Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

[Johnny Footstool]

Boy, I see a lot of people on this thread saying, "stay at home if you don't want to smoke". How about, "stay at home if you do want to smoke". Same argument, different side of the coin.

I agree. The "stay at home" argument works both ways.

I never agree with the "do it my way or don't do it at all" crowd. I'm in favor of offering more choices, not banning one choice.

[Chip R]

I'm not a smoker, although I do enjoy an ocassional cigar. I think businesses should have the right to make their own rules about this. I agree it would drive a lot of people to NKY for entertainment - although most people go there anyway. But I think if people want to go to bars/restaurants with or without this policy, both will thrive.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by remdog

Boy, I see a lot of people on this thread saying, "stay at home if you don't want to smoke". How about, "stay at home if you do want to smoke". Same argument, different side of the coin.

That should bring some flack.

Rem

Nah. Not flack. Not at all. I have no problem with rational human beings being asked to make choices.

What I have a problem with is the idea that establishment patrons bear no responsiblity for putting themselves in a situation to inhale second-hand smoke when they knowingly enter a restaurant or bar that allows smoking.

There are options that don't involve non-smokers staying home.

But right now it appears that the prevelant Government anti-smoking attitude is that non-smokers are just too dumb to make those choices on their own. And business owners are too stupid to manage their own restaurants and bars in a way they feel is most profitable. And, of course, employees are mentally incapable of figuring out that smoking is allowed when they apply for a job.

Personally, I don't buy it. Right now, the smoking bans equal nothing more than State and local government lip service to the non-smoking majority who finds smoking offensive while those same officals have no way to wean themselves off the tobacco tax teat. It's political, hypocritical, and has far less to do with health than people are led to believe.

What would impress me is a government entity that enacts a public smoking ban and then refuses to accept any proceeds from the distribution and sale of tobacco products. But if that happened, you just wait for the non-smokers to raise holy heck about taxes going up and/or why budgetary cuts are necessary. It's no coincidence that states that have enacted smoking bans also have some of the highest per-pack taxes in the country.

There's just so much more to this that whether or not Person X feels that they have a right to go to Establishment Y without having to deal with smokers.

[Redsfaithful]

And, of course, employees are mentally incapable of figuring out that smoking is allowed when they apply for a job.

With this rationale an employer could abuse their employees in any number of ways, as long as the employee knew about it before being hired. I'm glad our country doesn't work that way.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

With this rationale an employer could abuse their employees in any number of ways, as long as the employee knew about it before being hired. I'm glad our country doesn't work that way.

Huh?

You're equating a person who knowingly applies for a job at a smoking establishment with employer "abuse"?

Are the waitresses at Hooters too dumb to figure out that they're being mentally abused by virtue of having to wear skimpy outfits as a condition of their employment? Or is it more plausible that they have a reasonable expectation of working conditions when they voluntarily accept a position with that company?

Are we now saying that folks don't have the intelligence to figure out the difference between legally permissible working conditions and true abuse?

C'mon, man.

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Huh?

You're equating a person who knowingly applies for a job at a smoking establishment with employer "abuse"?

Are the waitresses at Hooters too dumb to figure out that they're being mentally abused by virtue of having to wear skimpy outfits as a condition of their employment? Or is it more plausible that they have a reasonable expectation of working conditions when they voluntarily accept a position with that company?

Are we now saying that folks don't have the intelligence to figure out the difference between legally permissible working conditions and true abuse?

C'mon, man.

Its just a culture shift, just like many things...

Think about it, there once was a time when it was considered ok to beat your wife, just as it was once ok to hate black people. sociologically speaking of course.

But those things changed. The only thing that makes this a little harder to accept is the abruptness.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

Its just a culture shift, just like many things...

Think about it, there once was a time when it was considered ok to beat your wife, just as it was once ok to hate black people. sociologically speaking of course.

But those things changed. The only thing that makes this a little harder to accept is the abruptness.

I'm just going to stay away from the wife beating and race-hate comments there. And frankly, active physical abuse has nothing to do with the avoidance of circumstances one finds to be displeasurable or unhealthy.

The Federal Government once did away with drinking very abruptly. Can you tell me how that whole thing worked out?

[Roy Tucker]

Yeah, I have problems with the whole schizophrenia our government has with tobacco.

If tobacco were a new substance coming onto the market, I seriously doubt it would be allowed. I think that its a given that tobacco has serious health consequences. And second-hand smoke has health consequences as well, the degree of which is debatable. But it certainly isn't a health plus to be around a bunch of smokers.

But tobacco has a long and storied history and is pretty firmly ingrained into society. Tobacco taxes and subsidies are a way of life. I think, much like alcohol, any total ban on the substance just wouldn't work. Too many people smoke.

