So Ohio banned smoking and raised the price of cigarettes

[johnnie]

It will suck seeing the mom and pop bars closing down because that's the places I like to hang out. I am pretty sure that the bar on the corner here will shut down. I was in there Sat. night and when I lit up I looked around and saw everyone (including the barkeep) were smoking. Most of the people in there were regulars and that is what the owners count on to stay in business.

I'm sure they aren't the only bar in this state that is like that.

I really despise the smoking nannies. These are the kind of bars that Biff and Buffy won't go to, they tend to hang out at the trendy places and it's fine if they want to decide to make their places non-smoking, but for the state to force club owners to run their places the way the state wants is bullshit.

I am fine with non-smoking restaurants, I can wait an hour or so to smoke, but bars are different. In my opinion, Ohio voters just closed a bunch of mom and pop bars and gave more money to the big money clubs.

As for the tax, they added 30 cents per pack. It's only a matter of time before the black market cigarettes come in. I buy bags of tobacco and roll my own, so the taxes don't affect me. People won't be happy until all tobacco is black market and billions of dollars in revenue is thrown out the window.

Speaking of, Ohioan also turned down slot machines. Now we all still have to go to one of the surrounding states to gamble, taking our money there instead of spending it in Ohio. 30% of the revenue for the slots were going to go to a college education fund, but now none will. Good job Ohioans :thumbsup:


Ok, just wanted ot rant. I'm glad we got a Dem governor and all, but sheezz... we took one step forward and two steps back in my opinion.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know...*another* smoking thread..LOL

[Oeditpus Rex]

1. Amazingly enough

California voted down its proposed tobacco tax.

[Kajsa]

61. Hey Rex,

Did you get my PM?

Remember how we thought 86 would pass?
Well, it went down!


Thud is right.

[billyskank]

2. Smokers are one of the groups it is 'okay' for progressives to hate

it's for your own good, dontcha know. :eyes:

[johnnie]

7. It's funny..

From discussions in the last few months, more republicans I talked to were against the smoking ban, saying that the owners of these places should have the right to run their place either way and if you don't like smoke, then go to a non-smoking place.

It is the liberal Dems that seem to have the opinion that it is good for the state to tell the owners to kick mud and do what they say. They are the ones who support the nanny government.. weird.

[rbnyc]

11. What if your a bartender, or a musician...

...or someone whose livelihood depends on being able to work in bars--do the owners have the right to subject you to injury to your health? Is it "nanny government" to require fire exits and sprinklers? Is it "nanny government" to require bathroom breaks and to enforce child labor laws? Is it "nanny government" to make sure asbestos is removed?

If owners can do whatever they want with their businesses, why not let them run underage brothels and sell crack?

[johnnie]

13. Brothels and crack are illegal in Ohio

As I stated down below, no one forces people to work jobs they don't want to work. If you are a musician, find the clubs that have no smoking. In fact I have gone to shows where the act had a non-smoking show and the club backed it. In fact, all the patrons did too. It isn't that difficult.

[rbnyc]

16. Brothels and Crack and Smoking in the workplace are illegal.

They all go hand in hand IMHO.

Except, I think that crack smoking should only be illegal in the workplace. ;-)

[rbnyc]

23. BTW

I don't hate smokers, I hate smoking.

Actually I LOVE smoking.

No, I hate it!!

:crazy:

No seriously, I understand how this SEEMS like a "keep your laws off my body" issue, but it's just not. As long as people need money to live, and as long as people need jobs to make money, anyone who offers employment to the public must meet minimum public health standards. Not everyone has a whole menu of options and opportunities when it comes to employment. When we say that people can just work somewhere else if they don't want to endanger their health, we're saying we don't care about the people with fewer options, with less power, with fewer resources. Democrats, traditionally, are quite opposed to that message.

[mongo]

41. When there is no way to make a resonable accomodation

for your smoking employees, it's not about public health -- it's about punishing smokers.

See my post below.

[Midlodemocrat]

3. I think you'll find that the bars will be okay.

Look at NYC. No smoking and the bars are still packed.

