PDA

View Full Version : An ease to Ohio's smoking ban proposed...



Matt700wlw
06-24-2008, 04:16 PM
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080624/NEWS0108/306240042/1055/NEWS&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


Honestly, I don't see the bill passing...not now.

Caveat Emperor
06-24-2008, 05:17 PM
"The law ensures that all business will operate on a level playing field with one fair, statewide standard that is easy to enforce. Furthermore, the intent of the law—to protect all workers from secondhand smoke— was clearly communicated to Ohio voters," Hoctor said.

That's a bold-faced lie.

I imagine you'd have a hard time rounding up more than a dozen people who voted on this issue based on his or her belief in the need for a "healthy workplace" for bartenders and waitresses.

The "smoking ban" was a referendum on smoke-filled rooms. Unfortunately for bar owners, they got hit with a double-whammy: patrons who don't like smoke-filled bars voting for the ban, and people who don't go to bars in the first place.

westofyou
06-24-2008, 05:33 PM
The "smoking ban" was a referendum on smoke-filled rooms. Unfortunately for bar owners, they got hit with a double-whammy: patrons who don't like smoke-filled bars voting for the ban, and people who don't go to bars in the first place.

Should have made the polling places all be in bars then.

Sea Ray
06-24-2008, 06:50 PM
Is there any precedent for a state easing its non smoking laws?

HeatherC1212
06-25-2008, 01:22 AM
Am I the only one who actually likes the smoking ban? I was always the person who got sat at a restaurant in the nonsmoking area that for some reason was right next to the smoking section. :( I actually enjoy not having that problem anymore. Also, my grandmother smoked for a LONG time so I hated being around it my whole life (she eventually died of lung cancer eight years ago). Being able to go a restaurant, bar, or heck even a bowling alley and knowing I won't come out smelling like an ashtray is something I really enjoy. I'm probably in the minority here though.

TeamSelig
06-25-2008, 01:31 AM
Am I the only one who actually likes the smoking ban? I was always the person who got sat at a restaurant in the nonsmoking area that for some reason was right next to the smoking section. :( I actually enjoy not having that problem anymore. Also, my grandmother smoked for a LONG time so I hated being around it my whole life (she eventually died of lung cancer eight years ago). Being able to go a restaurant, bar, or heck even a bowling alley and knowing I won't come out smelling like an ashtray is something I really enjoy. I'm probably in the minority here though.

Nope, I'm with you.

RosieRed
06-25-2008, 01:53 AM
I smoke and the only time the smoking ban ever bothers me in this city is at Bogart's, because they will not let you go outside and come back in.

Other than that, I don't mind stepping outside to smoke. As crazy as this might sound, I don't like being in smoke-filled rooms either. I like to choose what smoke goes in my lungs. :)

savafan
06-25-2008, 03:49 AM
I smoke and the only time the smoking ban ever bothers me in this city is at Bogart's, because they will not let you go outside and come back in.

Other than that, I don't mind stepping outside to smoke. As crazy as this might sound, I don't like being in smoke-filled rooms either. I like to choose what smoke goes in my lungs. :)

They won't let you leave to smoke at GABP either. In fact, there's no where at the stadium where you can smoke now. Before, I was always able to go out by the wall outside the bullpens, but now they've even stopped that. At least Wrigley has a bar that they let smokers smoke in. I wonder what the hit is on attendance at Reds games because smokers can't have a cigarette for 3-4 hours.

Last time I went to a game, there were people smoking over outside the bullpens. My fiancee and I walked over to join them. A security guard spotted us and told us (us meaning my fiancee and I, not the others standing near us) couldn't smoke inside the stadium. Technically, I didn't think I was inside the stadium, but I didn't argue. I put out my cigarette and placed the remainder back in the pack. I began to walk back toward my seat when 3 more security guards approached me and said that another guard reported that he had seen smoke rising from me. I said yes, and he told me I couldn't smoke so I put it out. One of the three security guards said, "When they tell you to put it out, you need to do so right away." I informed him that I had, to which he replied, "There's no smoking inside the stadium."

"Yes," I said, "the other guy already informed me of this."

"So why didn't you put out your cigarette?" he asked.

"I did!" I exclaimed, "I just told you that." Obviously I was getting a little upset because I felt like this was bordering on harassment.

"You don't need to have an attitude," the security guard said, "just don't smoke here."

I didn't say anything else. There was a lot that I wanted to say, but it probably would have gotten me in trouble, so I just walked back to my seat. The three security guards followed us all the way to our seats, I can only assume thinking I'd be insubordinate and light up again on my way there. I was agitated and cranky for the remainder of the game, because I was having a nicotine fit (non-smokers wouldn't understand).

I haven't been back to a game since.

This was the second game against the Pirates after Bruce's debut. I was also at the first game, where I asked one of the gate guys if I could step outside to have a cigarette, and he told me I could smoke down by the wall where the very next game I was harassed by security for doing just that.

KittyDuran
06-25-2008, 09:36 AM
They won't let you leave to smoke at GABP either. In fact, there's no where at the stadium where you can smoke now. Before, I was always able to go out by the wall outside the bullpens, but now they've even stopped that. At least Wrigley has a bar that they let smokers smoke in. I wonder what the hit is on attendance at Reds games because smokers can't have a cigarette for 3-4 hours.

Last time I went to a game, there were people smoking over outside the bullpens. My fiancee and I walked over to join them. A security guard spotted us and told us (us meaning my fiancee and I, not the others standing near us) couldn't smoke inside the stadium. Technically, I didn't think I was inside the stadium, but I didn't argue. I put out my cigarette and placed the remainder back in the pack. I began to walk back toward my seat when 3 more security guards approached me and said that another guard reported that he had seen smoke rising from me. I said yes, and he told me I couldn't smoke so I put it out. One of the three security guards said, "When they tell you to put it out, you need to do so right away." I informed him that I had, to which he replied, "There's no smoking inside the stadium."

"Yes," I said, "the other guy already informed me of this."

"So why didn't you put out your cigarette?" he asked.

"I did!" I exclaimed, "I just told you that." Obviously I was getting a little upset because I felt like this was bordering on harassment.

"You don't need to have an attitude," the security guard said, "just don't smoke here."

I didn't say anything else. There was a lot that I wanted to say, but it probably would have gotten me in trouble, so I just walked back to my seat. The three security guards followed us all the way to our seats, I can only assume thinking I'd be insubordinate and light up again on my way there. I was agitated and cranky for the remainder of the game, because I was having a nicotine fit (non-smokers wouldn't understand).

I haven't been back to a game since.

This was the second game against the Pirates after Bruce's debut. I was also at the first game, where I asked one of the gate guys if I could step outside to have a cigarette, and he told me I could smoke down by the wall where the very next game I was harassed by security for doing just that.You need to go up to where I sit most of the time (last row of the ballpark) and take a smoke since that's where most of the smokers go. Of course, they always ask if it's all right... I say it's OK... like if I say NO do they move or just light up anyway?...:rolleyes: Anyhoo, I'm not going to move.


Am I the only one who actually likes the smoking ban? I was always the person who got sat at a restaurant in the nonsmoking area that for some reason was right next to the smoking section. I actually enjoy not having that problem anymore. Also, my grandmother smoked for a LONG time so I hated being around it my whole life (she eventually died of lung cancer eight years ago). Being able to go a restaurant, bar, or heck even a bowling alley and knowing I won't come out smelling like an ashtray is something I really enjoy. I'm probably in the minority here though. No - but I've been around smokers all my life. Two sisters who are chain smokers and a father that smoked 2 packs a day but quit cold turkey 34 years ago - Dad is 86 years old. So I'm pretty used to it - but it doesn't mean that I like it.:p:

Matt700wlw
06-25-2008, 10:31 AM
I quit over a year ago, but I don't feel any different about it today than I did when the issue was put on the ballot...I still smoked at that point...

It should be up to the business owners on how to run their business...now don't get me wrong, not smelling it or smelling like isn't causing me to complain :)

bucksfan2
06-25-2008, 10:46 AM
Am I the only one who actually likes the smoking ban? I was always the person who got sat at a restaurant in the nonsmoking area that for some reason was right next to the smoking section. :( I actually enjoy not having that problem anymore. Also, my grandmother smoked for a LONG time so I hated being around it my whole life (she eventually died of lung cancer eight years ago). Being able to go a restaurant, bar, or heck even a bowling alley and knowing I won't come out smelling like an ashtray is something I really enjoy. I'm probably in the minority here though.

Im with you.

flyer85
06-25-2008, 11:06 AM
It should be up to the business owners on how to run their business...now don't get me wrong, not smelling it or smelling like isn't causing me to complain :)that's my take as well. I just didn't visit establishments where smoking was an issue. Business owner should have the right to set his own rules about smoking ... I can "vote with my feet".

westofyou
06-25-2008, 11:23 AM
I just didn't visit establishments where smoking was an issue.

Which in my summation was just about everywhere you'd go in Ohio, funny how about 25 years ago you could smoke in Krogers whilst you shopped.

Matt700wlw
06-25-2008, 11:24 AM
Which in my summation was just about everywhere you'd go in Ohio, funny how about 25 years ago you could smoke in Krogers whilst you shopped.

I can't even imagine that :lol:

Some of that may have been around when I was little, but I don't remember it.

SeeinRed
06-25-2008, 11:54 AM
I favor creating designated smoking areas in businesses who wish to have smokers. I think these areas should be strictly enforced though. I'm used to smokers, but most of the smokers I know have the decency to move away from non smokers or people who are negatively affected by smoke. I get some pretty bad sinus symptoms around smoke when my allergies are flaring up. It does make me pretty angry when someone lights up without even considering the affect it has on people around them. If I'm in a smoking area, its my problem. When its somewhere that is heavily used by the general public, its pretty frustrating. For instance, we were at the Reds game for the BoSox series. There were a couple smokers upset that they weren't allowed to smoke in the concourse and complained the whole game about how its their "right" to smoke when and where they want. As soon as the crowd was out the gate, they lit up. There were hundreds of people, including children around... but its their "right" to smoke I guess. Just have some courtesy is all I ask.

Most smokers have that courtesy, some don't. Thats why the ban was enacted in the first place. I also think that a smoking ban is a way for some groups to try and force people to stop smoking. I don't like that part of it, but I do like to be able to bowl without sinus headaches.

RedlegJake
06-25-2008, 11:57 AM
For the time being Missouri has a pretty even handed smoking law. Bars and restaurants get to choose their preference. Some communities have tighter standards but a smoker can drive a few minutes and find a place that allows smoking. I'd say restaurants are two-thirds non smoking, but a couple of places have spent money to make smoking areas that work well. Ryan's, a buffet style restaurant, has a glass partitioned smoking area with large ceiling ventilators that pull out the smoke quickly. You can sit outside the glass in th non smoking area and not smell anything. Signs on the wall inform you that you service will be by "tobacco choice" employees and their availibility (or not) may affect your service. Since its a "grab your plate and serve yourself" buffet I don't see it as an issue. Tipping to have someone say Hi and bring you hot rolls is a pain anyway. So in two strokes they quell both primary issues. Second hand smoke and employees subjected to it.

pahster
06-25-2008, 01:33 PM
For the time being Missouri has a pretty even handed smoking law. Bars and restaurants get to choose their preference. Some communities have tighter standards but a smoker can drive a few minutes and find a place that allows smoking. I'd say restaurants are two-thirds non smoking, but a couple of places have spent money to make smoking areas that work well. Ryan's, a buffet style restaurant, has a glass partitioned smoking area with large ceiling ventilators that pull out the smoke quickly. You can sit outside the glass in th non smoking area and not smell anything. Signs on the wall inform you that you service will be by "tobacco choice" employees and their availibility (or not) may affect your service. Since its a "grab your plate and serve yourself" buffet I don't see it as an issue. Tipping to have someone say Hi and bring you hot rolls is a pain anyway. So in two strokes they quell both primary issues. Second hand smoke and employees subjected to it.

Yeah, in Columbia smoking is banned in all bars and restaurants. It has also been banned on campus fairly recently. Fine with; if I'm exposed to too much second hand smoke I get ear infections that are so severe that I start to bleed. UNC also has a smoke free campus, which will be a minor plus for me when I move out there in a month.

TeamCasey
06-25-2008, 02:20 PM
They won't let you leave to smoke at GABP either. In fact, there's no where at the stadium where you can smoke now.

That's where they just went too far.

I've always thought it should be up to the bar owners. Let the market decide. There was never any law that said a business couldn't be smoke-free if it wanted to be.

That said .... I've never had an issue going outside. I think the stadium should have places for smokers to go. I also think bars with an open patio should open it to smokers if they choose to.

Sea Ray
06-26-2008, 10:19 AM
It should be up to the business owners on how to run their business...now don't get me wrong, not smelling it or smelling like isn't causing me to complain :)


Yeah, Mike McConnell had a bad day yesterday and I wish I could have called in to straighten him out on this and his legalizing drugs topic.

As for the smoking ban the problem you're not addressing is the health hazard to the workers. It's not about the comforts of non smokers or infringing on the rights of owners.

Like it or not we live in an era of OSHA and other regulations that prohibit an unsafe work environment. You can't knowingly have your employee work in a carcinogenic environment. For example if you knowingly had Aesbestos in your building the gov't would require you to remove it. You would not have the option of asking your employee to sign a waiver acknowledging the danger. Ditto for radon or other airborne things that cause cancer. That's why the one exception currently in the law is for businesses who have non paid employees because technically those people are not "employed".

As for the drug issue I'd love the chance to tear him apart...;)

JayBruce4HOF
06-26-2008, 10:30 AM
I love the smoking ban.

Matt700wlw
06-26-2008, 10:57 AM
Yeah, Mike McConnell had a bad day yesterday and I wish I could have called in to straighten him out on this and his legalizing drugs topic.

As for the smoking ban the problem you're not addressing is the health hazard to the workers. It's not about the comforts of non smokers or infringing on the rights of owners.

Like it or not we live in an era of OSHA and other regulations that prohibit an unsafe work environment. You can't knowingly have your employee work in a carcinogenic environment. For example if you knowingly had Aesbestos in your building the gov't would require you to remove it. You would not have the option of asking your employee to sign a waiver acknowledging the danger. Ditto for radon or other airborne things that cause cancer. That's why the one exception currently in the law is for businesses who have non paid employees because technically those people are not "employed".

As for the drug issue I'd love the chance to tear him apart...;)


Shoot him an email....he's out until Monday, but he may address it upon his return

midday@700wlw.com

Unassisted
06-26-2008, 05:18 PM
My parents in Ohio have an acquaintance who owns a bar. He noticed a drop of >50% in his business when the smoking ban went into effect and that business has yet to come back. If things don't improve, he plans to close his bar for good at the end of the year. He claims that his former customers who smoke now gather at each others' homes to drink and smoke.

If his example is typical, the smoking ban is likely to reduce the number of bars in Ohio, but it's probably a boon for carry-out beer/liquor sales.

Matt700wlw
06-26-2008, 05:20 PM
His example, sadly is typical. Bar business is hurting...the bar down the street from me opened a pizza joint, replaced the pool table room with an eating room, and basically changed the bar to a pizza place that happens to have a bar.

It's worked....and he doesn't stay open until 2 am anymore unless it's a Friday or a Saturday...most weeknights, the place has emptied out by 9 or 10, and he shuts down at 11...every once in a while, usually Thursdays, it'll be a bit more bar-ish, and he'll stay open until 12 or 1.

The restaurant business probably hasn't been effected, at least in a negative fashion. People have to eat!

I miss the bar...but it's still close and the beer is reasonably priced...pizza's tasty, too!

KronoRed
06-26-2008, 05:39 PM
I love the smoking ban.

Me too WilyMo :D

savafan
06-26-2008, 11:10 PM
As for the smoking ban the problem you're not addressing is the health hazard to the workers. It's not about the comforts of non smokers or infringing on the rights of owners.



Most of the bar employees I know smoked. Hell, at the Waffle House I frequent everyone who works there smokes. If you're a non-smoker, you have a choice not to work at an establishment that allows smoking. Nobody holds a gun to your head and tells you where to work. Not yet anyway.

paintmered
06-26-2008, 11:15 PM
I voted against the ban and I'd vote against it again if given the chance. That said, I do enjoy going to a bar more now than before the ban.

bucksfan2
06-26-2008, 11:35 PM
My parents in Ohio have an acquaintance who owns a bar. He noticed a drop of >50% in his business when the smoking ban went into effect and that business has yet to come back. If things don't improve, he plans to close his bar for good at the end of the year. He claims that his former customers who smoke now gather at each others' homes to drink and smoke.

If his example is typical, the smoking ban is likely to reduce the number of bars in Ohio, but it's probably a boon for carry-out beer/liquor sales.

Does the drop off in business have anything to do with the economic downturn? I am not saying that the smoking hasn't hurt but I the economy struggling hurts. I have noticed that with my friends we don't go to the bars as much as we used to. We are all non smokers and love the smoking ban. However we have gotten into a habit of heading to a friends house to grill out and drink beer. If I head to a bar with my fiance, who doesn't drink much, I will end up dropping around $50 on food and alcohol. The economy has yet to really effect us but at the same time $50 is a tank full of gas.

The leaving the decision up to the owners is an interesting example but there are reasons the government regulates businesses. Business owners often look at the bottom line as the key element and not the well being of an individual. A business owner would work an employee max hours and not pay them overtime if they could. But there are reasons there are labor laws in place. I know that is a pretty weak example but I still think that given a chance the owner looks out more for the bottom line than the well being of their employees.

savafan
06-26-2008, 11:40 PM
The leaving the decision up to the owners is an interesting example but there are reasons the government regulates businesses. Business owners often look at the bottom line as the key element and not the well being of an individual. A business owner would work an employee max hours and not pay them overtime if they could. But there are reasons there are labor laws in place. I know that is a pretty weak example but I still think that given a chance the owner looks out more for the bottom line than the well being of their employees.

I'd rather allow the individual to look out for the individual, but I guess that's not an option.

Redsfaithful
06-27-2008, 12:00 AM
His example, sadly is typical. Bar business is hurting...the bar down the street from me opened a pizza joint, replaced the pool table room with an eating room, and basically changed the bar to a pizza place that happens to have a bar.

It's worked....and he doesn't stay open until 2 am anymore unless it's a Friday or a Saturday...most weeknights, the place has emptied out by 9 or 10, and he shuts down at 11...every once in a while, usually Thursdays, it'll be a bit more bar-ish, and he'll stay open until 12 or 1.

The restaurant business probably hasn't been effected, at least in a negative fashion. People have to eat!

I miss the bar...but it's still close and the beer is reasonably priced...pizza's tasty, too!

Voila, the market works. Adapt or go out of business.

KittyDuran
06-27-2008, 07:56 AM
Does the drop off in business have anything to do with the economic downturn? I am not saying that the smoking hasn't hurt but I the economy struggling hurts. I have noticed that with my friends we don't go to the bars as much as we used to. We are all non smokers and love the smoking ban. However we have gotten into a habit of heading to a friends house to grill out and drink beer. If I head to a bar with my fiance, who doesn't drink much, I will end up dropping around $50 on food and alcohol. The economy has yet to really effect us but at the same time $50 is a tank full of gas.

The leaving the decision up to the owners is an interesting example but there are reasons the government regulates businesses. Business owners often look at the bottom line as the key element and not the well being of an individual. A business owner would work an employee max hours and not pay them overtime if they could. But there are reasons there are labor laws in place. I know that is a pretty weak example but I still think that given a chance the owner looks out more for the bottom line than the well being of their employees.Good point... Not a smoker, but I don't eat out that much now and have pretty much stopped eating lunch out at work - saves gas and time.

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 08:43 AM
Does the drop off in business have anything to do with the economic downturn?

If the volume of people at traditional resturants on most nights and the amount of people in the Best Buy parking lot on a Saturday are any indication, I'd say no.

The places that are hurting due to the smoking ban are establishments with niche clintel. The local watering hole. The local bowling alley. The local Moose lodge. The folks who freqent those places are there for a specific set of activities. Take away one of those reasons to go and apparently the alure is not there. You can't say the smoking ban hasn't hurt Applebees because people usually don't go their specifically to smoke. If their business goes up/down it's likely got little to do with the ban (it might tick upward from those who hadn't gone there because of the smoke but I haven't heard of a tidal wave of new business at traditional resturants because they are now smokefree). However, for an establisment where smoking is part of the reason to go there (i.e. sneak to the corner tavern for a cold one, hang out with the buds and grab a couple of smokes), it's pretty obvious what the reason for the downturn is.

But not to worry. Those who love to legislate their way to nirvana know whats better for you than you do.

Yachtzee
06-27-2008, 09:26 AM
If the volume of people at traditional resturants on most nights and the amount of people in the Best Buy parking lot on a Saturday are any indication, I'd say no.

The places that are hurting due to the smoking ban are establishments with niche clintel. The local watering hole. The local bowling alley. The local Moose lodge. The folks who freqent those places are there for a specific set of activities. Take away one of those reasons to go and apparently the alure is not there. You can't say the smoking ban hasn't hurt Applebees because people usually don't go their specifically to smoke. If their business goes up/down it's likely got little to do with the ban (it might tick upward from those who hadn't gone there because of the smoke but I haven't heard of a tidal wave of new business at traditional resturants because they are now smokefree). However, for an establisment where smoking is part of the reason to go there (i.e. sneak to the corner tavern for a cold one, hang out with the buds and grab a couple of smokes), it's pretty obvious what the reason for the downturn is.

But not to worry. Those who love to legislate their way to nirvana know whats better for you than you do.

I would say the economy does have an effect. Of course it doesn't affect chain restaurants and big box retailers as much as the locally owned businesses, but it hurts. I've seen a number of establishments go under in the past few years an it has little to do with smoking.

On the other hand, business is booming at a few places where smoking was a big part of the business model. The local bowling alley is doing quite well because it has shifted its focus from the old school bowlers who love a cigarette and a cocktail with their game to families and other activities. They put beach volleyball courts and mini-golf in front of the alley and more family-oriented activities inside. On weekends they have birthday party packages for kids. Some businesses adapt to the new rules and succeed, others don't and fail. It's just like if the health department put new rules in place on food prep. Businesses adapt or fail all the time. Whining about the smoking laws isn't going to bring in customers. They should try cleaning up their joints and trying to bring in new customers.

bucksfan2
06-27-2008, 09:36 AM
If the volume of people at traditional resturants on most nights and the amount of people in the Best Buy parking lot on a Saturday are any indication, I'd say no.

The places that are hurting due to the smoking ban are establishments with niche clintel. The local watering hole. The local bowling alley. The local Moose lodge. The folks who freqent those places are there for a specific set of activities. Take away one of those reasons to go and apparently the alure is not there. You can't say the smoking ban hasn't hurt Applebees because people usually don't go their specifically to smoke. If their business goes up/down it's likely got little to do with the ban (it might tick upward from those who hadn't gone there because of the smoke but I haven't heard of a tidal wave of new business at traditional resturants because they are now smokefree). However, for an establisment where smoking is part of the reason to go there (i.e. sneak to the corner tavern for a cold one, hang out with the buds and grab a couple of smokes), it's pretty obvious what the reason for the downturn is.

But not to worry. Those who love to legislate their way to nirvana know whats better for you than you do.

FWIW I think the economy has effected the restaurant business as well as the elecrtonic business. Some restaurants are recession proof, some are very effected.

I just find it ironic that the new smoking ban proposed comes out right now. To me it seems like they gathered data from the early months of the year and combined that with the economic downturn to make their case better. For the record I am a non smoker I have never smoked and I hate smoke. The Government tells me things all the time that I can't do that I would like to do. I can't walk down the street with a beer in my hand. I can't walk from bar to bar with a beer in my hand. I am doing no one any harm yet just going from one location to another with something I paid for. For me I don't think it is all that hard to get up and walk outside to catch a smoke. I get up all the time to go to the restroom.

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 09:46 AM
They should try cleaning up their joints and trying to bring in new customers.

The example you gave is great. As you say, adapt or die. I'm totally on-board with that in a broad sense (of corse, if it were Wall-Mart forcing people to adapt or die then it's a bad horrable thing...but I digress).

Then again, to make all of those changes the bowling alley owner had to (1) dip into his own pocket (2) take on more debt (3) jack up prices (4) all of the above.

It's easy to say, "tough luck, that's the price of being in buiness" but often times people forget that every business is not a huge multi-national conglomerate with trillions in assets. Most of the places having to adapt to the smoking bans are mom & pop shops where the ability to tranform their tavern into a family fun center is just not possible.

But hey, they shouldn't have been in a business that society deemed yuckie in the first place eh?

Matt700wlw
06-27-2008, 09:54 AM
Voila, the market works. Adapt or go out of business.

If it wasn't for the pizza joint, they'd be hurting.

Smart business, yes, but the bar was doing fine until the the lawmakers decided that running their business the way they saw fit was wrong.

The owners are non-smokers, but have said if the smoking ban was lifted, they'd allow smoking again...

Sea Ray
06-27-2008, 09:55 AM
Most of the bar employees I know smoked. Hell, at the Waffle House I frequent everyone who works there smokes. If you're a non-smoker, you have a choice not to work at an establishment that allows smoking. Nobody holds a gun to your head and tells you where to work. Not yet anyway.

You're thinking logically and I appreciate that but you need to think like a lawyer. No one forces anyone to work near mold or aesbestos but the employer is required to provide his employees with non hazardous air to breathe. One of the suits that started the litigation against the airlines was a flight attendant that came down with lung cancer. She was a non smoker who worked before smoking was banned on flights. Now I hear commercials from the sister of Christopher Reeves' wife. Mrs. Reeve died of lung cancer and they think she got it from being a lounge singer in a smoky bar.

See the slippery slope? We're not going back.

No one holds a gun to someone's head and makes 'em fly a certain airline but they had to ban smoking anyway.

Yachtzee
06-27-2008, 10:31 AM
The example you gave is great. As you say, adapt or die. I'm totally on-board with that in a broad sense (of corse, if it were Wall-Mart forcing people to adapt or die then it's a bad horrable thing...but I digress).

Then again, to make all of those changes the bowling alley owner had to (1) dip into his own pocket (2) take on more debt (3) jack up prices (4) all of the above.

It's easy to say, "tough luck, that's the price of being in buiness" but often times people forget that every business is not a huge multi-national conglomerate with trillions in assets. Most of the places having to adapt to the smoking bans are mom & pop shops where the ability to tranform their tavern into a family fun center is just not possible.

But hey, they shouldn't have been in a business that society deemed yuckie in the first place eh?

It's not a business society deems yuckie as much as it deems dangerous, with serious health care costs borne by society. Yes, to succeed under the new rules, businesses will have to shell out some money. Of course, one could say that those businesses have been able to shift much of the adverse effects of running a smoking establishment onto its employees and the public as a whole for years. I'd guess that most people employed in restaurants, bars, and other establishments that allowed smoking didn't offer healthcare for employees. When those employees then get ill, who picks up the tab? If the employee can pay out of pocket, then he or she pays. If not, it's the taxpayers who pay. So if there were no smoking ban, should business owners who permit smoking be required to provide comprehensive health insurance to employees? Of course they'd still have to raise prices to cover the cost of insurance, but at least then the costs of the negative effects of smoking are shifted to those who engage in the behavior causing those effects.

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 11:04 AM
I'd guess that most people employed in restaurants, bars, and other establishments that allowed smoking didn't offer healthcare for employees. When those employees then get ill, who picks up the tab?

And this tidalwave of resturant workers with lung cancer directly linked to exposure in the work place is where exactly?

I'm not advocating that smoking exposure is good for you, nor do I doubt that exposure is bad. But in the absence of actual scientific data that links an explosion of bar workers with lung cancer traced to thier specific employers I'd say your argument falls flat. You can't really argue about increased health care costs when there hasn't been evidence that those costs actually rose.

Again, 2HS ain't good for you. But most people extrapolate that into broad sweeping statements and support those statements with, "I knew this one non-smoking bar worker once who got cancer and died". While tragic, it's purely antidotial and perhaps even irrlevant (i.e. she had liver cancer and had a long family history...sure she had cancer, but hard to say its because of all the long nights at the Dew Drop Inn).

Not to mention, your notion that the business owners "shifted the burden" overlooks one sailent point. The workers and patrons exposed themselves of their own free will. They accepted that burden despite knowing since the 60's that smoke exposure wouldn't help you grow up strong and fit.

westofyou
06-27-2008, 11:23 AM
And this tidalwave of resturant workers with lung cancer directly linked to exposure in the work place is where exactly?



Study Proves Smoke-Free Workplace Laws Protect Health (http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Display=781)

Passive Smoke In Workplace Increases Lung Cancer Risk (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070131204104.htm)

U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html)

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 11:34 AM
Study Proves Smoke-Free Workplace Laws Protect Health (http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Display=781)

Passive Smoke In Workplace Increases Lung Cancer Risk (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070131204104.htm)

U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html)

Yep. As I said 2HS is bad for you. And that's what all those articles say (and what I said in my original post)....your risk goes up. No argument there.

But yet, no tidalwave of actual people dieing in droves from lung cancer directly linked to exposure in the workplace. Direct contact...sure thing. Indirect...nope. Most of the research I've seen has either been sponsored by a group with direct ties to the outcome (i.e. your first link) or has fuzzy connections at best.

We can't even cure the stuff, but we are expected to believe a straight line can be drawn from lung cancer in a non-smoker to that month he worked at the Lizzard Inn back in '87?

But again, I'm not arguing that 2HS is good stuff. It isn't. I'm just refuting Yatchees argument in post 37 regarding huge cost increases because of all the sick employees.

westofyou
06-27-2008, 11:43 AM
Most of the research I've seen has either been sponsored by a group with direct ties to the outcome (i.e. your first link) or has fuzzy connections at best.

And the other side is a guy who owns a bar who only has the last six months of business in a ledger in front of him.

I know which side I'd listen to first.

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 11:48 AM
I know I'm in the minority on this one and I don't want to waste a day going round and round. You'll not change my mind and I woln't change yours.

My gripe with the ban has nothing to do with smoking (never smoked....didn't even try it). To me smoking is pretty nasty and certinanly doesn't impove your health. My parents will likely die earlier because of their life long smoking. I wish most people would quit and nobody would start. But my wishes and what other people choose to do are two seperate things.

I just don't like the imposition of sweeping bans on an activity that I've successfully avoided or dealt with for 36 years. Don't need the gumbn't nor my fellow voters to step in when (IMO) it was a situation easily dealt with by individuals. But it's way easier to let the law speak for you when you are afraid to do it yourself, I suppose.

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 11:49 AM
And the other side is a guy who owns a bar who only has the last six months of business in a ledger in front of him.

I know which side I'd listen to first.

When they put it up for vote in your state you can chime in.

Otherwise you're another call on the west of the Rockies line.

Roy Tucker
06-27-2008, 11:50 AM
So, you're saying there is something unique about restaurants/bars that prevents people working in these establishments from getting various smoke-related cancers when it seems well-documented the effects of second-hand smoke?

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=44459

westofyou
06-27-2008, 11:50 AM
When they put it up for vote in your state you can chime in.

Otherwise you're another call on the west of the Rockies line.

Already have... it passed

Plus I lived in California when it passed too.

But thanks for writing off my opinion so easily.

Matt700wlw
06-27-2008, 11:53 AM
...I still question the language of the bills, and that some voters were fooled into voting for something they didn't really want to vote for....or voting for more restriction than they intended to vote for

Cyclone792
06-27-2008, 12:25 PM
...I still question the language of the bills, and that some voters were fooled into voting for something they didn't really want to vote for....or voting for more restriction than they intended to vote for

I don't. I look at the results of both those issues, and they speak clearly. One issue tried to fool the voting public, and that one failed. The other issue - the one that passed - stated clearly what it set out to do. Those of us who wanted the smoking ban knew exactly how to vote on both issues.

Speaking of the ban, yep, I love it. I got tired of going out to a few places on a Saturday night, breathing in a fog of smoke for three hours, then coughing up something nasty the next morning.

By the way, there are still watering holes that just ignore the ban and allow people to smoke. Plenty of them around still, in fact.

Sea Ray
06-27-2008, 12:37 PM
I don't see that Ohio's law is any more restrictive than other states who have banned smoking nor have I seen a state change its mind after seeing its effect on bowling alleys and small restaurants. The trend is toward banning it in all public places and I don't see that trend changing.

Matt700wlw
06-27-2008, 12:52 PM
It's still a little odd going to one of those smoking places as the non-smoker - I guess I never had to get used to not smoking in a smoking environment because of the timliness of when I quit.

Caveat Emperor
06-27-2008, 03:22 PM
Speaking of the ban, yep, I love it. I got tired of going out to a few places on a Saturday night, breathing in a fog of smoke for three hours, then coughing up something nasty the next morning.

Same here.

But, in the end, we still went to those smoke-filled bars on Saturday nights before the ban existed. The market forces were never strong enough to incentivize business owners to willingly make a switch to smoke-free environs.

That tells me it wasn't an issue most people felt passionately about one way or the other -- in those kinds of cases, I dislike the government legislating behavior.

dsmith421
06-27-2008, 03:31 PM
But hey, they shouldn't have been in a business that society deemed yuckie in the first place eh?

Tell you what: you can smoke all you want, but I get to fart directly in your face at intervals. Deal?

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 03:38 PM
Same here.

But, in the end, we still went to those smoke-filled bars on Saturday nights before the ban existed. The market forces were never strong enough to incentivize business owners to willingly make a switch to smoke-free environs.

That tells me it wasn't an issue most people felt passionately about one way or the other -- in those kinds of cases, I dislike the government legislating behavior.

Well said.


Tell you what: you can smoke all you want, but I get to fart directly in your face at intervals. Deal?

That's great.

I don't smoke so can I just drop a duce in your car instead?

Cyclone792
06-27-2008, 03:41 PM
Same here.

But, in the end, we still went to those smoke-filled bars on Saturday nights before the ban existed. The market forces were never strong enough to incentivize business owners to willingly make a switch to smoke-free environs.

That tells me it wasn't an issue most people felt passionately about one way or the other -- in those kinds of cases, I dislike the government legislating behavior.

Well for me personally, yes and no. I tolerated the smoke-filled bars for a bit, but I did stop going to them. Smoke stench clothes and hair is bad enough, but when I started coughing things up that I never want to see again, that was enough for me. It just so happened that six months later I was able to vote for the ban and then I started going back to the bars after the ban went into effect.

dsmith421
06-27-2008, 03:50 PM
I don't smoke so can I just drop a duce in your car instead?

I didn't say I was going to poop on you. Isn't it my God-given, constitutional right to break wind in public? I'm like the Nathan Hale of flatulence.

Ltlabner
06-27-2008, 03:59 PM
I didn't say I was going to poop on you. Isn't it my God-given, constitutional right to break wind in public? I'm like the Nathan Hale of flatulence.

I don't think anybody is claiming it's a "God given consitutional right" to smoke. Too many preferences and desires and wants being called "rights" these days, IMO.

Just seems to me grown adults can make choices for themselves and deal with situations on their own, not use legislation and bans to get what they aren't able to do for themselves.

dsmith421
06-27-2008, 04:08 PM
Just seems to me grown adults can make choices for themselves and deal with situations on their own, not via legislation and bans.

When you smoke in public you make decisions for a lot of people.

SunDeck
06-27-2008, 06:18 PM
I don't see why it can't be legislated that places must provide smoking and non-smoking areas AND that they employ high quality smoke removers. I remember being in Vegas a long time ago and being absolutely amazed that there were so many people smoking yet so little second hand smoke. And as a person highly sensitive to smoke, I can attest that those things were sucking the smoke out of the air like nobody's business.

If a restaurant doesn't want to pay for the equipment (better yet, let's get RJ Reynolds to buy it) then they can just be a non-smoking establishment.

Places like ballparks should be non-smoking because it's not like I can choose to go to a particular Reds ballpark. Yet, I would still say they need places to let people go to smoke. CC TV is optional.

Lastly, I resent smoking myself. Those who do it are driving up the cost of my health insurance. Please stop it. Nothing against you personally- I just think it's a terrible, terrible thing to be doing to yourself.

GAC
06-27-2008, 07:32 PM
A common sense law should have been written that protected the rights of both smokers and non-smokers (protecting them from exposure to second hand smoke). Why couldn't an establishment, place of business, or employer, if they so chosed, have a fully enclosed smoking room, with ventilation, separate from the non-smoking areas, that protected those non-smokers from exposure?

That was supposedly the intent behind this law... protecting the non-smoker from exposure to second hand smoke.

And that's what really burned me about this law. We had such facilities here at Honda. The non-smoker was completely shielded from second hand smoke. The new law didn't give allowance for that, so they had to be shut down.

I read numerous accounts here in Ohio where restaraunts and bars, long before the ban, spent large sums of money creating those situations that accomodated both while also protecting the non-smoker.

They had to be shut down according to the new law.

Simply ridiculous logic IMO.

As long as the non-smoker is shielded, that is all that should have mattered. And this Ohio law really doesn't totally accomplish this since it only covers smoking inside establishments, and doesn't cover outside locations.

Redsfaithful
06-28-2008, 08:59 AM
Why couldn't an establishment, place of business, or employer, if they so chosed, have a fully enclosed smoking room, with ventilation, separate from the non-smoking areas, that protected those non-smokers from exposure?

I guess as long as an employee doesn't have to enter that room you might be onto something, but that seems unlikely.

SunDeck
06-28-2008, 09:41 AM
I guess as long as an employee doesn't have to enter that room you might be onto something, but that seems unlikely.

If it's the designated room for smoking, then there would be no reason to. It is possible that the company can create separate places for smokers so that non-smokers are protected from second hand smoke.

On the other hand, by so doing the company is also (in my opinion) providing approval for this unhealthy activity. If those smokers are on the company health plan, thereby increasing the risk to the pool of covered employees, they should have to pay a smoking surcharge. It could be an increase on their premium, or they could just have to pay a fee every time they choose to use the room for smoking.

Smoking is a choice, or at least it is the first few times most people do it. Nevertheless, the choice is made and I support the right to choose. However, that choice does not come without it's price, both to the smoker and those around them. There is the direct cost of second hand smoke, which I agree can be controlled. However, the indirect costs must also be taken into account. There are higher health risks for that employee, which is borne out in higher health insurance premiums for their coworkers, smokers or not. There is also a higher rate of absenteeism due to smoking because, overall, smokers are just not as healthy as non-smokers. The sniffles turn into bronchitis for the two pack a day, twenty five year smoker.
So, if I'm Honda, or GE, or any employer- I want a smoke free workforce, or at least one that addresses the effects of smoking against the bottom line of the company and the pocket books of their coworkers.

Deepred05
06-28-2008, 04:37 PM
Where does it stop? I have been reading lately that California is considering legislation to stop people from smoking in their own apartments. Legislation is also being considered to stop truck drivers from smoking in their "workplace".
Ironically, I still work in one the few "work" places that allow smoking in Calif...........Indian Casino.

SunDeck
06-28-2008, 04:56 PM
Where does it stop? I have been reading lately that California is considering legislation to stop people from smoking in their own apartments. Legislation is also being considered to stop truck drivers from smoking in their "workplace".
Ironically, I still work in one the few "work" places that allow smoking in Calif...........Indian Casino.

Since native americans were the first ones to smoke it, maybe that is as it should be.

savafan
06-28-2008, 05:09 PM
It won't stop with smoking. Next, expect a ban on alcohol. After that, perhaps caffeine, sugar, or fat. There's already been legislation put in place to ask restaurants to not serve obese people. We must protect people from themselves...we must!

RosieRed
06-29-2008, 12:40 AM
It won't stop with smoking. Next, expect a ban on alcohol. After that, perhaps caffeine, sugar, or fat. There's already been legislation put in place to ask restaurants to not serve obese people. We must protect people from themselves...we must!

There's already a few places that have banned trans fats (NYC) or are trying to ban them (Massachusetts).

Redsfaithful
06-29-2008, 04:56 PM
Next, expect a ban on alcohol.

There's not an outright ban on smoking so I'm not seeing the parallel. There's already plenty of laws on the books on where a person can and can't drink.

westofyou
06-29-2008, 05:47 PM
There's not an outright ban on smoking so I'm not seeing the parallel. There's already plenty of laws on the books on where a person can and can't drink.

That's just another red herring argument from the smokers side.

No real surprise.

I quit smoking 20 years ago.... I also just got back from a 25 mile bike ride... something I couldn't do twenty years ago.

But I could have a smoke whilst I played missile command at the Oakley Bowling Alley... now that's freedom!!!

Caveat Emperor
06-30-2008, 12:23 AM
I guess as long as an employee doesn't have to enter that room you might be onto something, but that seems unlikely.

Nobody puts a gun to someone's head and forces them to work in a bar that has "smoking room." That is a personal choice.

Yachtzee
06-30-2008, 03:11 AM
Nobody puts a gun to someone's head and forces them to work in a bar that has "smoking room." That is a personal choice.

Maybe not a gun, but I'm sure if you talked to people who work in bars, you'll find many of them don't have the economic freedom to choose where they work. If faced with the choice of risking long term health consequences or putting food on the table or keeping a roof over one's head, I think most of us in that situation would choose the "smoking room."

GAC
06-30-2008, 07:53 AM
I voted against the ban and I'd vote against it again if given the chance. That said, I do enjoy going to a bar more now than before the ban.

Now that's interesting, because I know you're a non-smoker.

Why, if you care to give the reason, did you vote No?

GAC
06-30-2008, 08:18 AM
Smoking is a vile, nasty habit that destroys lives.

It's also an addiction that is hard for a lot of people to quit.

Second-hand smoke is dangerous and the non-smoker should be protected from exposure. That has been proven.

And this comes from a person who has smoked for 30 years. ;)

I was never a heavy smoker, like a two pack a day guy, and I don't say that to justify smoking either. My home is smoke free due to the kids. The majority of my smoking has been at work during breaks/lunches.

I have always deeply respected the position of non-smokers. They shouldn't have to be exposed to it.

But I still contend that a common sense law could have been written that protected both sides.

If an establishment wanted to allow smoking then the burden should have been placed on them to erect a room (structure), that met guidelines set by the law (state) that protected the non-smoker.

If you can't do that, then smoking is banned in order to protect the employees and non-smoking patrons.

What is so hard about that?

And how do you non-smokers feel about a law that still allows smoking at bars with outdoor patios? I know it's a better situation then indoors; but the air is still filled with hanging cigarette smoke.

Cyclone792
06-30-2008, 09:44 AM
http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/features/digest.jsp?id=8060&pid=1141


Massachusetts Smoking Restrictions Linked to Drop in Heart Disease Deaths, Study Finds

A study to be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health finds that coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality rates among Massachusetts residents decreased significantly following the introduction of the state's smoke-free air ordinance in 1993, United Press International reports. Using a model to gauge the health implications of the smoking restrictions, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found that, between 1993 and 2003, smoking prevalence decreased from 20.5 percent of adults ages 25 to 84 to 14.5 percent. Across the same period, meanwhile, annual CHD mortality decreased by 31 percent, from 199 deaths per 100,000 people to 137 deaths per 100,000 people. Based on the results, the researchers determined that the decrease in smoking had resulted in 425 fewer CHD deaths over the 10-year study period. The authors further suggest that expanding comprehensive tobacco control programs to other states could reduce the number of deaths stemming from tobacco-related disease (United Press International, 6/20/08; Kabir et al., American Journal of Public Health, August 2008 [subscription required]).

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2007.129924v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=kabir&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

The full study requires a subscription, but there it is for those who are able to access it.

Redsfaithful
06-30-2008, 11:24 AM
Nobody puts a gun to someone's head and forces them to work in a bar that has "smoking room." That is a personal choice.

Labor isn't as liquid as you seem to think it is. There are plenty of people working at bars and restaurants because the choice is working there or working nowhere.