!

All of the industries that most would consider "polluters" were given the opportunity to employ technologies to allow them to continue to persue their business interests while greatly reducing/eliminating their polution output.

Resturant and bar owners were not given such an opportunity. No implementation of different "smoke eater" technologies. No improvements to the ventillation systems. No improvements to resturant designs and floorplans. Any money a resturant owner poured into better ventillation systems in the past few years to meet what was the previous standard....opps. Sorry bout your luck.

Nope. The population at large jumped on the cause dejour and banned something they find "yucky" simply because it doesn't effect them negativley in any way once the ban goes into effect. Yet, I imagine if we employed the same "no tollerence" pollicy to industries that would effect their lives (ie. no more eletric power) folks would not be so likely to jump on the band wagon.

If the issue is really "clean air rights" as Dom said, then lets really go after "clean air". But when you step back and really think about what that means, it becomes clean that the issue isn't "clean air" rather it's people trying to prohibit behaviors they find distastefull. (Which, BTW, is fine by me, I'd just rather people were honest about it).

I think the difference is that restaurants and bars can provide their services without cigarette smoke. People are willing to tolerate some air pollution from factories and power plants because the pollution is necessary in order to provide the benefit these industries bring. The benefits of smoking are personal to the smoker. Since those who do not smoke receive no tangible benefit from the smoking and only experience the negative effects, they are less willing to put up with it.

Where I can see some hypocrisy is when those people who complain about smoking also complain about E-check. Up here where we are subject to E-check, I often hear people complain that they have to get their car checked for emissions every 2 years. If you're complaining about cigarette smoke, how can you complain about a law that forces people who drive poluting cars to get their emissions systems repaired? At least people who don't like cigarette smoke can avoid bars and restaurants that permit smoking. There's nothing you can do when you get stuck in traffic behind some guy whose car is belching out black smoke and toxic gas fumes beyond what's reasonable. Friends from out of state can't believe that Ohio doesn't make everyone state-wide get regular car inspections.

DoogMinAmo
02-05-2007, 09:51 PM
Exactly my point!

All of the industries that most would consider "polluters" were given the opportunity to employ technologies to allow them to continue to persue their business interests while greatly reducing/eliminating their polution output.

Resturant and bar owners were not given such an opportunity. No implementation of different "smoke eater" technologies. No improvements to the ventillation systems. No improvements to resturant designs and floorplans. Any money a resturant owner poured into better ventillation systems in the past few years to meet what was the previous standard....opps. Sorry bout your luck.

Nope. The population at large jumped on the cause dejour and banned something they find "yucky" simply because it doesn't effect them negativley in any way once the ban goes into effect. Yet, I imagine if we employed the same "no tollerence" pollicy to industries that would effect their lives (ie. no more eletric power) folks would not be so likely to jump on the band wagon.

If the issue is really "clean air rights" as Dom said, then lets really go after "clean air". But when you step back and really think about what that means, it becomes clear that the issue isn't "clean air" rather it's people trying to prohibit other people's behaviors they find distastefull. (Which, BTW, is fine by me, I'd just rather people were honest about it).


Seems like a rather extreme case of apples and oranges, just because they both involve air does not mean they are equal or even remotely similar. You can not compare an addiction or nuisance to something that keeps the country running. Electricity is as close to a technological need as you can find in the modern era, cigarrettes are far from it. If there was a way to survive while completely rebuilding and renovating the hazardous infrastructure that we are dependent upon, I would be all for it.

The smoking ban has happened in many other cities and states. Talk to anyone there, they hated it at first, then came to appreciate it and love it. It is a hot topic now, but soon it will be one of the few progressive things our state and city can be proud of.

Oh, smoking is distasteful, I will readily admit it. But it is also very, very unhealthy, and that is why I wanted the ban.

Ltlabner
02-05-2007, 10:03 PM
Seems like a rather extreme case of apples and oranges, just because they both involve air does not mean they are equal or even remotely similar. You can not compare an addiction or nuisance to something that keeps the country running. Electricity is as close to a technological need as you can find in the modern era, cigarrettes are far from it. If there was a way to survive while completely rebuilding and renovating the hazardous infrastructure that we are dependent upon, I would be all for it. .