Although, I wish you would quit. I know. I know. But, johnnie, truthfully, the ONLY reason my husband is alive today is because he never smoked. And, he had no symptoms of heart disease when he went in thinking it was pneumonia.

:hug:


Don't flame me. I'm being sincere.

[johnnie]

5. Thank you for the concern..honestly

It's hard to say about your husband though. There are many other things that can cause heart disease and everyone is different. My grandfather is almost 90 and had smoked for 60 years of that life. He isn't in the best shape any longer, but his problems aren't from the smoking.

There is no doubt that smoking isn't the best thing for you, but what pisses me off is that it has become OK to hate smokers and treat them like second grade citizens. This new law will prohibit you from smoking in your own house if you run a business out of it. That is pushing it just a bit too far in my opinion, but it seems that a lot of people aren't worried too much about their homes being invaded by big brother.

When all the smokers have been squashed, what will be next?


As for NYC, they have a bit more people than we have here in Cleveland. Cleveland is a relatively small city compared to many of the larger ones and things like this smoking ban will affect us differently.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. The surgeon said that if he had smoked

he wouldn't have been able to graft the arteries because they were so weak as it was.

My mom smoked for 50 years and when she developed heart disease at 75, the surgeon said her arteries were very badly damaged from smoking and were like tissue paper.

Heredity plays a huge factor. Both my inlaws died from heart disease, but the one constant in the ICU and step down units was the that nurses kept saying 'lucky he's not a smoker'.

Plus, he's relatively young to have had to have a quadruple bypass.

[johnnie]

19. I believe you, and I'm not trying to be difficult

But every doctor I have been to in the last 20 years has blamed most of anything that was happening to me on smoking. This last time was a bit overboard. Every single person I talked to at the hospital got on me for smoking and said I best quit. They didn't know if I was drinking beef fat by the glassful, they just figured that smoking is the only thing that can do you harm.

They had a hard time linking an umbilical hernia to the smokes, but I'm sure they were trying..lol.

It seems to me that when they do these studies, they put smoking at the top of the list. For example, a person is 200 pounds overweight, eats greasy foods every day and drinks a 12 pack a day and smokes. The person ends up in the hospital with heart troubles, which of those vices will they blame? I think that is what goes into the studies too.

Like I said Midlodemocrat, I'm really not trying to be a pain in the ass, it is just that I am a bit disappointed today in the results of the issues passing in Ohio.

[Midlodemocrat]

38. Oh, I understand completely and I know you aren't trying to

be difficult.

I only wish that smoking wasn't hazardous because so many people I love and like really enjoy it.

Seems like everything that we enjoy is bad for us, n'est-ce pas?

:hug:

[crim son]

4. You might be surprised by the effect the ban has on the

small businesses you are describing. Here in Maine we expected the worst. It didn't happen.

[johnnie]

6. Well, right now I am basing my thoughts on what I see

Like I was talking about in my OP. That small mom and pop bar at the corner will suffer from this. I know the owners and I know a lot of the people that go there. The bar doesn't rake in the cash as it is and relies heavily on their repeat costumers that have been going there for years. Many of them are smokers and I have a feeling they will not go there or won't stay too long if they do.

It gets mighty cold over here and I don't think a lot of those people will want to go outside in the dead of winter.

I have talked to the owners many times and they barely pay the bills, but they get by. It is never a "hot spot" and sometimes there is hardly anyone in there. But then again, maybe they will gain a whole new batch of people and they will get better, but knowing the people in my neighborhood and the kind of bar it is, I don't see that happening.

[Redstone]

8. It happened in our town. We had 5 bars 2 years ago, now we have 2.

And one's in trouble financially and may close.

Redstone

[rbnyc]

10. OMG.

LOL.

Should I even start?

Sigh.

I have a lot of work to do today, so I probably won't be able to come back, but smoking in the workplace is a worker health and safety issue. Banning smoking in bars is the same as making sure fire exits are clear.

