^ ^

I'm from Kentucky, not Ohio. Local ordinances are the game here for controlling liquor it seems. Boyd County passed an ordnance a few weeks ago permitting that a restaurant can have a bar and serve liquor only if 75% of their sales comes from food.

 

shouldn't you be on urbankentucky.com?

 

back to liquor though,I did a cursory scan of the ORC and saw no such scenario (% of sales from liquor) in place.

As much as I make connections to the state... yes :) As long as it makes the case relevant and supports the post (such as my citations of the smoking ban having a positive effect), then I'm all for it.

 

We really do need an urbankentucky.com. I have urbanup.com, which has a strong focus on Kentucky (or will), but I am not planning a forum for that. I leave it up to UO, UP, and SSC :)

Must be different than here. Local laws vary, so that the case you provided is not true universally (thankfully).

 

a) I doubt liquor licenses vary within one state. (but I'm not a doctor)

 

b) on another level, maybe: with the vast array of liquor licenses available many of them have a "% of revenue from alcohol" stipulation.

 

As far as I can tell its mostly to differentiate an Applebee's (low % of liquor sales relative to total revenue) versus Joe's Beer and Shot Joint (high % of liquor sales relative to total revenue). Michigan Does this to prevent a city being full of too many "Bar-Bars", and allowing room for "restaurant-bars"

 

generally the more food you sell the easier it is to get a liquor liscence.

>However, I have never seen a child in a bar.

 

You're not from the west side, are you?  Where I grew up all the dads would go to one of two bars in the neighborhood with their kids after little league games and of course bring them along.  My dad didn't hang out with those guys so I dindn't really go.  We actually had end-of-year baseball parties at the one place when we didn't have it in the back room of a LaRosa's.  And then there was the VFW and the Knights of Columbus...       

 

>If you are so concerned about your personal health you probably shouldnt really even be in a bar.

 

The prime danger as a male out at the bars is randomly getting drawn into some stupid fight and/or getting arrested for just being nearby.     

I find KOOW hazardous even when he doesn't post

 

I'm for topical use only.

Novelty use only?

I can see where this is going...

From the 6/13/07 Ironton Tribune:

 

 

Local clubs join fight against smoking ban

By MARK SHAFFER/The Ironton Tribune

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:52 AM CDT

 

An attempt to get Ohio’s smoking ban at least partially overturned for private clubs and some businesses hit a snag this week, but the fight goes on.

 

The Partnership for Job Preservation presented a proposal for the November ballot that would have allowed smoking at bowling alleys after 6 p.m., at bars where no more than 10 percent of sales are food and at private clubs, such as Veterans of Foreign War posts.

 

But the initiative didn’t have enough valid signatures to get it on the ballot. On Monday Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said the group produced only 776 of the 1,000 signatures needed to get a required petition certified.

 

Read more:

 

http://www.irontontribune.com/articles/2007/06/13/news/news261.txt

 

But the initiative didn’t have enough valid signatures to get it on the ballot. On Monday Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said the group produced only 776 of the 1,000 signatures needed to get a required petition certified.

 

I'll give the organizers the benefit of the doubt and say that the lack of signatures is less a sign of incredibly poor public support and more a sign of incredibly poor organization.

From the 6/14/07 Zanesville Times Recorder:

 

 

Area health departments get smoking complaints

By BRIAN GADD

Staff Writer

 

ZANESVILLE - Health departments in Muskingum and Perry counties have been busy in the past month investigating violations of Ohio's indoor smoking ban.

 

Since May 3, when the state began enforcement of the law via local health departments, the Zanesville-Muskingum County Health Department has received 46 complaints, according to Public Information Officer Jennifer Hiestand. The Perry County Health Department has received 43 reports of smoking violations.

 

The numbers are according to a database compiled by the Times Recorder's sister paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, which includes information from the Ohio Department of Health for the period May 3 to June 5.

 

Under the law, which was voted in last fall by ballot measure and was effective Dec. 7, the Ohio Department of Health receives complaints through e-mail and a toll-free number, and then are forwarded to the local agencies to investigate.

 

Of those in Muskingum, 27 of the complaints have been closed or dismissed, with the other 19 still open or pending follow-up visits to the establishments, Hiestand said.

 

Violations have included smoking in prohibited areas and having ashtrays present, she said.

 

"Some of the complaints have said there were no signs or inadequate signage, as well as infiltration of smoke into the prohibited areas," Hiestand said.

 

Letters notifying the businesses of a complaint are first sent out, and then a health sanitarian does a field inspection.

