Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

[GAC]

Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican

I think it would be a good idea to ban smoking all together.
Smoking kills. Think about it.

So does drinking, drugs, and a host of other social practices that people in our society partake of, and that lead to severe health problems/death.

Where, if any, do we draw the line?

How about chewing tobacco?

I think that establishments that want to have smoking should have to separate the two, and also provide an enclosed and adequate venilation system for those that want to smoke. Isn't that a fair compromise?

But the problem is (and I see this at work everyday) is that all the non-smokers go into the smoking breakrooms anyway just to socialize. It's like they don't want to sit separately from their smoking buddies.

[remdog]

California was in the forefront of the non-smoking movement and I think a look at the results is warrented.

I'm a non-smoker (never have, never will) but I also am pretty much of the persuasion that less regulation is better regulation. I agreed then and still agree that government should mostly keep it's nose out of private business.

Ironically, when the smoking ban in restaurants went into effect, I had a small, part-time business proving a cigar program to restaurants and lounges. 'Cigar Bars' were very hot then and it was a very profitable sideline. That ended in a heartbeat when the clock struck 12:01 AM on Jan. 1 so, even though I don't smoke, it had a direct impact on my income.

Approximately six years later here is what the restaurant scene is like in California: business is booming, the enviroment is much more pleasant for all (even smokers) and no one considers it unusual not to able to smoke in a restaurant. It's become 'normal' not to smoke in this setting. People that smoke have accepted and adapted to it. (shrug) It takes a little time but, gradually, non-smoking in a bar or restaurant becomes the norm and smoking in an establishment becomes the aberation that it is (less than half the population smokes).

I'm so used to this that when I go out of state I find myself initially shocked to see people smoking in a restaurant or to have to answer the 'smoking or non-smoking' question. Then, I realize that I'm not in California anymore and I just chuckle to myself.

Honestly folks, even though I was against it at the time, I have to admit that this is one regulation that has made this a better place to live. Ohioan's can (and should) do what they want (so I didn't vote in the poll) but that's my experience with the program.

Rem

[TeamCasey]

.

[Roy Tucker]

I'd like to see places of smoking be licensed like places that sell alcohol are licensed (at least in the state of Ohio).

I don't agree with the premise that allowing smoking is the default case and that people who don't like smoking have to seek out places that disallow smoking. It should be the other way around.

I think that people who smoke should be the ones that have to go find the establishments, be it bars, restaurants, etc., that allow smoking. And that those places have to get a license to allow smoking on their premises.

[TeamCasey]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I'd like to see places of smoking be licensed like places that sell alcohol are licensed (at least in the state of Ohio).

I don't agree with the premise that allowing smoking is the default case and that people who don't like smoking have to seek out places that disallow smoking. It should be the other way around.

I think that people who smoke should be the ones that have to go find the establishments, be it bars, restaurants, etc., that allow smoking. And that those places have to get a license to allow smoking on their premises.

That wouldn't bother me, personally. It's simply more regulation IMO ..... but it would allow the business owner to decide.

Currently, any business can go smoke-free without involving the government or getting a license or anything. Why don't they?

[RedFanAlways1966]

Interesting read.. all of your opinions.

I don't like the government telling people what to do in this regard. I don't smoke. I will not eat in a place that allows it. That is my decision. There are some places that I wish did not allow smoking, but that is their decision and not mine (or the gov't).

We allow people on motorcycles to ride w/out a helmet... and all of a sudden we want to ban public smoking? Makes sense to me... NOT. I can ride my motorcycle, w/out helmet, to eat in a non-smoking (by law) place. Mhhhh. I can ride my motorcylce, w/out helmet, but I cannot puff on a Camel while driving slowly thru the downtown streets. Mhhhh. Motorcycles themselves are more dangerous than cigarettes IMO, but I don't think they should be banned by the gov't.

People need to make their own decisions. I have told "rude smokers" (you know the difference) about their rudeness. Doesn't bother me. But I should not tell a "considerate smoker" how it is. I should go elsewhere if that smoker is not being rude (you know the diff.).

I don't need Big Brother!!

[remdog]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

.....I don't agree with the premise that allowing smoking is the default case and that people who don't like smoking have to seek out places that disallow smoking. It should be the other way around.

I think that people who smoke should be the ones that have to go find the establishments, be it bars, restaurants, etc., that allow smoking.....

I would tend to agree with that statement since far less than a majority of the population smokes. I think part of the argument against regulating smoking in establishments is that the owners fear that they will lose business. In California, the reality was that nothing changed. The most popular bars and restaurants remained the most popular bars and restaurants. People still wanted to go out and they did. Since everyone was under the same rule, the playing field didn't materially change except for the 'window dressing'

Rem

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by DoogMinAmo

Why should 80 percent of the population be compromised by 20 percent.

Ban everything. Yippe.

When you get done banning my 20% I am coming for yours out of pure spite.

GL

[Johnny Footstool]

Currently, any business can go smoke-free without involving the government or getting a license or anything. Why don't they?

Excellent point.

There are a couple of smoke-free restaurants in KC -- they're constantly packed. Of course, the crowds consist mostly of suburbanites with kids. The singles crowd avoids those places like the plague.

There is a market for each type of place. I don't think it's right for the government to force bar and restaurant owners to cater to one type of customer and ostracize another.

[DoogMinAmo]

Originally Posted by gonelong

Ban everything. Yippe.

When you get done banning my 20% I am coming for yours out of pure spite.

GL

Why is it so important to you to smoke in a restaurant/ bar? Is it the habit that controls you, or truly the principle of the "right to smoke?"