[johnnie]

12. No one forces people to work in bars

It is no different than anywhere else you choose to work. A fireman knows they are at risk when they take the job, same as cops and coal miners. Some people take jobs because they like the health care package or the 401K. Some people refuse to work in meat industry because they are vegetarians.

If a bar owner chooses to have his place a smoking establishment, then what responsibility does he have to people who want to work there but only if the owner changes their policy? I wish I could have done that in all the companies I have worked for.

[rbnyc]

14. There are more people than there are jobs.

How many people do you know who feel they had 100% choice about where they work? You work for the person who will hire you. Those women who burned up at their sewing machines because the factory owners kept them locked in--would you tell them they didn't have to work there?

[billyskank]

15. Indeed I would refuse to work in a restaurant because I am a vegetarian

and I don't smoke, for the record. Quit nearly four years ago.

[rbnyc]

17. You are privileged to have some choices about where you work.

But places of employment must be kept safe for all, so we can protect those with less power. Isn't THAT a democratic principle?

[kwassa]

28. Your arguments don't improve with repetition

There is no positive benefit to smoking, and it is a great and proven health hazard.

It is in the public health interest to ban smoking in all interior spaces.

These laws a great steps forward in public policy.

[ElboRuum]

37. Neither do the retorts.

Just sayin'.

Edited due to the failure to use the indefinite article.

[mongo]

42. In other words -- to PUNISH smokers

Which is what this law does when there is no way to make a reasonable accomodation for your smoking employees.

Why not come right out with it and say that is what the goal is -- instead of "protecting" non-smoking employees and the public?

[rbnyc]

54. reasonable accomidations?

for smokers? how about for alcoholics? or overeaters? I don't get it. Smoking can either be characterized as kind of hobby, something someone chooses to do, or as an addiction or disease. I don't see how employers should be responsible to accomidate someone's hobby in the workplace, and if employers should have any responsibility for a person's illness it should be to enable their healing.

[mongo]

65. Last I checked you could eat in most workplaces

and don't even try to compare tobacco to alcohol.

Your post only proves my point that the people who pushed this crap bill are nanny state fascists.

[rbnyc]

67. People can eat--but not every 15 minutes!

I love how you guys always end up calling us fascists, or using other inflammatory terms like nanny state. Sounds more like a personal problem than a policy discussion. Oh yeah, smoking IS a personal problem.

[kwassa]

60. What accommodation to smoking is reasonable?

They can smoke outdoors. Very reasonable, and the only place with adequate ventilation.

Any modern building has but one ventilation system that carries the same air around the entire building. That means that the smoke travels, too. Therefore, there can be no reasonable indoor accommodation.

[mongo]

64. You can have seperate ventilation for smoking break rooms

but I guess you are an environmental engineer and know all about it...

:crazy:

[Nikia]

62. The last two food plants that I have worked at

Do not allow smoking inside the building. During a recent audit, a customer from a major food company that we sell some ingeredients to encouraged us to ban smoking, saying that they had and this was the trend in food manufacturing. Of course many of our employees smoke, so we still let them smoke outside despite this and only during their three daily breaks. This is Wisconsin, yes it can get very cold in the winter.
Would you be opposed to laws that do ban smoking at companies in certain industries like food manufacturing or manufacturers of flammables?

[mongo]

66. manufacturers of FLAMMABLES?

You've got to be kidding me right? No one thinks you should allow smoking near flammable materials.

You know what? An employer is free to create any kind of ban they desire. I may not like it, but I respect their right to run their company the way they see fit within the law.

But on the other hand, now a bar owner can't allow smoking even if most of his patrons smoke.

[petronius]

39. I understand that logic, but I think it's flawed in that

it assumes that all risks are equally bad, and that it is always desirable to remove a risk from the workplace. I think it it's a mistake to assume that any act that minimizes worker risk is always a positive - in many cases there is an element of risk inherent in providing a service (risk that should be minimized if possible, but is not always avoidable). In the case of bars: it seems to me that providing a place to smoke and drink and carouse is the service that bars are selling - exposure to second-hand smoke is a risk inherent to providing that service. Banning smoking in bars is not really the equivalent of requiring fire exits, it's the equivalent of reducing an owner's ability to provide a service.

