An ease to Ohio's smoking ban proposed...

[Matt700wlw]

...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]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

...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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

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]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

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]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

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.

Originally Posted by dsmith421

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]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

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]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

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]

Originally Posted by dsmith421

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]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by GAC

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]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

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.