^ Surf, stop making yourself paranoid. If you don't smoke like you indicated earlier than this law effects you not. That is of course if you can get over not having your 'god-given' right to consume hydrogenated oils.

^ Surf, stop making yourself paranoid. If you don't smoke like you indicated earlier than this law effects you not. That is of course if you can get over not having your 'god-given' right to consume hydrogenated oils.

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

And just because an issue doesn't affect you personally, it doesn't mean you can take a principled stand on it.

 

SIncerely,

 

The straight guy that supports the right to gay marriage.....The non drug user that thinks a ten year sentence for marijuana possession is ridiculous....the white guy who stands against racism....etc etc.

 

You can always exercise your god given right to live somewhere else.  Or.... maybe you can exercise your right to vote in some council members that agree more with your own views.  Council represents the collective will of the people.  As long as its ordinances don't violate the City's charter or the Ohio or U.S. Constitution, your remedy is at the election booth.

 

I also don't think the smoking ban has anything to do with micromanaging people's behavoir.  It is a health issue for those who DON'T smoke.  Same reason there are driving while texting bans.  It is not that we don't want you to freely communicate with your BFF.  It is because we don't want you running over the 6 year old girl who is crossing the street.

 

The trans fat ban is, admittedly, more controversial from a 'principal' standpoint.  But, once again, you are still free to eat as much trans fat as you want.  Council is not invading that 'freedom'.... if you can call it that.

You can always exercise your god given right to live somewhere else.  Or.... maybe you can exercise your right to vote in some council members that agree more with your own views.  Council represents the collective will of the people.  As long as its ordinances don't violate the City's charter or the Ohio or U.S. Constitution, your remedy is at the election booth.

 

I also don't think the smoking ban has anything to do with micromanaging people's behavoir.  It is a health issue for those who DON'T smoke.  Same reason there are driving while texting bans.  It is not that we don't want you to freely communicate with your BFF.  It is because we don't want you running over the 6 year old girl who is crossing the street.

 

The trans fat ban is, admittedly, more controversial from a 'principal' standpoint.  But, once again, you are still free to eat as much trans fat as you want.  Council is not invading that 'freedom'.... if you can call it that.

 

Again....were little kids suffering from second hand smoke at outdoor playgrounds?

 

Distracted drivers actually kill people.

 

Was there any evidence of children being exposed on playgrounds?

 

 

Ever been to an inner-city playground?  I don't want my kid playing around clouds of black&mild smoke or the stubs that are littered everywhere.

 

Suppose you're right.  That there was no second-hand smoke on playgrounds.  What's your gripe then?

 

I personally am not bothered by smoke.  But I know people who genuinely are.  My mother is one.  She has actual physiological reactions to it.  While it doesn't bother me, I hate it when people who are smoking get close to or want to touch my kid while they have a cigarrette in their hand...... or when you have to walk a newborn out of a restaraunt and there is a group of smokers crowding the door and smogging up the air. 

I also don't think the smoking ban has anything to do with micromanaging people's behavoir.  It is a health issue for those who DON'T smoke. 

 

Outdoors?  A running car is more of a health issue than a chainsmoker standing next to you.  Which one can you survive longer with in an enclosed area?  The car will kill you in minutes.  Among all the dangers this world presents, outdoor second hand smoke is hardly deserving of a specific ban.  Given that there are consequences to such a ban, the net benefit seems minimal.

What are the consequences?  Any evidence to back it up?  This is what people said about the smoking ban in bars.  But the only consequence I have seen are these lovely patios the law has coerced the bar owners into building.

Some of the bars with no kitchen and no room to build a patio were hit pretty hard.  The consequences are many:  1)  More work for an overtaxed police force and justice system, 2) an increasingly unwelcoming nanny-state environment in a place that needs to welcome every possible visitor, 3) the aforementioned bigger fish that City Council isn't frying while they're attending to this.

Outdoors?  A running car is more of a health issue than a chainsmoker standing next to you.  Which one can you survive longer with in an enclosed area?  The car will kill you in minutes.

 

Do we allow cars to drive right up next to a slide and idle?

^It's not the cars you need to worry about.

 

It's the creepy van.

Some of the bars with no kitchen and no room to build a patio were hit pretty hard.  The consequences are many:  1)  More work for an overtaxed police force and justice system, 2) an increasingly unwelcoming nanny-state environment in a place that needs to welcome every possible visitor, 3) the aforementioned bigger fish that City Council isn't frying while they're attending to this.

 

1) Trust me when I say the City welcomes more ways to levy a fine and police love more ways to create overtime (not that the smoking ban had that effect).

 

2) Nanny-state, shmanny-state.  Just another fear tactic.  You're also assuming that "every possible visitor" wants to sit in a smoke-filled bar. 

 

3) What 'bigger-fish' do you suspect would have been fried but for the smoking ban?

Lets get the kids out of this.  It turns this into a fallacious argument

^ I don't understand...the enacted law includes playgrounds so kids are involved by default.

i was more speaking to jam40jeff saying that we do not let cars idle by a slide

 

^ I don't understand...the enacted law includes playgrounds so kids are involved by default.

Lets get the kids out of this.  It turns this into a fallacious argument

 

Following that line of reasoning, so do the slippery-slope, libertarian principaled conspiracy theories.

i was more speaking to jam40jeff saying that we do not let cars idle by a slide

 

^ I don't understand...the enacted law includes playgrounds so kids are involved by default.

 

Oh...gotcha!

 

 

Following that line of reasoning, so do the slippery-slope, libertarian principaled conspiracy theories.

 

Zing!

 

Hts, I've already demonstrated that NOTHING in the law prevents the restaurant owner from using something MORE DANGEROUS than Trans fats.

 

Read my links. Like the proposed ban on dodgeball. They're FUN!

 

It's a stupid law!

 

Jeff called it....a law requiring labeling would have done so much more to aid the consumer.

 

Can we agree on that?

i was more speaking to jam40jeff saying that we do not let cars idle by a slide

 

^ I don't understand...the enacted law includes playgrounds so kids are involved by default.

 

Huh?  That was a snarky reply to 327's assertion that being in an enclosed room with a car is more unhealthy about than smokers in a public park (a purposefully fallacious argument in response to a fallacious argument).  I never even mentioned kids.

I really don't have a dog in the fight with the trans fat ban.  It might be overreaching a bit but, personally, I don't want to eat trans fat so it only benefits me.  And I don't buy into the "what's next" angle.

 

The smoking law is something I think you are going to see instituted around the country in short order.  Hell, even North Carolina won't let you smoke in bars anymore.  You used to be able to smoke in college classroom, airport terminals, etc.  I can remember my mom getting into an argument with a lady who would not put her cigarette out in a McDonald's line.  People got over those bans just like they will get over this and we will be better for it. 

1) Trust me when I say the City welcomes more ways to levy a fine and police love more ways to create overtime (not that the smoking ban had that effect).

 

2) Nanny-state, shmanny-state.  Just another fear tactic.  You're also assuming that "every possible visitor" wants to sit in a smoke-filled bar. 

 

3) What 'bigger-fish' do you suspect would have been fried but for the smoking ban?

 

1)  That's the problem.  We don't need more busy-work for the police.  Whenver you call them, they're too busy.

 

2)  Bars have nothing to do with an outdoor smoking ban.  The health-related arguments that justified that ban aren't applicable to the outdoors.  At this point we're just legislating people's preferences on each other.  I don't think we should start banning things just because someone finds them annoying.  Even if the vast majority finds them annoying.  With no stronger standard, the slippery slope becomes a legitimate concern.  Surely you can see that.

 

3)  Anything and everything.  The food cart issue is one obvious example, but seriously, anything.  This place is in crisis and the crisis is not fat or smoke related.  Work on streamlining business permits.  Work on modernizing the zoning code.  Come up with a plan for little things like potholes & streetlights, or big things like crime & blight.  The list goes on and on and on, and way at the botttom of it is trans fat.   

That's exactly what legislating is in ANY context!  Legislating people's preferences on each other.  Take a look at your #3.  Those are YOUR preferences, priorities, whatever you want to call it.  Real world lesson for the day ;)

I really don't have a dog in the fight with the trans fat ban.  It might be overreaching a bit but, personally, I don't want to eat trans fat so it only benefits me.  And I don't buy into the "what's next" angle.

 

The smoking law is something I think you are going to see instituted around the country in short order.  Hell, even North Carolina won't let you smoke in bars anymore.  You used to be able to smoke in college classroom, airport terminals, etc.  I can remember my mom getting into an argument with a lady who would not put her cigarette out in a McDonald's line.  People got over those bans just like they will get over this and we will be better for it. 

 

Hts-good points about gradual acceptance of the smoking ban. I have to laugh when that "no smoking" light comes on in the plane...I can't imagine having to fly in a smoke filled environment like that. I was actually for the indoor smoking ban and I'm glad that it passed.**

 

I've got to be honest with you, I never, in a million years, ever thought that smoking outside would be an issue to be of police concern...and there's something inside me that bothers me, that the laws are overreaching. 

 

San Diego banned smoking on the beaches because of the littering issue. Perhaps that's the idea behind the Cleveland playground ban...if that's the case- and it theoretically does cut down littering, then I suppose that just like SD's ban, I'll favor the results, but not the method.

 

** I hope that doesn't risk my new alliance with 327 lol

At this point we're just legislating people's preferences on each other.

 

Isn't that what things like noise level ordinances are?  (Or are you against those as well?)

We all can debate this until the cows come home...but the fact of the matter is it's a good thing for Cleveland.  Our image here in flyover country is one of an uneducated, overweight and decidedly unhealthy population.  Sometimes the long term perception of these sorts of laws do more than the laws themselves.

 

With this being said, I join with 327 in wondering what council does on a daily basis.  Let's get some work done on permitting, housing code and attracting JOBS to Cleveland.  It often feels like some of these guys want to be Dennis Kucinich (more worried about their picture in the paper than getting anything done for the area).

That's exactly what legislating is in ANY context!  Legislating people's preferences on each other.  Take a look at your #3.  Those are YOUR preferences, priorities, whatever you want to call it.  Real world lesson for the day ;)

 

There's a certain objective quality to the suggestion that street conditions are a higher order priority for a city government than varieties of fryer oil.  That is not a matter of personal preference.  You've got to be kidding.  Please tell me you're kidding.  And no, the law is not about forcing personal preferences on each other.  You're suggesting such broad subjectivity that up is only up if currently elected officials say it is.  Wrong.  Up is up.  And when legislation says up is down, we're all screwed. 

 

For the record, I like the indoor smoking ban.  Not everything about it but the general principle.  And I think it's possible for noise ordinances to go too far, or to invite uneven enforcement.  But there's a point at which noise becomes disturbing the peace. 

The world is grey, 327.  You will soon learn that.

 

And you are once again assuming that any 'street condition' ordinance was shelved so council could pass this legislation.  Please tell me YOU'RE kidding. 

The world is grey, 327.  You will soon learn that.

 

Aw dad, I need the car keys so I can go to the dance!  Everyone's going!  You're not fair. 

So city council passed this yesterday as well as the trans fat ban

 

The libertarian side of me worries about this.

 

Like, when can we expect the sugar ban?

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

 

Yup, because the private sector has done so well putting healthy products out into the market  :wtf:  Most products you see here have to have a bunch of the crap left out before they're sent over to real countries that have governments that ban this crap. The only concern you should have is the fact that you're a libertarian.

Some of the bars with no kitchen and no room to build a patio were hit pretty hard.  The consequences are many:  1)  More work for an overtaxed police force and justice system, 2) an increasingly unwelcoming nanny-state environment in a place that needs to welcome every possible visitor, 3) the aforementioned bigger fish that City Council isn't frying while they're attending to this.

 

"Nanny-State" blah blah blah, you conservative losers need a knew catch phrase. Try looking at the other great countries of the world and how they differ from us. Take a look at our fat, unemployed, uneducated, unhappy a$$es and then look at the happy people living their wonderful lives in their "nanny states". Ignorance is a scary thing.

So city council passed this yesterday as well as the trans fat ban

 

 

 

The libertarian side of me worries about this.

 

Like, when can we expect the sugar ban?

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

 

Yup, because the private sector has done so well putting healthy products out into the market  :wtf:  Most products you see here have to have a bunch of the crap left out before they're sent over to real countries that have governments that ban this crap. The only concern you should have is the fact that you're a libertarian.

 

Wow, thanks for the personal attack! Very polite of you lol.

 

I think personal decisions are best left up to the individual. I think consuming tobacco, sugar, carbonated beverages, alcohol, contact sports, etc. are dangerous to ones health. Won't you agree?

 

Okay then, should they be banned?

 

Or can we be adult enough to make conscious choices about our own health?

 

You must understand that the law banning trans fats DOES NOTHING to stop restaurant owners form using something MORE DANGEROUS.  Please grasp this concept, and reassess the situation.

 

I'm actually concerned for you, that you you need the government to shield you from yourself. 

I don't need the government for anything of the sort, but most people do. I've been vegan for nearly 20 years, eat healthy, have never smoked, drank or done a drug. I'm as healthy as I need to be. We have deregulated corporations to the point where they put the cheap, unhealthy crap in our food where they are forced to remove those same ingredients when shipping products to other countries.

 

We grow up being taught to except, and to listen to your authority. When we're told certain things by those in power or given certain things, people don't believe that it would be available if it were indeed that bad for you. I make my own decisions, I don't need a government but all the indoctrinated sheeple across the US do need it.

heatohio, take it down a notch - personal insults aren't tolerated here.

I don't need the government for anything of the sort, but most people do.

 

So YOU don't need government to tell you what you can and can't eat but everyone else does, huh?  Because you're obviously more enlightened than everyone else...  People should have the freedom to do as they please so long as it doesn't impact another individual.  Just as you have made the decision to be vegan others should have the freedom to make decisions about what goes into their body.  We all make individual choices to that end and what works for you may not work for someone else.

 

The reason that the smoking ban doesn't bother me is because that act of smoking can impact the health of another person that's in close proximity.  This makes perfect sense in public parks and such... still don't think it makes sense in private bars and restaurants, but whatever.  I'll let the trans fat ban slide because there are healthier alternatives out there that shouldn't impact the quality or taste of the food we eat to any significant degree.  But I've stated previously that I would have preferred a labeling requirement on the menu so you know if you're eating something prepared with trans fat oil.

It has nothing to do with making the city healthier. The smoking ban has been implemented because Cleveland's so-called leaders are too afraid (or perhaps too spiteful) to address the real issues plaguing our city; instead, they'd rather focus their attentions on something that, along with the trans fats ban, really doesn't mean jacksh!t on any major level. Kind of like how some Republicans like to focus on flagburning or Obama's birth certificate, which are silly but often effective distractions from other issues they don't want to be involved in.

 

This whole issue is a waste of time and effort.

 

 

^ Why are people assuming that city council dropped everything to pass this initiative? Are you aware of any 'real issues' that have been delayed specifically because of this measure because I am not?

I don't need the government for anything of the sort, but most people do.

 

So YOU don't need government to tell you what you can and can't eat but everyone else does, huh?  Because you're obviously more enlightened than everyone else...  People should have the freedom to do as they please so long as it doesn't impact another individual.  Just as you have made the decision to be vegan others should have the freedom to make decisions about what goes into their body.  We all make individual choices to that end and what works for you may not work for someone else.

 

The reason that the smoking ban doesn't bother me is because that act of smoking can impact the health of another person that's in close proximity.  This makes perfect sense in public parks and such... still don't think it makes sense in private bars and restaurants, but whatever.  I'll let the trans fat ban slide because there are healthier alternatives out there that shouldn't impact the quality or taste of the food we eat to any significant degree.  But I've stated previously that I would have preferred a labeling requirement on the menu so you know if you're eating something prepared with trans fat oil.

 

You obviously have no idea how successful countries are run. Typical for people living within the US. We are very segregated from the rest of the world and our media is very censored. People are pretty stupid for the most part, I'm not stupid. Am I the smartest person in the world, probably.. :-D but that's beside the point.

 

But people don't have the mentality to be aware that these companies are more concerned with putting cheap ingredients into their foods then they are about our health. There are plenty of aware people out there, but most of the fat parents with their fat kids coming up to the park with their McDonalds bags and drinking stuff with dyes and chemicals in them, it proves to me that these people need saved from themselves. Not to mention their kids need saved from the parents.

 

Federally, we need to ban these products, like all the other civilized countries have already done, so it's not up to a state.

^The United States of America is not a successful country?  What fantasy land are you living in?  I also find it funny that you complain about our "censored" media while advocating censoring the nations food supply...

^The United States of America is not a successful country?  What fantasy land are you living in?  I also find it funny that you complain about our "censored" media while advocating censoring the nations food supply...

 

First off, I know I'm not allowed to insult people, but you may want to be careful in what context you use words. I'm pretty sure we're not censoring a food supply. LOL  Our media is very censored, it's more of a commercial and an outlet for scare tactics being pumped out by corporate America. There are only a handful of places in this country that carry al jazeera or other legitimate news outlets.

 

I don't (and most people that know world economics and politics) know how the US is successful. Our distribution of wealth in this country is designed to trickle up. We aren't healthy, happy or wealthy. 3% of America's population own 90% of the capital. We're not near the top of manufacturing companies, we're not near the top of wealth per capita. We have a high crime rate due to desperate situations we place our citizens in. We'd rather have video games where you shoot up a bunch of people then have a gay couple get married.

 

We really are a laughing stock to the rest of the world. It's just we're so isolated and lied to, people like you don't get to see the truth.

heatohio, you are right on the money. Our country is pretty rotten for those reasons and more. I will disagree with your explanation for our high crime rate - it has more to do with a socially accepted ignorance and incompetence that many people make intentionally. Otherwise, yeah, we really are the laughing stock of the world these days, in particular with our so-called educational systems.

... I'm not stupid. Am I the smartest person in the world, probably.. :-D ...

 

You are not the smartest person in the world. My brother is. He told me so, himself, and he's older than you so he must be wiser.