In other words, workplace safety should be maximized, but we need to accept that all jobs come with certain dangers. For example, crab fishing is 1000 times more dangerous than working in a bar, but no one is calling for a ban on crab consumption...

[rbnyc]

55. I apreciate your post...

...and it deserves a thoughtful answer. I'm being called to a meeting right now. But I will come back. I just wanted to say that I love the way you bring an alternate point of view. You've got great style.

[petronius]

59. Thank you - that's very nice of you to say! (Assuming, of course, that you

didn't just forget the sarcasm smiley! :rofl:)

I think this is a complex topic that deserves serious discussion, but experience teaches that that doesn't always happen around here. I'd like to see this thread stay civil - today is very much not the day for an eat-our-own sort of flamewar...

[rbnyc]

68. Still wish I had more time...

...but quickly, I think it is desirable to remove unnecessary risk from the work place, as much as possible. If you work with dangerous machines, they should have safety features and protective gear should be worn. Firefighters where protective gear--they don't avoid fire--the minimize risk as much as possible.

There's really no good reason to allow carcinogenic pollutants into the air of someone's workplace--from ANY source--especially when it's simple to control.

Also, banning crab consumption because crabbing is dangerous is not analogous to banning smoking in the workplace because exposure to smoke is dangerous. If crabbing is dangerous, the analogous response would be to add or remove something from the work-site that would make it less dangerous.

No one's talking about banning smoking. We're talking about limiting behaviors that are harmful to others in places where people are required to be.

But thanks again for writing a thoughtful argument, with points and examples, and not calling me a fascist or using other escalating language.

[petronius]

72. I was a little loose with the word "banning" - in the case of smoking

I only meant it to refer to 'banning smoking in bars,' but I think my analogy still works. Here's how: in the case of crabbing, the production of a product (crab meat) requires workers to spend time in very dangerous conditions. There are numerous ways to reduce this risk, and that is done to the maximum extent possible, but even with every available precaution it's still one of the most dangerous jobs around. The only way to remove the danger would be to prevent consumption of the product (i.e. to ban crab eating).

In the case of smoking with bars, the product being provided (i.e., 'the crab') is the Bar Experience. A lot of people argue that smoking and drinking together are integral to the Bar Experience (the BE), and that preventing smoking in bars is the equivalent of banning the product. If we accept that smoking is part of the BE, then there is no way to eliminate the environmental smoke risk from the workplace, just as there is no way to totally eliminate the risk of drowning from the crab industry. So I think my analogy works - in both cases the production of a product requires some level of unavoidable risk.

However, the analogy is not perfect - bars are defined as 'drinking establishments,' not 'smoking establishments,' so it's perfectly valid to not consider smoking as an integral part of the BE. My point is just that it's not as clear cut a worker safety issue as requiring fire doors (or life boats); we have to consider that allowing smoking may be part of what is being sold, and by limiting smoking we are banning a product (the BE).

Personally, my preference would not be for an outright ban on smoking in bars, but I would be in favor of maximizing safety procedures. I'd be for the requirement of separately ventilated smoking areas, for example, or a requirement that workers be allowed to opt to work in/out of the smoking areas, and those who choose to work the smoking room get paid more.

(Anyway, gotta go to class - hope this makes sense because I didn't have time to proofread!)

[AngryAmish]

46. Banning smoking is the result of the totalitarian impulse

A boot stepping on a human face forever.

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. In the places that have bannad smoking inside, no bars have been hurt

NYC suffered not at all (except that the loud drunken people then moved their noise outside when they smoked, annoying the neighbors), and the great many other communities haven't suffered - so, at least, no fear of any bars closing because of the no smoking.

I was annoyed when NYC did it - mostly because I lost my favorite cigar bar, the fuckers - but in a few months was quite happy for it. It was nice to go to a bar or a restaurant and not go home reeking of smoke.

[rbnyc]

20. Hi.

I think it's so funny, this morning of all mornings, that we're dragging out THIS controversy. LOL. But I'm glad you chimed in. OK, now I REALLY have to get to work!

:loveya:

[johnnie]

24. It's funny?

These were issues that were on the ballots here in the State of Ohio. Are Ohioans not worthy of voicing an opinion on their elections and what passed and didn't pass? These are political issues. What if I posted something about gay marriage bans, would you think that would be funny too? Or is that P.C. enough to talk about?

[rbnyc]

27. P.C. P.Schmee.

I'm just saying that it's amusingly characteristic of we liberals that even in our moment of victory, we MUST voice or differences and nit-pick with each other. We are the big tent party. I think it's kind of funny.

[Lance_Boyle]

44. Is smoking allowed in that 'big tent?'

;-)

[rbnyc]

56. That's debatable.

LOL

[Robb]

21. Out here in the hinterland West, some bars were indeed hurt

Mostly the working-class ones, folks finally wised up and realized the six of Budweiser was cheaper at the liquor store after all -- and plus, you could smoke at home, in peace.

The bar that closed here, I didn't cry for. But it had been here forever, and the ranching community sort of lost a landmark in that. Now the elk pictures have to get put up at the Conoco, which is not as much fun. :)

[johnnie]

22. Here's the thing

Population New York City, 18.7 million, population Cleveland, Oh 478,403. That is quit a difference. As I stated elsewhere here, Cleveland is a small city and large changes affects it differently.

[rbnyc]

25. Evolution baby!

Sweat-shop laws are designed to close down sweat-shops. I don't hear anyone crying for them. If your business is a public harm, it's time to evolve.

[Divameow77]

70. Is that cigar bar still open?

I assume not, so claiming the establishments in NYC didn't suffer isn't really true.

[GirlinContempt]

26. Here, some bars had trouble.

I know that personally, in the winter, I'm less likely to go out. Summer, I'll sit on a patio.
The biggest problem we've had is that large groups of young, drunk as fuck idiots are piling out into the street to smoke. Sneaking booze out with them, littering, causing traffic hazards, fighting, and harassing passers by.
Sounds kind of silly, but people have died.

[RedStateShame]

29. So, when's Bob Pollard moving out of Ohio?

[Oeditpus Rex]

30. Oh, swell

The biggest celebration we've had in Dog knows how long, and you guys are gonna pee in the Cheerios with another smoking thread. :eyes:

[johnnie]

31. It was just a rant this morning

Sheeeezzzzz.......

I was tired and cranky.

[Oeditpus Rex]

32. No, man — sorry

I didn't mean you. You were talking politics — pretty much.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Dukkha]

33. it's been banned in Columbus for 2 years now

and there's been NO change in bar & club attendance. The smokers will get used to it and adapt. Most bars accommodate them by having smoking patios outside. The same was true in California. I was a chain smoker for 10 years so I'm not one of those anti-smoking fascist types.

[asthmaticeog]

34. That gambling initiative was HORRIBLE.

It was a huge giveaway to Forest City Ent. and the few companies that own all the racetracks, not college kids. The tuition thing was a sham, a smiley-face scrawled on a steaming turd. I am utterly relieved that it failed.

[johnnie]

35. Well, if we ever get gambling in Ohio...

Somebody will get rich. Forest City Ent. is fairly local and have sunk some cash into this city. The tuition thing was added on to help pass the thing, but I think they would have given that money to where they said they would. Now instead of the 30%, we are back to 0% and knowing Ohio, it will stay that way even longer.

[asthmaticeog]

57. It was effectively going to be FAR less than the claimed 30% anyway.

The mechanics of the tuition giveaway were only vaguely shaded into the law as written, which failed to address numerous perfectly realistic contingencies, and plus the tuition was the only part of the law with a sunset clause. Nice. There was no sunset on the business monopoly it would have written into the state constitution. Whether and when Ohio gets video poker and slots isn't the consideration here, it's HOW, and Issue 3 in particular was a horrible, horrible how.