You may be missing my point. Dom Heffener said the whole issue was "clean air rights". On that level, if the issue really is about "clean air" then it seems to me we have a lot of other things we need to ban so we can acheive said goal. Smoking is by no means a "neccessity" no matter how hooked people may be. Energy is pretty darn neccessary.


The smoking ban has happened in many other cities and states. Talk to anyone there, they hated it at first, then came to appreciate it and love it. It is a hot topic now, but soon it will be one of the few progressive things our state and city can be proud of..

That people become used to it down the road doesn't change that the ban is a bad idea in the first place (IMO).


Oh, smoking is distasteful, I will readily admit it. But it is also very, very unhealthy, and that is why I wanted the ban.

Smoking is very unhealthy...true. So is eating crappy food and drinking too much. Will you be voting for the "Mc Donalds and Bud Light" ban also?

I'm only wishing that people would be honest and quit dressing up the issue in "clean air rights" and "I'm only concerned about other people health" and other false arguments. I've seen far too many people throw hissy fits because a person was across the room smoking and they thought they might have smelled some smoke to believe all of these "atruistic" claims. Some folks are highly alergic to smoke, those folks have a very good reason for wanting a ban, and I don't have any issue with them at all. However, this is a pretty small segment of the popluation.

People should just be honest and admit to themselves and others, "I think it's nasty, and I want to tell other people not to smoke because I think it's how things should be".

guttle11
02-05-2007, 10:13 PM
You may be missing my point. Dom Heffener said the whole issue was "clean air rights". On that level, if the issue really is about "clean air" then it seems to me we have a lot of other things we need to ban so we can acheive said goal. Smoking is by no means a "neccessity" no matter how hooked people may be. Energy is pretty darn neccessary.



That people become used to it down the road doesn't change that the ban is a bad idea in the first place (IMO).



Smoking is very unhealthy...true. So is eating crappy food and drinking too much. Will you be voting for the "Mc Donalds and Bud Light" ban also?

I'm only wishing that people would be honest and quit dressing up the issue in "clean air rights" and "I'm only concerned about other people health" and other false arguments. I've seen far too many people throw hissy fits because a person was across the room smoking and they thought they might have smelled some smoke to believe all of these "atruistic" claims. Some folks are highly alergic to smoke, those folks have a very good reason for wanting a ban, and I don't have any issue with them at all. However, this is a pretty small segment of the popluation.

People should just be honest and admit to themselves and others, "I think it's nasty, and I want to tell other people not to smoke because I think it's how things should be".

Bingo.

I don't like the X Games. I have a right to not have to risk them being on my TV at any time. Sign my petition.

DoogMinAmo
02-05-2007, 10:30 PM
You may be missing my point. Dom Heffener said the whole issue was "clean air rights". On that level, if the issue really is about "clean air" then it seems to me we have a lot of other things we need to ban so we can acheive said goal. Smoking is by no means a "neccessity" no matter how hooked people may be. Energy is pretty darn neccessary.

And you are missing my point, I would advocate banning electricity and industry for cleaner versions, but life could not continue. Going smoke free not only allows life to continue, it is a better, healthier life.




That people become used to it down the road doesn't change that the ban is a bad idea in the first place (IMO).

On the contrary, after hurt feelings and disappointed soles get over it, they realize it was not about rights, or imposition, but a change for the better.



Smoking is very unhealthy...true. So is eating crappy food and drinking too much. Will you be voting for the "Mc Donalds and Bud Light" ban also?
Have you read about the Trans Fat ban in NY? Out of curiosity, does that bother you just as much as this?

Eating crappy food and drinking are bad in excess, as is everything else in life. Smoking is bad for you, period. Additionally, you going to McDs or opening a case of BL may affect you negatively, but one smoker can negatively affect an entire room of non-smokers.



I'm only wishing that people would be honest and quit dressing up the issue in "clean air rights" and "I'm only concerned about other people health" and other false arguments. I've seen far too many people throw hissy fits because a person was across the room smoking and they thought they might have smelled some smoke to believe all of these "atruistic" claims. Some folks are highly alergic to smoke, those folks have a very good reason for wanting a ban, and I don't have any issue with them at all. However, this is a pretty small segment of the popluation.

