I heard on the radio that the city is looking into banning smoking in bars, bowling alleys and restaurants.

 

I hate smoke and could care less if cigarettes go up to $9.00 a pack but I think it is silly to ban smoking in bars. In a city that borders 2 other states, Cincinnati better rethink this one.

i agree

I also agree, while I don't smoke myself, it would be detrimental to the nightlife downtown, where they can scarcely afford to lose a customer.

 

Altough, I've been to some bars and clubs in California, where smoking is banned throughout the state, and it really is nice. But around here a ban needs to happen over an area larger than just the city to avoid problems.

^ Agreed.

 

If a ban has to happen, though, some comcession needs to be made to smokers. There's nothing sadder than a dozen smokers clustered into some small area with no ashtray right next to the front door, producing a cloud that everyone entering the building has to walk through.

It will happen in time. Most universities and corporations have banned smoking in classrooms, offices, etc. long ago. I see your point about the economic problems it would impose on restaurants and bars, but there is a public health issue and we all pay for other people's smoking through higher insurance costs, hospital costs etc.--not to mention those afflicted with cancer and other diseases from second-hand smoke. I really hate walking through the clouds of smoke those sad souls addicted to tobacco create outside office bldgs. downtown. It's pathetic for them, but also a hazard for their fellow beings.

those sad souls addicted to tobacco create outside office bldgs. downtown. It's pathetic for them' date=' but also a hazard for their fellow beings.[/quote']

 

...umm, like me?

 

My point is that smokers aren't second-class citizens. Is it too much to ask that if you're going to ban indoor smoking that you provide a clean and safe area (with actual ashtrays that get cleaned out periodically) for smokers to congregate?

See i dont agree that smokers have the "right" to be able to smoke in public places. That would mean that non-smokers have the "right" to not have second-hand smoke around them. Both are ridiculous claims.

 

I dont think it's the city's decision though. Maybe it should be a state thing because heh Cleveland is thinking about doing that as well. It was just in the paper the other day.

 

Not sure if im for this issue all the way however. There has to be more to the issue than just banning smoking from public places. That doesnt solve anything. There also has to be a promotion of some sort in helping people quit smoking or deterring it because i think these "smoking bans" are a knee jerk reaction to the fact that Ohio ranks pretty high in the amount of smokers it has.

It is amusing to me to watch a dozen smokers clustered into some small area with no ashtray right next to the front door.

 

I used to smoke for many years and just quite so I guess I am a former smoker. But the smokers lounge in airports is flat out entertainment. All huddled together in the cloud filled rooms of smoke. LOL

 

Have you guys seem the smokers lounge at CVG? It is by far the nicest smokers lounge I have ever seen. It has gold trim, wood paneled walls and leather chairs. You can tell you are in a smokers state at CVG.

I don't really like being around a lot of smoke usually, so I like the bans in restaurants and such. In bars and nightclubs, however, it is expected to be around a lot of smoke, so I am used to it. After all, you go to a bar to be happy and have a good time (usually), so I don't have a problem with people wanting to smoke in bars.

those sad souls addicted to tobacco create outside office bldgs. downtown. It's pathetic for them' date=' but also a hazard for their fellow beings.[/quote']

 

...umm, like me?

 

My point is that smokers aren't second-class citizens. Is it too much to ask that if you're going to ban indoor smoking that you provide a clean and safe area (with actual ashtrays that get cleaned out periodically) for smokers to congregate?

 

Oops, sorry grasscat, I didn't know you were among the afflicted. I didn't notice you smoking in Columbus.

^ LOL

I think I was smoking when you, Monte and I were chatting in front of the Rhodes Tower about local restaurants.

I think I was smoking when you' date=' Monte and I were chatting in front of the Rhodes Tower about local restaurants.[/quote']

 

Shows you how observant I was or how good my memory is one or the other.

LOL. I'm surprised I remember.

From the 6/9/04 Enquirer:

 

 

Advocates of smoking ban in workplace plead case

By Matt Leingang

The Cincinnati Enquirer

 

Advocates for a ban on smoking in Cincinnati bars and restaurants got their first hearing at City Hall on Tuesday.

 

Speaking in front of City Council's Health Committee, local representatives from the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society said such a ban is needed to protect workers and patrons from diseases and other health problems linked to secondhand smoke...

 

From: www.enquirer.com

 

E-mail [email protected]

Here's a take on what the suburbs are considering, from the 6/22/04 Enquirer:

 

 

Smoking ban won't waft far

City considering rule, but in most surrounding areas it's not even an issue

By Matt Leingang

Enquirer staff writer

www.enquirer.com

 

If Cincinnati bans smoking in most indoor public places, including bars and restaurants, will the suburbs follow suit?

 

Fairfield may enter the debate, but many of the government officials in cities and villages around Greater Cincinnati don't seem interested. ..

---

 

Enquirer reporters Steve Kemme, John Kiesewetter, Cindy Schroeder, Sheila McLaughlin, Travis Gettys, Liz Oakes and Erica Solvig contributed. E-mail [email protected]

You know, I have never heard a person complain about smoking in a nightclub. The city took it upon itself to try to impose such a law. Dang what do these people think they are doing? making it a communist city?? This can't help bring the city more money or am I missing something. No wonder the city is losing businesses and population. They are doing what the council wants and not what the people want. Daymn do one positive thing Cincinnati.

You know' date=' I have never heard a person complain about smoking in a nightclub.[/quote']

 

I've had three friends complain about smoke at a nightclub we attend here in Columbus (and I can't say I blame them). So there are those who hate it.

Columbus is also trying to pass a similar ban, which includes a rule that you can't smoke within 20 feet of an entrance or an exit.

 

Although I do smoke, I can see why smoking shouldn't be allowed in restaurants since there are some IDIOT parents who will bring their kids into the smoking section. Since kids don't have the choice as to where they sit in a resaurant, then smoking should be banned. But I have a huge problem with banning smoking (outright) in bars and nightclubs. For one thing, those places are adults only, so whoever decides to drink or work there is doing so out of their own free will. Another problem I have with smoking bans is that they seem to be mostly supported by people who are just plain annoyed by smoke, not those that actully think they are being adversely affected by second-hand smoke. Wake up Ohioans, do you think sucking down auto fumes on your long commute to work is healthy? Did you know that Ohio has the WORST air quality of ALL the states in the Union??? Bottom line is I say individual bar owners should have the right to choose whether or not to go smoke-free. If the demand really is there, like some people claim, you'll see smokeless bars springing up all over the place. And as was mentioned before, unless smoking bans are state wide or region wide, it will hurt local businesses.

An update from the 10/24/04 Enquirer:

 

 

Would smoking ban singe business?

By Matt Leingang

Enquirer staff writer

 

After almost two months of work, a 30-member panel studying a potential smoking ban in Cincinnati plans to complete its report by late November.

 

The panel appears to agree that breathing secondhand smoke poses increased health risks. But members disagree sharply over the potential economic impact of banning smoking at bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and bingo parlors...

 

E-mail [email protected]

 

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/24/loc_smoking24.html

The main reason I quit going to nightclubs was the smoke. As a former long-term smoker, and a ten-year survivor of a smoking-related cancer, I won't willingly increase my risk factor. I think, too, that former smokers are often bothered more by second hand smoke than are people who never smoked. After coming home from even a short period at a club, I used to undress in the laundry room and toss my clothes directly into the washer so that I wouldn't have to smell them the next morning.

 

If a restaurant ban were enacted over a wide enough area, I think it would be to the restaurant owners' advantage. During busy times, owners and wait staff like to turn over tables as quickly as possible, and diners who linger for a cigarette or two and a couple of free refills on their coffee have an adverse effect on productivity and profits. If they can't smoke in the restaurant, people will go somewhere else after they finish their dinner, and free up the seating for more customers.

Restaurants and Bowling Alleys 'yes'. Just for the simple reason that children are in attendance, and I think most smokers would agree

( except the ones that don't have kids ). But it wouldn't go over very well with Bars and Clubs. A lot of people like to smoke while they drink. Their thinking might end up being that if they can't smoke at a Bar or Club, then they'll just attend a private party or stay at home where they can smoke. The city may have to limit this one to just Bowling Alleys.

At the rate this city is passing these kind of laws, I will be BANNED from living within city limits. And I'm a NON- smoking Heterosexual Male. :(

Why does it take two months for a study, when it could take 5 mins to call another city that has the ban already. To see how much it has affected businesses.

The last that I read, the restaurant smoking ban hadn't had any adverse effect in Fort Wayne. One restaurant owner blamed the ban for his going out of business, but that wasn't true; his place was across the street from a large office building with a no-smoking policy, and it was the closest one that permitted smoking throughout the whole dining room. Especially in bad weather, the smokers from the office building flocked there for lunch.

 

I tried the place a couple of times. I'm not a picky eater, but his food simply wasn't good, and his service was so-so; when people couldn't smoke there any more, they had no reason to go.

 

A couple of neighborhood greasy spoons with an almost-exclusively blue-collar clientele responded by becoming "private clubs" that sold lifetime memberships for $1. I've eaten in both, and high cholesterol probably sends more of their regulars to an early demise than smoking.

Newport and Covington support this idea...LOL

 

Where do these people get off? If you don't want smoke, patronize places that don't allow smoking - there are tons to choose from.

Well, I am really sick and tired of whiners and soccer mom types trying to purify america into a mass population of quakers. These people need to get a life or a hobby or an alcohol problem or something and stop telling people what they can and cant do. Granted smoking while eating is disgusting to me and I have eaten at a TON of restaurants with smoking, never have I really smelled it to the point of it bothering me, not only that, but on a larger scale it will hurt business obviously and like you said fuel the hell out of Covington and Newport restaurants. What did these people do in the 70's, 80's, etc etc when no such mention of these laws even existed. Why all of a sudden is everyone trying to customize the world to themselves. People smoke in bars, its a fact, and these losers trying to tell business owners and patrons what they cant do in a bar, probably dont drink or go to bars anyways.

Just what we need more govt telling us what we can and can not do..I don't smoke but go to the bars often...smoking goes hand and hand at bars..if the smokers cant smoke they will either go across the river or stay home..If there is nobody at the bars I will leave or not go there in the first place. This is suicide for establishements in Cincinnati..The bar or restraunt should be able to make the choice to smoke or not to smoke, not the govt!!

I merged the last few posts with the old smoking ban topic so that some of you guys who recently joined can read some of the older posts.

Where do these people get off? If you don't want smoke' date=' patronize places that don't allow smoking - there are tons to choose from.[/quote']

 

 

Well, I've stayed quiet long enough on this. I have quite a bit of insight on this, so here is my .2 cents worth....

 

Many of you don't know, but I play foosball semi-professionally. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury to travel great distances for national tournaments (usually held in hotels or convention centers where smoking is not allowed) and big tournaments in this area are scarce. I'm lucky to see 2 or 3 big events in this area per year (this is actually going somewhere).

 

So, my only alternative is to play at local tournaments which are at 2 bars in this area...Slammers in Oakley, and McGuffy's in Dayton. Both are heavy smoker’s bars. I have been doing this every weekend for probably the last 10 years of my life. So, as you can imagine, I probably breathe a lot of second hand smoke. I don't like it, but I continue to do it because it's where my friends and where my primary hobby is.

 

So anyway, there have been times when I've seen the bars with so much smoke in it, if you are outside and someone opens the door, smoke literally POORS out the door! It's a sickening sight. If I park my car to close to the door, there will be tar specs all over the car that is hard to get off (don't ask me what causes it, I just know it's cigarette tar). I will get home at 1 or 2 in the morning and my sinuses will be so clogged from gunk, I have to breathe out of my mouth. I’ll wake up in the morning with severe hangover-style headache (even when I didn’t drink anything). All this just to be able to enjoy something I love to do.

 

A lot of the people I play foosball with smoke and unfortunately, so does my girlfriend. Almost every one of them at one time or another have said, "There's too much damn smoke in here, I need to go outside and get some fresh air.” This is coming from the smokers themselves. Even my girlfriend won't smoke in a bar. Heck, when she smokes at home, she goes outside.

 

Lexington has a smoking ban. I play there every once in awhile at the Rack Club and I have never seen that place NOT packed. Everyone smokes at a couple of tables outside and they seem content to do so...as long as they get to smoke, they are happy.

 

Also, I have been increasingly concerned about developing cancer from second-hand smoke due to this. My grandpa just died from throat and lung cancer 2 weeks ago. He has never smoked a cigarette in his life, but my grandmother smoked around him throughout their marriage. If only one smoker did that to him, I hate to think what it's doing to me.

 

So, my take on it is this. You go to bars to drink. You go to night-clubs to dance and drink. You DON’T go to these places to smoke. I've never heard anyone say "Let's go to the bar and have a couple of smokes." Non-smokers really don't have much of a choice when it comes to trying to get out and have a good time. I like to have a beer every once in a while, dance here and there…and then there's my foosball. It's a shame that I can't enjoy these things unless I have to go to a bar and breathe smoke to do so. I personally think smokers just simply take this for granted. Where around here is a non-smoking bar? There are none that I know of. I don't believe in forcing people not to smoke around me, but I don't believe that I should be forced to find my entertainment elsewhere either.

 

All in all, I would support a smoking ban if it were presented. It will not hurt businesses. Most people that frequent bars and clubs do so because that’s where their friends are, they like the place and the atmosphere and they want to pick up the honeys. They will still do this even if they can't smoke inside.

This is how I would suggest this should be approached:

 

1) Nobody should have to breathe 2nd hand smoke if they don't wish to. You and I are completely agreed on that. I'm not talking about catching a whiff of it as you walk down the street - I'm saying you shouldn't have to sit in your office or on a bus or somewhere and have to breathe someone else's smoke.

 

2) Bar and restaurant owners would be wise to provide a pleasant environment for all their patrons, or else they will risk losing those patrons. That may mean installing good ventilation, or isolating a non-smoking area, or isolating a smoking area, or whatever else they can cost-effectively do to maximize their patrons' enjoyment.

 

3) Those bar owners who refuse to address the concerns of their patrons will not last long in business. Bars and restaurants normally operate on a pretty tight margin, and can't afford to lose guests if they can avoid it. In some cases, that will mean banning smoking entirely; in some cases, that will mean isolating a smoking and a non-smoking area; and in some cases, that will me not restricting smoking at all. Each bar owner has to choose, and each patron has to choose.

 

4) Those patrons who wish to have a non-smoking environment should let the bar owners know that, and should patronize those places where they feel comfortable.

 

5) For situations like yours, where real Foosball is only available in a few extremely uncomfortable environments, I have to say that rather than changing the rules for the entire city, it would be a better solution either to convince one of the bar owners to go non-smoking in his place, or else to convince a non-smoking bar to host professional Foosball and take the business there.

 

If you can't convince one bar owner to change his policy voluntarily, does it really strike you as just to force him to change his policy? And does it really strike you as just to force him, along with every other restaurant and bar in the whole city, to change their policies?

 

 

I despise places with loud music. I like to have a few (a few too many) cocktails, and conversation with friends and strangers. Lots of laughing ensues, and we take a cab home. Loud music is uncomfortable, it cuts off conversation, and is just a drag. So I don't go places with loud music. Now I understand that loud music, while it can damage your ears, isn't on the same level as second hand smoke - but I believe the principle applies in both cases. My discomfort should impact my decision - it shouldn't impact public policy.

It would be nice if a club would have maybe designate one smoke-free night per week, some kind of compromise like that. I don't go 'out' all that often but, for example I went to a concert last month and spent 5 hours in a smallish smoky room just so I could see this band I really like. I got used to the odor after a while but it worried me to think about how much 2nd hand smoke I was taking in. Not to mention that the reek got into my hair, and my clothes, so everything had to be washed (not that I don't wash my clothes, but things like a sweater that I just wore over my other clothes should not have needed washing after just being worn once.)

 

I just don't understand why people can't hold off on smoking for a couple of hours, is it that hard?

All in all' date=' I would support a smoking ban if it were presented. It will not hurt businesses. Most people that frequent bars and clubs do so because that’s where their friends are, they like the place and the atmosphere and they want to pick up the honeys. They will still do this even if they can't smoke inside.[/quote']

Provided that they furnish a place that is well-lit and clean (with an ashtray) and preferrably sheltered for the smokers. Five people huddled outside by the front door with no ashtray doesn't cut it, in my opinion.

 

A place that has a smoking ban and no outside patio or smoking area is less likely to get my business.

^

Good points. But there is one thing that I forgot to mention on my post. don't know how the heck I missed this.

 

The owner of Slammers (where I play foosball) recently underwent chemo for throat cancer and is now recovering (thankfully). He is a good friend of mine and also a Foosball player himself (that's why he host tournaments there). It has been almost around 2 years since being diagnosed with Cancer. He has been unable to even enjoy coming into his own business because of the smoking. I think that would have to really be bad not to be able to frequent your business.

 

I guess his dilemna would be this...

If he tells people they can't smoke in his bar, he'll most likely lose business and have to close down. People will simply go elsewhere.

 

However...

If the city enables a smoking ban, patrons will not be forced out by the owner and since all bars in the city would be equal, he would most likely not lose his patrons.

 

 

LOL, I just talked to my girlfriend on the phone while I was in the middle of this post. Here is what she said...

 

"I don't think people should smoke in public places, it's our fault we're poor stupid smokers. Why should I inflict my addiction on people that don't smoke?"

 

I was laughing pretty hard when she said that, I had to post it on here.

 

But anyway, I understand your post about the music thing. I have to deal with that at McGuffy's. Fortunately loud music won't kill me though...well, I hope not! :shock:

I just don't understand why people can't hold off on smoking for a couple of hours' date=' is it that hard?[/quote']

Yes. Especially if you add the social aspect to it and/or alcohol.

I generally try to err on the side of the marketplace making better decisions in this sort of thing than the government, but in the real world, I will certainly acknowledge that the government can play a very constructive roll.

 

But when it does play a roll, it ought to solve the problem in as non-intrusive a way as it can. A complete ban on every restaurant and bar just seems like the nuclear option here. Requiring a non-smoking area, with a procedure for granting exceptions for certain establishments, seems like a wiser policy to me. I mean, how can you ban smoking in a cigar bar like the Havana Martini Club? And whom does it serve to ban all smoking in a place like Prima Vista or Nicola's, where the bar is well separated and patrons never need catch the slightest whiff? I would imagine somewhere like Carol's would prefer to extend the wall between the bar and the seats and install good ventillation rather than ban all smoking.

 

And for places that can't accomodate both smoking and non-smoking area - I'm thinking of places like Indigo in Hyde Park, or Mullane's (at least in its old space) - perhaps then, if non-smokers can't be adequately accommodated, then banning smoking is a more reasonable option. But a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores individual cases just strikes me as needlessly draconian.

I just love good timing when it comes to the news and newsgroup threads. Here is an article I found on MSN about the cost of smoking. I'm not trying to offend anyone here or push non-smoking beliefs on you. But if you are thinking about quiting, maybe this can help...

 

 

 

The high cost of smoking

 

Add it up: cigarettes, dry cleaning, insurance, breath mints. And the toll doesn't stop there.

 

By Hilary Smith

 

If the threat of cancer can't convince you to quit smoking, maybe the prospect of poverty will.

 

The financial consequences of lighting up stretch far beyond the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Smokers pay more for insurance and lose money on the resale value of their cars and homes. They spend extra on dry cleaning and teeth cleaning. Long term, they earn less and receive less in pension and Social Security benefits.

 

Researchers at Duke University found that the total cost of smoking -- the cigarettes, lost earnings, impact on insurance on mortality, even the impact of secondhand smoke -- runs about $40 per pack for the average 24-year-old. The Centers for Disease Control estimates 46.2 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes. The economic burden of smokers totals more than $75 billion per year in medical expenditures, and $80 billion per year from lost productivity...

 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P100291.asp?Rating=10&PageID=100291#Rating

I dont like old people drivers and I am afraid the blind bastards will kill me, no over 60 drivers on roads with over 25 speed limits. I feel for your situation, yet it all goes back to this big customization of life. Lately everyone wants to change things from the way they have been into a long list of rules. I will agree that outdoor smoking makes more sense though.

^

LOL, that will be Cincinnati's next ban! :lol:

BTW...Toledo recently reversed their smoking ban. It passed with well over 50%, even though only 30% of Toledo residents smoke.

^

Some places just have HORRIBLE ventilation, or are just small in size and the smoke piles up quickly. Smoke eaters simply are not enough or are inadequate...especially if the air does not circulate enough to move the smoke to them.

 

I personally think a study should be done to see what could be an acceptable amount of second hand smoke in the air in regards to health issues. Once you have that, an air monitioring device could be made and implemented within a ventilation system that would keep the second hand smoke down to the required level in a restaurant, bar, etc. This would be monitored and regulated just like any other health or safety concern.

 

This kind of system could work in places such as bars and clubs, and hopefully everyone would be satisfied, smokers and non-smokers alike, without the risk of health concerns.

 

BTW, what ever happend to the "smokeless" cigarette that was such a big news farce years ago?

just to get in the spirit of this convo I've decided to smoke one while typing. If I allow people to smoke in my home thats fine right...if you don't like it stay out of my home, soooo if I own a business which allows smoking, stay the hell out of my business if you don't like it. most places have non smoking areas and there are plenty of spots to hit up that are non smoking otherwise I wouldn't always be frustrated when I go somewhere only to learn it's non smoking, trust me it does happen. and for the earlier comments about how people don't go out to smoke, that a bunch of hoo-y! If I just wanted to drink I'd do it with riends in a personal setting, people want to smoke when they go out to smoking establishments or they wouldn't go there.

^

Oh, c'mon now, that's just a really bad way to do business. You make money selling beer, not cigarettes. And if you want to make more money, you try to accomodate both. But you don't want to tell a certain group of people to leave or your not going to stay in business very long.

 

As for going out to an establishment just to smoke? I've never heard of anyone going out for the night, having to get a hold of all their friends, stopping to get money out of the ATM, paying for cover-charges and calling a cab at the end of the night...just to go out for a smoke. That's silly. :roll:

People usually smoke when they drink, I know I do and I even have alot of friends who dont smoke, that will light one up when they drink.

paying for cover-charges

You go to places that require cover charges?

^

Well, most night clubs require cover charges on weekends. not little bars or anything. I won't pay a cover :-Þ

I question the motives of those who try to villify smokers, and I think much of the motivation behind these bans is indeed simply a case of people trying to tell others what they can & can't do.

 

A possible upside to consider though, is that many bars might set up patios, balconies & beer gardens to lure the displaced smokers. I the wintertime they might even have fires going like they do at Hofbrau and The Courtyard.

Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around the desire of some patrons to smoke versus the desire of other patrons not to be exposed to second-hand smoke.

 

In most communities where a smoking ban is discussed, workplace health and safety are major factors in the controversy. While patrons of a smoke-filled establishment are exposed to second-hand smoke for the duration of their visit, employees are exposed for the duration of their shifts.

 

Where smoking affects the health of employees, it affects the cost of group health insurance plans. Insurance premiums are among the costs that ultimately get passed along to customers, as well as to the health plan participants either as increased contributions or as less money available for the wages and benefits pool.

 

Failure to protect employees from second-hand smoke can be construed as creating a hostile and/or unsafe work environment.

Read the first line of your post--because that is what it ultimately comes down to.

 

If the opportunity to do or to not do something is detrimental to the business in question from a customer standpoint, then all of the talk about group insurance plans, prices, and public health become irrelevant since there will no longer be a business to talk about.

 

In other words, at the absolute top of the discussion should be the opinions of the paying customers because, when you're trying to make money from them, their wants and needs are priority #1. They butter your bread, so to speak.

An update, from the 11/10/05 Enquirer:

 

 

Debate on smoking ban smolders in Cincinnati

By Matt Leingang

Enquirer staff writer

 

The recent death of Cincinnati's health commissioner has stalled the city's smoking ban debate, but the issue isn't going away.

 

The city Health Department, which would be in charge of enforcing such a ban, is still grieving and regrouping since the Dec. 19 death of Malcolm Adcock, said Vice Mayor Alicia Reece...

\

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050110/NEWS01/501100356/1056