I come from a family where both of my folks smoked (and my dad died of lung cancer) and all 3 of my siblings smoke. I do't smoke because I played sports in HS and smoking was cause for immediately getting kicked off the team. I'm glad that I never started because I've seen the struggles that my siblings have gone through trying to quit (with varying degrees of success). I know I'd be just the same.

As a family, we pretty well stick to smoke-free restaurants. I'm glad places like Applebees have gone nationwide with their no-smoking bans. Doesn't seem to have hurt their business. With some smoking/non-smoking restautants it gets a little frustrating. Generally speaking, the non-smoking sections fill up fast while seating will be available in the smoking sections. If this happens more than once or twice at a place, we just don't go back.

When I go out to bars with friends, I just know that we'll be in smoking plaecs so I don't take in my jacket or anything. When I get home, I dump my clothes in the washer.

But, just like alcohol, smoking is an adult kind of behavior with potential serious consequences to those who are around users, and, just like alcohol, shouldn't be allowed at just any public place. At least in my NSHO.

I don't like government interference in it, but I'm not sure just public pressure will cause businesses to change.

[CbusRed]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

The Federal Government once did away with drinking very abruptly. Can you tell me how that whole thing worked out?

For what reasons did they do away with drinking though?

[Blimpie]

Originally Posted by TeamCasey

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.

FWIW.......I am a non-smoker who opposes smoking bans. I just wanted to offer some thoughts based upon Lexington's nearly two year stint with a smoking ban...

After months of debate, our city council finally passed their own version of the indoor smoking ban in July 2003. It took a while to quantify the economic impact of the ban on the various restaurants and bars in the area. However, once they had enough meaningful data, the analysis showed results that were far more devastating to businesses than was expected. Some bars showed a 60% drop in receipts almost immediately and began laying off their employees. Because gratuities at these establishments diminished proportionally, those who still had jobs were also taking a huge hit. Some bingo parlors, cigar bars and other legalized gaming clubs had to close down completely. Other places (that have brass poles in them) have refused to enforce the ban or to pay the fines, and thus, have found themselves in litigation.

As a means of offering an "olive branch" of sorts to the suffering businesses, the city of Lexington passed legislation in 2004 that allowed these properties to extend their business operations for alcoholic sales by two hours per night (except for Sundays). Sounds simple, right? Well, now our police department is complaining that they are having to pay far more overtime to handle the extended "witching hours" for nabbing drunk drivers leaving bars. Guess who the police department is hitting up for more money now that their budget has been compromised? That's right, the city.

The true impact of the ban now being known, we are seeing petitions floating around Lexington that will attempt to get the whole issue on a referendum ballot in November. Obviously, I enjoy NOT smelling like an ashtray when I come home from a bar or restaurant. I just think that the issue is not totally black or white. Aside from the obvious health issues, there are far more factors to consider.

[Blimpie]

Originally Posted by CbusRed

Its just a culture shift, just like many things...

Think about it, there once was a time when it was considered ok to beat your wife, just as it was once ok to hate black people. sociologically speaking of course.

But those things changed. The only thing that makes this a little harder to accept is the abruptness.

Really? I must have missed that one in the old American History book...

[TC81190]

Ban. Lung cancer sucks. They want it, they can have it. But don't shovel on to me, too.

[SunDeck]

There are spillover costs associated with smoking. All of our health insurance premiums are affected by it. We all know about second hand smoke, too. I think the problem is that the people who smoke (who are causing the spillover costs) are not paying a high enough price to compensate the rest of us. We are the ones subsidizing the costs of their habit. Therefore, either we eradicate smoking or we tax smoking at a rate that creates more equity.

Ban it, tax it- whatever it takes, I suppose. However smoking is no longer acceptable across the board, like it was when I was a kid. The higher the education and economic level, I suppose, the less likely it is that you will smoke. Our working class is not getting the message and that bothers me because I don't want to tax them any more than they are already taxed. So, perhaps banning is better public policy since the "cost" to those people will be that they just can't smoke indoors.

FWIW, we just instituted a smoking ban here and no businesses have failed as a result of it. Then again, we don't have other urban localities around us that people will go to for a night out. Bloomington is basically it. I can see how smokers would quit going to bars in Cincinnati and head to Newport or something...but then again isn't everyone doing that already?

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by TC81190

Ban. Lung cancer sucks. They want it, they can have it. But don't shovel on to me, too.

What are you doing that's causing you to be at risk for lung cancer?

[CTA513]

Alcohol & Smoking Ban in Cincinnati

I also want a ban on excessive perfume and cologne.

While Im at it, ban all sharp objects in Cincinnati.