I feel it is pretty weak to discount a person's desire for health. It is not a right to clean air, it is a right to healthy air.



People should just be honest and admit to themselves and others, "I think it's nasty, and I want to tell other people not to smoke because I think it's how things should be".

Just because it is what you feel, does not make it inherent truth, and everyone else is being dishonest. A difference in opininion can be had on a subject without a right or wrong being declared, but we are talking about an indisputable health issue here.

Either way I am one to appease...

I think it is nasty, and I want other people not to smoke around me.

DoogMinAmo
02-05-2007, 10:35 PM
Bingo.

I don't like the X Games. I have a right to not have to risk them being on my TV at any time. Sign my petition.

When Xgames is found detrimental to your (collective) health, I will support your movement.

Smoking is more than a 'I don't like it.' It is BAD for you.

However, if you want to do it so badly, go ahead, but not around me.

guttle11
02-05-2007, 10:46 PM
When Xgames is found detrimental to your (collective) health, I will support your movement.

Smoking is more than a 'I don't like it.' It is BAD for you.

However, if you want to do it so badly, go ahead, but not around me.

That's a cop out. Everyone knows it's bad for you. Like others have said, there's many other things in the air that are as bad or worse than cigarette smoke.

Just be honest, the biggest reason people wanted the ban was because they don't like it. Not all people, but the majority from what I've read and heard. As a smoker it's not a big deal to me, but I just wish more people were truly honest. Health isn't the biggest factor. If health and safety were truly the biggest issue, MADD, GLADD, and DARE would be just as big and loud as the anti-smoking movement. Both sides argued that it was their personal right to smoke/no smoking, and neither side is wrong. One side just had more people. That's the way it is.

DoogMinAmo
02-05-2007, 11:02 PM
That's a cop out. Everyone knows it's bad for you. Like others have said, there's many other things in the air that are as bad or worse than cigarette smoke.

Just be honest, the biggest reason people wanted the ban was because they don't like it. Not all people, but the majority from what I've read and heard. As a smoker it's not a big deal to me, but I just wish more people were truly honest. Health isn't the biggest factor. If health and safety were truly the biggest issue, MADD, GLADD, and DARE would be just as big and loud as the anti-smoking movement. Both sides argued that it was their personal right to smoke/no smoking, and neither side is wrong. One side just had more people. That's the way it is.
I can not speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, I am being honest.

Yachtzee
02-06-2007, 12:04 AM
That's a cop out. Everyone knows it's bad for you. Like others have said, there's many other things in the air that are as bad or worse than cigarette smoke.


Well, the thing is, people know smoking causes cancer, so when people see and smell cigarette smoke, they not only think about the smoke, they think about the cancer. Acid rain is bad too, but people can't really see or smell that, so there's not as much of an uproar. I don't think it necessarily has to do with the smell either. My grandfather smoked a pipe for years and everyone talked about how much they liked the smell of pipe smoke. Yet no one seems to be saying "lets make an exception for nice smelling smoke like pipes and clove cigarettes." I thinks its much more of a "second-hand smoke causes cancer" issue for a lot of people, oh and it smells bad too.

guttle11
02-06-2007, 01:11 AM
Well, the thing is, people know smoking causes cancer, so when people see and smell cigarette smoke, they not only think about the smoke, they think about the cancer. Acid rain is bad too, but people can't really see or smell that, so there's not as much of an uproar. I don't think it necessarily has to do with the smell either. My grandfather smoked a pipe for years and everyone talked about how much they liked the smell of pipe smoke. Yet no one seems to be saying "lets make an exception for nice smelling smoke like pipes and clove cigarettes." I thinks its much more of a "second-hand smoke causes cancer" issue for a lot of people, oh and it smells bad too.

Maybe it's just the people in my area, but I hear a lot more of the "Now my hair won't smell" than the "Now I won't have cancer" type of comments. In fact, it's probably near 90%-10%.

Roy Tucker
02-06-2007, 07:23 AM
I still ask for tables at restaurants in the "no smoking" section, e.g. "4 for no smoking".