[johnnie]

58. You're just mean

x(

[Divameow77]

36. When Minneapolis imposed a smoking ban

people predicted the worse for the bars, but it hasn't been that bad. The issue I have is that its a city ban so surrounding areas still have smoking bars, I imagine their business may have gone up, at least in winter.

Bloomington was first to impose a smoking ban and all the bars on the top floor of the Mall of America have gone out of business, not sure if there's any connection...

[mongo]

40. Not only that

But if you are an employer, there is no way to make a resonable accomodation for your employees that smoke, even if ALL your employees smoke.

It is illegal to have a break room where smoking is allowed, even if it has seperate ventilation.

It is illegal to have an OUTSIDE encloused area with a roof and walls on 3 sides that is only designated for smoking.

Call this the punish smokers act of 2006.

[wildhorses]

43. what if we banned tobacco and legalized marijuana?

:evilgrin:

[johnnie]

45. I don't smoke the stuff, but I'll defend anyone's right to smoke it

But the people spoke, they will never make pot legal, there are too many people who don't want you to do what you want with your life.

[rbnyc]

71. I love that!

But, no smoking in the workplace. :)

[Quantess]

47. Mom and Pop bars won't be closing just because of this.

Bars have survived in other states that banned smoking.

[johnnie]

53. If you read on here, there are people who have seen it happen

As I said in my OP, the bar I go to at the end of my street relies on their regulars to stay in business. I go there often enough to know what type of people go there to have a burger and drink some beers. If the people that go there now are told they can't smoke, many of them won't take the quick walk to the bar. Why do that when you can stay home and drink and smoke.

That being said, if even half of those people decide not to go, that pub will close down. That might be fine in some areas of the country, but not every place is New York city. My city is a small part of Cleveland, and the few bars I have around me are mom and pop "beer joints".

[LanternWaste]

48. Maybe in Texas we'll get another cigg tax bump

Maybe in Texas we'll get another cigg tax bump and it'll allow me a catalyst to finally quit.

[trogdor]

49. Idiot tax.

That's what they call gambling that "supports" public stuff. It's not like the amount of money spent per student is actually going up. It's just a scheme propagated by people who don't like to pay property tax to shift the burden to people who probably have no business hanging out in casinos because they can barely pay the rent.

And what about that property tax? In New York State, we have one of the largest and oldest lottery systems in the nation, and property tax is something like $35 - $40 per $1000 assessed value, depending on your school district. So where's all of that money going?

Believe me, Ohio needs more gambling like a hole in the head.

[johnnie]

51. It was a college fund

It wasn't for public schools or anything like that. The people who wanted to bring slots to Ohio added that they will hand over 30% of the revenue to a fund that will help pay for kids to go to college. So instead of an estimated $850 million a year, we are going to be cranking in 0 dollars a year to help with higher education.

Every state on Ohio's borders are gambling states. They even have a bus that leaves here in Cleveland and takes large groups of people up to Canada. So as it stands, people in Ohio will still go to casinos, but in other states and there is still no program to help fund college educations :woohoo:

[Taverner]

50. As long as they ventilate, I have nothing against indoor smoking

And I am an ex-smoker

[johnnie]

52. They should give the bar owners a choice

I bet a lot of business owners would elect to go smoke-free. In fact I know they would because I personally know three owners of places like that and they have gone smoke free already. But now they will be forced to do that.

[Nikia]

63. I was born and raised in Ohio, now live in Wisconsin

Maybe it is different in Cleveland, but where I lived in Ohio, there were much fewer bars than anywhere I have traveled in Wisconsin. There and here, though there seem to be reasons that people go to bars that have nothing to do with smoking. They go there to drink and/or meet people and be sociable. Now if there are other places to do that and smoke, I might buy your arguement. People who want to stay home and drink or who host their own parties are already doing so. Smoking will not make that big of a difference in bar patronage.

[YankeyMCC]

69. Boston's ban

turned out to be a net positive for bars and restaurants.

Philosophically, I don't think bans are the way to go, there should be some form of tobacco license with the fees going to fund a health plan for wait and bar staff that work at licensed establishments. But bans do not appear to be the dooms-day many think they will be.