If it was just the habit, why could you not smoke elsewhere? Maybe if there were designated smoke rooms? Just brainstorming out loud here.

As far as the right to smoke, what about my right to not smoke? If I am in an establishment first, and a smoker enters, all of a sudden "my" space has been invaded. Does it really become a "I was here first" proposal in order to succeed? I hope not.

Is smoke was contained, it would be a moot point. But it affects everyone around it, so I think it should be up to the governing body to look after the best health interests of the majority. Just my 2 cents.

[westofyou]

reland Celebrates First Smoke - Free Year
By REUTERS

Published: March 28, 2005

Filed at 8:55 a.m. ET

DUBLIN (Reuters) - Ireland can breathe a smoke-free sigh of relief Tuesday when it marks the first anniversary of a pioneering ban on smoking, the success of which has inspired similar moves elsewhere.

The ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants and workplaces, introduced on March 29, 2004, had been expected to meet with widespread resistance in a country where the pub culture of a drink and a smoke were considered part of its lifeblood.

Instead, the sight of smokers puffing away outside pub doors has become familiar across Ireland, and the only haze wafting through bars these days comes from having one drink too many.

Similar laws had been introduced in cities and states like New York and California, but Ireland was the first country to introduce a nationwide ban. Malta, Norway and Italy have since followed suit.

``It's healthier,'' said bartender and non-smoker Paddy Martin, pouring pints at Foley's Bar, close to the Irish parliament buildings in Dublin. ``I feel better when I go home.''

Anti-smoking lobby group ASH reckons tobacco kills six times as many people in Ireland as road accidents, work accidents, drugs, murder, suicide and AIDS combined, and is a massive drain on health resources.

Professor Luke Clancy, chairman of ASH's Irish branch, has said the ban could become the ``health initiative of the century.''

QUIET PINT

But not everyone has welcomed it.

Some pub owners and drinks firms blame the ban for a drop-off in sales -- bar revenues fell 6.3 percent in the first nine months of 2004. Cigarette sales dropped about 18 percent last year compared to a 10 percent fall the previous year.

The subdued atmosphere in Foley's Bar -- where only a handful of people were drinking quietly Saturday night in a scene repeated in many other pubs outside Dublin's main tourist spots -- seemed to back the claims.

But the decline of the Irish pub has more to do with high prices and lifestyle changes than the smoking ban, locals say.

``It's the smoke and the drink,'' said Foley's Martin, handing over a half-pint of Guinness, which at 2.60 euros ($3.38) is one euro more expensive than buying a similar size can in an off-license.

Alcoholic beverages -- some 82 percent above the eurozone average -- cost more in Ireland than in any other European Union country, according to figures from Eurostat published last year. The newly affluent Irish, enjoying the fruits of Ireland's Celtic Tiger boom in the late 1990s, increasingly choose a glass of wine in their own home over a pub-poured beer.

But for those smokers and drinkers who venture out for a taste of Ireland's famed ``craic'' (fun), the smoking ban can have some benefits.

``I've met more people standing outside and having a cig,'' said Sue Taylor, visiting Dublin from Yorkshire in England, standing outside a pub in the popular Temple Bar area.

``But I'd be barred from every pub in Britain if they introduced it because I wouldn't do it.''


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/inter...d-smoking.html



NATIONAL DESK
National Briefing | New England: Rhode Island: Public Smoking Ban


Bars, restaurants and businesses became smoke-free, making Rhode Island the seventh state to ban indoor smoking in most public places. The ban went into effect at midnight even as some lawmakers and bar owners were mobilizing to revise it or challenge it in the courts. Rhode Island joins California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts and New York. The law covers thousands of bars and restaurants and all indoor workplaces. But it extends the deadline to Oct. 1, 2006, for bars that have 10 or fewer employees and groups formed as private social organizations.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9639C8B63

[RBA]

Poll: Smoking Ban in Cincinnati


If I change one letter and remove the ":", this topic takes on a whole new meaning.

[Brutus_the_Red]

Originally Posted by DoogMinAmo

As far as the right to smoke, what about my right to not smoke? If I am in an establishment first, and a smoker enters, all of a sudden "my" space has been invaded. Does it really become a "I was here first" proposal in order to succeed? I hope not.

But it's not "your" space. It's the owner of the establishments "space." He didn't actively solicit your business, you chose to enter his store, and thus you should be exposed to whatever the owner decides to allow. And if you don't like it, you have the right to never give him your business.

As a hypothetical, loud music give's me a headache, does that mean i can start a petition to get BW3's and all other bars to remove their jukeboxes? The loud music puts a lot of strain on your hearing that if around enough, could permanantley deteriorate your hearing. Most reasonable people would tell me i could, but that it wouldn't work. It's the businesses choice to have them in there and i could just not go in. Eat somewhere quieter. But what about the poor employees? Being in that loud environment all the time will eventually do damage to their hearing? Why don't we regulate that?

This is essentially the same arguement as a smoking ban, but for some reason is just seems sillier when you exchange smoking for loud music? Why is that? Both are destructive to anyone around it. Both are something that would cause greater health benefit to the masses. But why are they different?

[reds1869]

As someone who is moving to Cincinnati in a few months, I have to say I am opposed to the ban. They have already enacted a similar ban here in Columbus and it has done bad things to restaraunts and bars in teh city while being a goldmine to those in the suburbs. I enjoy a smoke free environment and choose to go to them when I have the option; I just don't think the government should decided what a business owner does on their own property.

[Redsfaithful]

They have already enacted a similar ban here in Columbus and it has done bad things to restaraunts and bars in teh city while being a goldmine to those in the suburbs.

I live in Columbus and I'd like to see data backing that up.