 

Read more:

 

http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/NEWS01/706140302/1002/rss01

---

From the 6/14/07 Coshocton Tribune:

 

 

Local smoking complaints investigated

By BRIAN GADD

Staff Writer

 

COSHOCTON - The local health departments haven't been quite as busy as their neighbors in Muskingum County when it comes to following up on complaints stemming from Ohio's indoor smoking ban.

 

The city health department received 13 complaints in the past month, while Coshocton County Director of Environmental Health Steve Lonsinger received and investigated one complaint.

 

Under the law, which was voted in last fall by ballot measure and took effect on Dec. 7, the Ohio Department of Health receives complaints which are forwarded to the local agencies to investigate. Enforcement activities began May 3.

 

The county's one complaint investigation centered on Bluck & Sons in West Lafayette. According to a database compiled by the Tribune's sister paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the alleged violation occurred May 20 and was reported the next day.

 

Read more:

 

http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070614/NEWS01/706140303/1002/rss01

---

From the 6/14/07 Record-Courier:

 

 

Smoking violations may start costing businesses

By Mike Hixenbaugh

Record-Courier staff writer

 

It's either butts out or pay the price in the next couple weeks for a few area bars and restaurants, according to state officials.

 

A month after Ohio began enforcing the smoking ban at most public places, health officials have received 56 complaints about smoking violations at Portage County businesses.

 

The number is considerably lower than more populated neighboring areas like Summit County, where 374 complaints were filed as of June 6.

 

However, in the case of Portage County, many of the reported violations have occurred at the same few businesses -- and that might lead to fines, said Kristopher Weiss, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Health.

 

Read more:

 

http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2127161

 

This short documentary has caused me to reconsider my stance on cigarettes:

 

[youtube=425,350]gCMzjJjuxQI

^ hahaha, i happened to be already be smoking a Camel cigarette (not my usual brand) while watching that.

This short documentary has caused me to reconsider my stance on cigarettes:

 

 

why, are you a doctor?

This short documentary has caused me to reconsider my stance on cigarettes:

 

 

why, are you a doctor?

 

No, but based on his choice in brands, it would seem that vulpster is.

From the 6/18/07 DDN:

 

 

GRAPHIC: Smoking complaints in the Miami Valley

 

Smoking violations fire up residents

By Anthony Gottschlich

Staff Writer

Monday, June 18, 2007

 

When voters approved Ohio's workplace smoking ban in November, Sharon Sweet breathed a sigh of relief. Now if she could just breathe some smoke-free air when she's out for a drink.

 

More than six months after the law took effect — and six weeks since its enforcement began — Sweet said she's still sucking down secondhand smoke when she visits her favorite veterans clubs in northern Montgomery County.

 

Read more:

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/06/17/ddn061807smoke.html

---

From the 6/18/07 Athens News:

 

 

More room for indoor smoking; another hookah cafe set to open

By Nick Claussen

Athens NEWS Associate Editor

Monday, June 18th, 2007

 

Athens area residents will soon have another place where they can smoke indoors, as another hookah cafe is set to open in Athens this week or next.

 

This means Athens will have two hookah cafes, and they will be located next to each other on Mill Street in uptown Athens.

 

In 2006, two hookah businesses opened in Athens, the Shishah Cafe and Pharao's. When Ohio residents voted for the statewide smoking ban in November, the Shishah Cafe, which also served food, phased out its hookah business and became Salaam restaurant. As a restaurant, it could not continue to offer hookahs because of the smoking ban.

 

Read more:

 

http://athensnews.com/index.php?action=viewarticle&section=news&story_id=28570

 

"When voters approved Ohio's workplace smoking ban in November, Sharon Sweet breathed a sigh of relief. Now if she could just breathe some smoke-free air when she's out for a drink.

 

More than six months after the law took effect — and six weeks since its enforcement began — Sweet said she's still sucking down secondhand smoke when she visits her favorite veterans clubs in northern Montgomery County.

 

"No one's doing anything about it, and it seems like no one cares," the 59-year-old Union resident said."

 

 

That's because where bars and (it seems especially) private clubs are concerned, the overwhelming majority of patrons and employees opposed the law.  Otherwise, there would already have been "smoke free" establishments. 

 

Whenever the "general public" passes a law that is strongly opposed by the people who are directly impacted, evasion is inevitable.  Also, respect for law in general is diminished. 

The "general public" voted in favor of the ban. Everyone had a fair chance to vote; it's not as if bar owners were excluded from polling or drumming up support. Their failure to do so, or even overturn the ban (see prior posts), shows that the strong support for the smoking ban is still there.

That's generally referred to a tyranny of the majority (mob rule ?).

A constitutional republic should be able to prevent that.

That's generally referred to a tyranny of the majority (mob rule ?).

A constitutional republic should be able to prevent that.

 

That's what the Framers intended, actually.

 

There's a lot of opposition around here to the various proposals of the CCV.  If they can rile up a majority of voters in favor of some of their neo-puritan busybody laws, should such laws also apply in the more culturally libertarian parts of the state?

 

When one says, "well that's what the voters wanted!" and claims that's enough reason, the analogy is exact.

Smoking is a constitutionally protected form of cultural expression? I had no idea it was such a noble pursuit; I was pretty much under the impression that it was a costly, obnoxious, soul-sapping addiction. At least that's where I stood when I was a smoker. My views have softened somewhat since then.

^ ^ So basically, we should just dump democracy and fair voting just because the majority got what they wanted? A smoking ban? Wow, who would have thought that a fair vote, a majority consensus, would want such a ban? If the vote had failed, or if the referendum to overturn the ban had passed, would you still be complaining? You can't have it both ways. Just because it passed (and has passed throughout the United States with similar consensus through similar voting), it does not mean that the whole system is flawed.

 

It just means you have an endless amount of complaints.

There is no democracy to dump.

You pledge allegiance to the flag and to the ? for which it stands.

checkitout

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

 

I've always felt that a smoking ban was a little overboard, if not way overboard.. that said, when I was living in Boston and they put one in, I loved it personally. Bars and venues that were once impossible to breath at became MUCH more fun to go to as a non-smoker. It also breathed life into a couple of dives because it put more people on the streets.

 

That said, Boston had the density to absorb the blow. I think you'll see a comprimise on this eventually. Private clubs, or some such thing.

 

Personally, I like that people can't smoke at the bar anymore, but I recognize it's pretty selfish of me, and I didn't vote for the ban.

>The "general public" voted in favor of the ban. Everyone had a fair chance to vote; it's not as if bar owners were excluded from polling or drumming up support. Their failure to do so, or even overturn the ban (see prior posts), shows that the strong support for the smoking ban is still there.

 

 

So somehow this vote was straight but not the last presidential elections? 

I don't know the specifics of other statewide bans, but based on my travel experiences I'd say it seems Ohio's is one of the most strict, and I have to ask why. Banning smoking within twenty feet of entrances, all places of employment, non-freestanding tobacco shops where less than 80% of revenue comes from tobacco, no patio with more than three sides, etc. ?Other states have passed successful smoking bans but allowed some places to remain that alow smoking. For instance I've noticed Boston and New York all have cigar bars and Hookah bars that will permit smoking, and California has coffee shops and very liberal definitions of patios where people can smoke. 

 

For the people who voted for the Ohio ban;

1. Is it necessary to completely erradicate smoking in public?

2. How was your experience between the law was enacted and the time it was enforced? Did it bother you there were a few places that still allowed smoking, even though nearly 90% (or whatever percent) of places were enforcing the ban?

^ ^ Another conspiracy? I'm sure the votes were rigged so that the smoking ban zealots could have their way.

^ (1) No, I do not feel that it is necessary to eradicate smoking in the public. But in enclosed areas, smoking should be restricted as it has been proven that HVAC systems do not do an adequate job of filtering the cigarette smoke (per previous posts). (2) Yes, and I report them each and every time. The restaurants and bars that I frequent that are in cities with the ban do not allow smoking on the inside. Period. The compliance rate in Lexington alone is very high (see prior post), and it is the exception, not the rule, that the ban is violated.

From the 6/20/07 Marysville Journal-Tribune:

 

 

Honda modifies smoking policy

Employees will be allowed to light up in personal vehicles and in 'smoking areas'

By MAC CORDELL

 

Honda of America is not softening its stance on employee smoking.

 

However, the company is offering a "modification of our smoking policy," said Ed Miller, Honda spokesman.

 

"Starting today (Monday), we are creating some smoking areas on our property," he said.

 

The modification also allows employees and visitors to smoke in their personal vehicles.

 

The entire Honda campus went smoke-free Feb. 8, in response to the statewide smoking ban passed by Ohio voters in November. That policy led some associates, contractors and visitors to drive off Honda property and park along Honda Parkway and other surrounding roads so they could smoke.

 

Read more:

 

http://www.auroraadvocate.com/news/article/2150222

 

Look at the bright side; patios are awesome; and we'll see more of them as this ban continues. Our restaurants will appear more European.

 

A week ago I went to Red River Gorge and we stopped at this McDonalds along the way, in Kentucky. