Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: Do you vote to Ban Smoking? (those in Cincinnati only please)

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ban Smoking

    17 38.64%
  • Reject Ban.

    23 52.27%
  • Undecided/ Abstaining

    4 9.09%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 93

Thread: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

  1. #16
    Score Early, Score Often gonelong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,138

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
    So you're anti-zoning then?
    I am anti-anti.

    GL

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Score Early, Score Often gonelong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,138

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
    I think it would be a good idea to ban smoking all together.
    Smoking kills. Think about it.
    I enjoy a cigar once in awhile. Pretty much everything kills in one way or another, what's next on the ban list?

    All 4 of my Grandparents died at an early age. Smoking played a key part in that.

    Just call me Pro Life.
    I am sorry you lost your Grandparents early, I have been fairly lucky in that regard. On my Mom's side my Grandmother passed in her late 50's and Grandpa at 76. On my Dad's side, both were in their mid-90s.

    I am also Pro Life, I'd just like to be able to live mine in the way I see fit. (I occasionally smoke a cigar)

    GL

  4. #18
    Your killin' me Smalls! StillFunkyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Florence, KY
    Posts
    3,128

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    I smoked for about 11 years, and just quit in December. For now I think it should not be up to the city to ban it. See I feel that you should be allowed to light up in a bar. I mean it's a bar for cryin out loud. I don't think you should be allowed to smoke in a bowling alley where there are lots of kids, and non-smokers. Now I know there are non-smokers who go to bars, and what not, but those numbers are much fewer than people who attend bowling alley's. Laundromats are another place that there shouldn't be smoking, but almost every one I have ever been in allows it.

    So I don't think it should be up to the city, but there are really some places where it should be stopped.

  5. #19
    Queen Christine
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Columbus Ohio
    Posts
    394

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    I smoke when i drink, and I like the smoking ban. It;s making me not smoke so much... and it's less smokey in establishments. Better for peoples health!
    Just remember the golden rule...Good Pitching Always Beats Good Hitting~ Jason Anderson(Columbus Clippers)
    :coffey: Your my boy Blue!

  6. #20
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,983

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    I'm not real keen on telling private businesses that they can't allow smoking.

    Public buildings: that's one thing. Businesses: that's entirely another.

    And I'm a non-smoker--quit six years ago.

  7. #21
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,820

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    quit six years ago.
    17 years of bliss for me.

  8. #22
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    I'm not real keen on telling private businesses that they can't allow smoking.

    Public buildings: that's one thing. Businesses: that's entirely another.

    And I'm a non-smoker--quit six years ago.

    Exactly how I feel about it as well. There's debate of banning all tobacco at UC too. It may even come to vote pretty soon. It hasn't kept me from smoky environments in the past, I doubt it will in the future either. Am I annoyed by it? Of course. But those are the rules at the place I am visiting and by walking into a smoking establishment, I accept those rules.

    Oh, and I've never touched a cigarette in my life - and I plan on keeping it that way.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  9. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    4,250

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    What FCB said.

  10. #24
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,365

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Back to smoking, if by walking by someone who smokes on the street causes me to injest the nast, should I not walk on the street anymore, or can courtesy dictate that the person should only indulge his habit at his cost alone?
    Actually, if inhaling potentially harmful pollutants is your concern, then going outside really isn't an option for you. And by all means avoid food preservatives and sunlight.

    Here's the thing (not pointing this specifically at you, Doog)...

    I continually hear folks complain about eating at restaurants that allow smoking. Don't eat there then. Complaints about the haze at bars that allow smoking. Don't drink there then. Want to avoid second-hand smoke? Ok. But why ask the government to make it a virtually smoke-free world when you don't have the discipline to avoid places where smoking is allowed?

    Ironically, I also hear a lot about how "costly" smokers are for the rest of the public. Well, even if we conceded that point, does anyone realize how much income your state and county receives in taxes from the distribution and sale of cigarettes?

    As of July 1st, 2004 the Ohio state per-pack tax was $0.55 per pack. In 2000, Cuyahoga County received $261,494,388.00 from county cigarette taxes alone (can't find more recent data).

    Does anyone find it somewhat odd that instead of pushing to ban smoking, State Legistlators continue to pimp the concept that an increase in the cigarette tax will do the trick? Does anyone truly believe that this is a HEALTH issue regardless of where you live?

    Which is more plausible:

    1) Per-pack cigarette tax increases are positioned to end smoking.
    2) Per-pack cigarette tax increases are necessary because of the tax dollars lost due to the smokers who quit because of high per-pack taxes.

    <Editor's note...If you picked #1, you're nuts.>

    It's like our government officials are walking up to the tobacco bagman and saying, "You promote unhealthy habits that cost our constituants money and we don't like you. Now give me my money."

    The same thing happens with alcohol, but they tried that whole prohibition thingy and I guess folks didn't like that so much. Now smoking is the nasty habit cause de' jour but the new wave government approach at all levels is to hate it but not so much that you can't make money off the smokers.

    Banning the activity may be "safer" for everyone, but you're still going to pay for the lost tax revenue. And ironically, because that lost revenue is currently collected from the MINORITY of residents, the non-smoker majority is going to end up paying more. Factor in that any health care savings will be washed away by former smokers who are now living longer? Yeah. Exactly.

    Sorry to go off on a rant there, but there's no "quick fix" and all potential action has repercussions most folks don't even think about.

    As for banning smoking in all public places? Ok. If they're acutally "public". But if a business proprietor has the ability to admit or turn you away, it's not a "public" place and I don't have the first clue about how a city government can legislate smoking away unless they tie it to the renewal of liquor licences (or some such thing). In any case, that practice doesn't actually cause folks to cut down on smoking. It just inconveniences the smokers- which, of course, results in public backlash from the minority who already feels inconvenienced (if not persecuted).

    The whole thing is just a nasty vicious cycle with no end in sight.
    Last edited by SteelSD; 03-29-2005 at 01:18 AM.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  11. #25
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,466

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    It's not really about the customers imo, it's about the employees of the establishments that allow smoking. They shouldn't have to be exposed to secondhand smoke simply because of where they work.
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde

  12. #26
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,365

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
    It's not really about the customers imo, it's about the employees of the establishments that allow smoking. They shouldn't have to be exposed to secondhand smoke simply because of where they work.
    And they didn't know that the establishment allowed smoking before they applied for and accepted employment there?

    Folks hold smokers responsible for their decision to smoke. Why can't we hold non-smokers responsible for their decisions as well?
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  13. #27
    Porkchop Sandwiches DoogMinAmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Homebase, Ohio
    Posts
    2,540

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Why should 80 percent of the population be compromised by 20 percent. Other than drunk brawls and driving, excessive drinking was never seen as a habit that harmed others directly. Secondhand smoke is a very real problem, and this is an opportunity to cut back on it greatly.

    And as far as inconveniencing those who smoke, and it not really contributing to a reduction of habit, I have many friends who started smoking because it was always prevalent, and it became equated with social gatherings (ie the community smoke break). I have employees who smoke not to satisfy so regretable a habit, but to sit around and gossip. Taking away the consistency will reduce consumption by default.

    And just because the government taxes the hell out of smokers, and makes a pretty penny off of it, does not mean it is ok or right by any means. They should find another source of income that does not jeopardize the health of the masses.

    As far as telling owners what they can and can not do in their establishments, if you view the issue strictly from the point of view of health and safety, then it is not such a stretch. In another thread someone made a parallel between a smoking ban and fire code regulations. Both are considered costly expenses that threaten an operation, but the end far and above justifies the means.

    When I lived in San Francisco, it was amazing. There were absolutley no deterrents. We would go out all the time, and it made for a healthier social scene. Now as it stands, people will avoid going out for maybe one or two quick drinks because they don't want to come home smelly. I know this, because I hear it all the time, and I use the excuse myself.

    The problem is such small institutions are hesitant to lose what business they have, because they feel there is nothing to gain from going smoke free. The reality might very well be that people will still go to the local pub for its convenience, but just not smoke there. Additionally, more local people might be encouraged to go out.

    This is an opportunity for Cincinnati to reverse its Twainian conservatism (the infamous ten year delay) and be ahead of the times. Instead of viewing this as a deterrent, it should be viewed as a marketing possibility, a distinguishing characteristic of a family-values city.

    Side Note: Oddly enough, Kentucky is the number smoking state in the country, but both Lexington and Louisville have passed the ban. Why so hesitant here?
    "I'm a Cucumber, I'm a cucumber. I'm a cucumber, I'm a cucumber. I'm a cucumber, I'm a cucumber. Please don't send me to the pickle farm, bum." - Brak

    Record In Games Attended, 2007: 2-1 (1-0 GAB, 1-1 Jake)

  14. #28
    Porkchop Sandwiches DoogMinAmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Homebase, Ohio
    Posts
    2,540

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    And they didn't know that the establishment allowed smoking before they applied for and accepted employment there?

    Folks hold smokers responsible for their decision to smoke. Why can't we hold non-smokers responsible for their decisions as well?
    One smoker in a room with ten non-smokers has turned what should be a non smoking establishment into a smoking one, where 11 people are now exposed to toxins. It is not like smokers huddle together and only smoke there, and nonsmokers are trying to take over that space. If you look in a bar, hardly 50% of the people are smoking directly, but all are indirectly.

    If smokers could literally smoke in a bubble, then they could do it where ever they wanted, it is just that wherever one smokes, that has now become a place that an adamant nonsmoker can not go.

    So instead of ostracising a minority that partakes in an unhealthy habit, you are advocating alienating a majority that is trying to take care of their health, doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
    "I'm a Cucumber, I'm a cucumber. I'm a cucumber, I'm a cucumber. I'm a cucumber, I'm a cucumber. Please don't send me to the pickle farm, bum." - Brak

    Record In Games Attended, 2007: 2-1 (1-0 GAB, 1-1 Jake)

  15. #29
    Member TeamCasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    TeamBoone's Attic
    Posts
    12,317

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    I continually hear folks complain about eating at restaurants that allow smoking. Don't eat there then. Complaints about the haze at bars that allow smoking. Don't drink there then. Want to avoid second-hand smoke? Ok. But why ask the government to make it a virtually smoke-free world when you don't have the discipline to avoid places where smoking is allowed?
    Exactly! If the restaurant/bar owner were losing business because of smoke, they'd have to change to improve their business. That's how the decision should be made. Leave big brother out of it.
    Pots and Kettles

  16. #30
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,466

    Re: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    And they didn't know that the establishment allowed smoking before they applied for and accepted employment there?

    Folks hold smokers responsible for their decision to smoke. Why can't we hold non-smokers responsible for their decisions as well?
    People will endure health hazards at their place of occupation, occassionally the government has to step in and regulate things. I'm fine with that.

    It really comes down to whether you believe second hand smoke is harmful. It seems like you don't, because if you did I can't imagine why you'd be so cavalier about people having to choke it down at work for their entire working lives.

    No one is telling people they can't smoke with these bans, they're simply being told where they're allowed to do it. We already do that all over the place, airplanes, work space, most public spaces. This isn't any different.

    I remember people whining when smoking was banned at Riverfront. It's really tough for me to be sympathetic when someone's harmful habit impacts everyone around them. Everyone has bad habits so I certainly don't hate smokers, but there's no inalienable right that they be allowed to do it in public.

    For everyone crying free market, the government regulates things all the time for our safety. Should the restaurant owner be able to choose how clean he keeps his kitchen? I mean the market will decide whether or not it wants clean food right?
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25