I figure by about 2010 I'll be retrained. It's like writing the new year on a check. It takes me till about March to get it right.

GAC
02-06-2007, 08:13 AM
Oh, smoking is distasteful, I will readily admit it. But it is also very, very unhealthy, and that is why I wanted the ban.

I agree that it is unhealthy. I also agree that non-smokers have a right to not be exposed to second-hand smoke. That is why a more common sense law should have been written that placed the burden on the smoker and those establishments that wanted to allow it to provide the enclosure/area where non-smokers could be protected from exposure. It could have very easily been accomplished. If you (the establishment) want to allow smoking, then you need to meet these requirements and shoulder the cost. If not, then smoking is not allowed.

The entirety of the Ohio law had nothing to do with the health of the smoker - who cares! It's no one else's business if one choses to smoke, and it's still a legal product - the law was all about protecting the non-smoker. And they wrote/passed an ill conceived law IMO that took no consideration into the rights of those that want to smoke.

And it could have very easily been done.

I don't smoke at home around my kids. I did all my smoking at work in a designated, enclosed/ventilated smoking lounge. The plant had three of them. Non-smokers were fully protected. Those, according to this new law, are now illegal. WHY are those not allowed? Doesn't that seem ridiculous and extreme?

So now Honda is smoke free. Yes, I know, it has forced me to become a non-smoker and in the long run it will be better for my health. I realize that.

So what "unhealthy" habit are the activists going to go after next? I bet they never touch alcohol. ;)

Ltlabner
02-06-2007, 08:26 AM
I still ask for tables at restaurants in the "no smoking" section, e.g. "4 for no smoking".

I figure by about 2010 I'll be retrained. It's like writing the new year on a check. It takes me till about March to get it right.

I'm with you brother. I also still ask for non-smoking tables and now I get a 15 year old twit at the receptionist stand rolling her eyes at me, "sigh...they're all non-smoking...."


On the contrary, after hurt feelings and disappointed soles get over it, they realize it was not about rights, or imposition, but a change for the better.

Have you read about the Trans Fat ban in NY? Out of curiosity, does that bother you just as much as this?

Additionally, you going to McDs or opening a case of BL may affect you negatively, but one smoker can negatively affect an entire room of non-smokers.

Either way I am one to appease... I think it is nasty, and I want other people not to smoke around me.

A change for the better...ok. And where does that stop? What's the next thing a group of people is going to decide for me "would be better"? Can't wait for that. I've found that people love to tell other people "what is better"....of course until someone tells them what would be better.

The transfat ban does bother me as much as the smoking ban. Both are clumsy. hamfisted ways of dealing with issues that individuals can and should deal with on their own.

The McD's big mac can and does effect people in the room around them. It contains oodles of callories, fat and grease. The long term effect is less healthy people which causes a burden on the healthcare system and increased insurance rates. That burger has the same long term negative health effects as the cig. And drink 1 beer and go for a drive...you've just increased the risk of killing/injuring someone in an auto accident. Just as 1 cigarette has increased the health risks of those around you.

The only difference between smoking and the burgers/beer example is that the smoke is grose/yucky/nasty. Well, that and it's the trendy cause. All three cary negative long-term health effects both for the user and those around them. That is why I think people's claims about "health reasons" are disengenous.

Dom Heffner
02-06-2007, 06:09 PM
So I guess banning cars, busses, RV's and trucks is next since they foul the clean air?

I can easily clarify the statement, though: I deserve to breathe air free of nicotine. Smoking is a completely voluntary action that serves absolutely no purpose, other than to satisfy a nicotine habit. Want to smoke? Do it in your own house where you can give your own family cancer and ruin your furniture. I honestly don't care.

But don't pull one out and tell me that I have to live with it because the world is a dangerous place. Using that logic, I should be able to pull out a gun and shoot a public smoker in the head and say, "Ah, he was going to get cancer and die anyway."

There is no inherent right to smoke. There is an inherent right to life.

If you want to argue that we can go too far in protecting that, okay, but you aren't going to win many arguments using something as useless as cigarettes as your breaking point.

And another thing: we really can't get by without cars in today's world, but we can always aim to get better emissions controls. Nobody is calling for a ban of automobiles,but they do call for stricter emissions controls and that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I'm fine with that.

We shouldn't be against ridding public areas of cigarrette smoke just because we already breathe awful air from cars and buses and RVs.

That's the logic on here, albeit shoddy.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:18 PM
Next time they want to pass some stupid law that infringes people's rights, maybe they should actually have the regulations worked out.

I'm sorry, what rights did this law infringe upon again? The one that said a smoker has the right to light up indoors in a public place and blow smoke everywhere?

I must have missed whatever law was in existence that granted that right.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:22 PM
I don't like the X Games. I have a right to not have to risk them being on my TV at any time. Sign my petition.

Now put the X games on every single channel, and have yourself coughing, eyes watering, and shirt/hair reeking every time you want to watch something on television, and the analogy might begin to make a bit more sense.

westofyou
02-06-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by Matt700wlw View Post
Next time they want to pass some stupid law that infringes people's rights, maybe they should actually have the regulations worked out.

Wasn't the law a result of a public vote?

If so who are "They"

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:25 PM
DC went smoke-free on January 2, and I couldn't be happier.

My wife and I enjoyed a nice meal, followed by a trip to a lounge down the street for drinks on Friday night. Both places were packed, and I didn't have an unpleasant meal and come home reeking of tobacco smoke. So a few smokers had to stand outside while they lit up? Cry me a river.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:26 PM
Wasn't the law a result of a public vote?

If so who are "They"

Just to be clear, those are Matt's words--not mine--in WOYs quote above.

Dom Heffner
02-06-2007, 06:28 PM
The only difference between smoking and the burgers/beer example is that the smoke is grose/yucky/nasty.

No. In one case the government is trying to save us from others, in the other case they are trying to save us from ourselves.

There's a huge difference there.


The McD's big mac can and does effect people in the room around them. It contains oodles of callories, fat and grease. The long term effect is less healthy people which causes a burden on the healthcare system and increased insurance rates.

This is a great point, and one which we can consider if you'd like, but the difference here is monetary versus the life and health of unwilling participants.

It isn't the fact that cigarrettes affect people. It's how they affect people.

Cigarrettes don't pick my pocket- they can kill me. And the sad thing is, I don't have to even pick one up and smoke it myself.

The hamburger example fails here because number one, the person who eats it is hurting themsleves first and foremost, and the only way they hurt other people is through their pocketbook. I realize the two seem to be equated in the business world, but I can replace money a lot easier than I can my life.

You can't die from second hand hamburger fumes.

You and I might agree on the trans fat issue more than you'd think, because it truly is a slippery slope situation.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:28 PM
Maybe it's just the people in my area, but I hear a lot more of the "Now my hair won't smell" than the "Now I won't have cancer" type of comments. In fact, it's probably near 90%-10%.

Sure, because "now my hair won't smell" is an immediate benefit, whereas "now I won't get cancer" is a less tangible, long term benefit. Personally, I'm thrilled about both.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:29 PM
You and I might agree on the trans fat issue more than you'd think, because it truly is a slippery slope situation.

Ties in with the seat belt issue, too.

westofyou
02-06-2007, 06:29 PM
Sure, because "now my hair won't smell" is an immediate benefit, whereas "now I won't get cancer" is a less tangible, long term benefit. Personally, I'm thrilled about both.

Plus if one must wear a whig because of cancer that too won't smell anymore.

pedro
02-06-2007, 06:33 PM
The only difference between smoking and the burgers/beer example is that the smoke is grose/yucky/nasty. Well, that and it's the trendy cause. All three cary negative long-term health effects both for the user and those around them. That is why I think people's claims about "health reasons" are disengenous.

That's just not true. Working at a Mcdonalds isn't going to give you heart disease, Working at a bar that allows smoking can certainly give you lung cancer.

Ltlabner
02-06-2007, 06:34 PM
The hamburger example fails here because number one, the person who eats it is hurting themsleves first and foremost, and the only way they hurt other people is through their pocketbook. I realize the two seem to be equated in the business world, but I can replace money a lot easier than I can my life.

You can't die from second hand hamburger fumes.

You and I might agree on the trans fat issue more than you'd think, because it truly is a slippery slope situation.

I used the hamburger example because people were talking about behaviors effecting others. I'd say increased healthcare costs, societal costs due to premature deaths, etc are an "effect". And what about the booze example? Booze most definatley increases the risks of harm/injury of those around the drinker, just as smoking does.

In your other post regarding "being useless" in reference smoking. I agree that smoking is a pointless excersize (burning up money is one of the many reasons I don't smoke) but I am reluctant to start having the general public deciding which non-criminal behaviors are "useless" and "neccessary".

Ltlabner
02-06-2007, 06:36 PM
That's just not true. Working at a Mcdonalds isn't going to give you heart disease, Working at a bar that allows smoking can certainly give you lung cancer.

Eat crappy food = bad for your health and increased costs for society

Smoke = bad for your health and increased risk of cancer for those around them

Drink = bad for your health and increased risk of injury for those around the drinker (espcially on the roads)

I fail to see a difference between the three (with the exception of expsure to "second hand eating" not killing me outright, just draining my wallet later on..however, it's still a negative effect).

Dom Heffner
02-06-2007, 06:40 PM
Ties in with the seat belt issue, too.

Absolutely. I agree with this more than you think, though a good argument can be made for both sides.

However, it is a bit ironic to hear about lower taxes all the time but when someone comes up with an idea to really helps keep taxes lower, they think the government is in their business too much.


Well, that and it's the trendy cause.

Yeah, living is so in vogue these days. :)

pedro
02-06-2007, 06:41 PM
Eat crappy food = bad for your health and increased costs for society

Smoke = bad for your health and increased risk of cancer for those around them

Drink = bad for your health and increased risk of injury for those around the drinker (espcially on the roads)

I fail to see a difference between the three (with the exception of expsure to "second hand eating" not killing me outright, just draining my wallet later on..however, it's still a negative effect).

the difference is that second hand smoke effecting others is the reason for the ban. the ban isn't to protect smokers from themselves. i think that's pretty easy to understand.

vaticanplum
02-06-2007, 06:44 PM
Drink = bad for your health and increased risk of injury for those around the drinker (espcially on the roads)

Now, we have been through this one before. Drinking in and of itself is not bad for other people. You can sit next to a drunk person and it will do nothing for your health. if he hurts you be crashing into you in a car, or punching you in the face from being beligerent, he's punished. It's the hurting that's cause for legal action. Secondhand smoke hurts. It IS the harmful part.

Dom Heffner
02-06-2007, 06:49 PM
I used the hamburger example because people were talking about behaviors effecting others. I'd say increased healthcare costs, societal costs due to premature deaths, etc are an "effect".

I think, though, we can infer that people who want to ban smoking because it affects others aren't talking about financial loss, they are talking about the loss of life.


I fail to see a difference between the three

You can't see the difference between killing people by putting something in their bodies they do not want and eating a hamburger that you physically put in your own mouth?


Drink = bad for your health and increased risk of injury for those around the drinker (espcially on the roads)

Drinking is illegal. We just don't want you behind the wheel when you do it. Smoking is legal. We just don't want you where we can breathe it with you.


it's still a negative effect

But all negative effects are not equal.


In your other post regarding "being useless" in reference smoking. I agree that smoking is a pointless excersize (burning up money is one of the many reasons I don't smoke) but I am reluctant to start having the general public deciding which non-criminal behaviors are "useless" and "neccessary".


How would any laws ever get passed, if we don't take a vote? We determine this all the time, don't we? Vote on a subway system, yes or no. Vote on school taxes. Those are all issues that voters decide. How is this issue any different?

You say they can't be trusted to make decisions, yet they make one you agree with and you are against it. I'm lost. :)


I am reluctant to start having the general public

So who should do it, the government? I know you don't trust them.

Ltlabner
02-06-2007, 06:51 PM
the difference is that second hand smoke effecting others is the reason for the ban. the ban isn't to protect smokers from themselves. i think that's pretty easy to understand.

Well, now we're going in circles. You specifcally said "effect". All three of those behaviors have a negative effect on those around them.

Obviously increasing your risk for cancer is more severe than increased long term health costs from "second hand exposures". No argument from me on that. But when we start using "effecting others" as a criterion for banning "uneccessary" behaviors it leaves the door wide open for moving to the next level of banning activities that effect others.

Another thing that bothers me....why is your negative effect (increased risk of cancer) deamed more important than mine? Why....because you say so? I can face increased risk of cancer from a myrid of sources. Taking my money (health care costs) and exposing me to increased risks on the road (impared drivers) are equally serrious matters to me.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:53 PM
I am reluctant to start having the general public deciding which non-criminal behaviors are "useless" and "neccessary".

Too late, it's already being done.

Vote on a transportation, school, or public facilities issue recently?

pedro
02-06-2007, 06:55 PM
Well, now we're going in circles. You specifcally said "effect". All three of those behaviors have a negative effect on those around them.

Obviously increasing your risk for cancer is more severe than increased long term health costs from "second hand exposures". No argument from me on that. But when we start using "effecting others" as a criterion for banning "uneccessary" behaviors it leaves the door wide open for moving to the next level of banning activities that effect others.

Another thing that bothers me....why is your negative effect (increased risk of cancer) deamed more important than mine? Why....because you say so? I can face increased risk of cancer from a myrid of sources. Taking my money (health care costs) and exposing me to increased risks on the road (impared drivers) are equally serrious matters to me.

Honestly, if you can't see the difference between the two then there really isn't much to discuss.

Chip R
02-06-2007, 06:56 PM
Now, we have been through this one before. Drinking in and of itself is not bad for other people. You can sit next to a drunk person and it will do nothing for your health. if he hurts you be crashing into you in a car, or punching you in the face from being beligerent, he's punished. It's the hurting that's cause for legal action. Secondhand smoke hurts. It IS the harmful part.


Exactly. Yes, if I go out and get drunk and I decide to drive home, it does increase the risk that I will be in an accident and possibly hurt myself or someone else. But if I go out and get drunk and I walk home or call a cab, I'm not putting anyone at risk. Or if I decide to stay home and drink, I don't put anyone at risk.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 06:57 PM
Obviously increasing your risk for cancer is more severe than increased long term health costs from "second hand exposures". No argument from me on that. But when we start using "effecting others" as a criterion for banning "uneccessary" behaviors it leaves the door wide open for moving to the next level of banning activities that effect others.

Which, if those things effect others in the same way as second hand smoke does, is a good thing.

I can't play my stereo loudly at 1 AM, because it would disturb the peace of others in my building. I can't allow a festering pile of garbage to accumulate on my front sidewalk, because of the health risks and odor problem posed to others. I can't walk around outside naked, because it offends others. And so on.

vaticanplum
02-06-2007, 07:04 PM
Or if I decide to stay home and drink, I don't put anyone at risk.

Precisely. Which is why I count myself among the world's most compassionate people, ever aware of the safety of others.

registerthis
02-06-2007, 07:05 PM
Precisely. Which is why I count myself among the world's most compassionate people, ever aware of the safety of others.

Do you drink in a closet with the lights off? ;)

vaticanplum
02-06-2007, 07:07 PM
Do you drink in a closet with the lights off? ;)

What, no, of course not. You have no foundation to say such a thing. If I ever did something like that there's no way you could see me.

UKFlounder
02-06-2007, 07:46 PM
I work in a downtown Cincy building and heard an interesting story today.

There is an elevator that goes down to the ground level, in an alley. The building has stopped the elevator from going down to that level now, because it opened in what is the building's smoking area, and they did not want smoke or the fumes to waft into the elevator and be carried up into the building.

Today, a life squad responded to a call at the building, and they went to the elevator to get access into the building, with their equipment. The elevator would not open, so one of the paramedics had to go into the building's main entry - walk out of the alley, turn onto the sidewalk, then up two flights of stairs, where they found the security guard, who got the elevator to finally go down to the ground level.

It took the paramedics 4 minutes to be able to get into the elevator, with whatever equipment they needed. If this was a true emergency, such as cardiac arrest, even that short a time span could have been costly.

I don't know what the actual situation was, but it seems that was one unintended consequence of making that change due to issues with smoking and smokers. I wonder if the building will change it back now or do something so that an emergency situation does not get worse because of this.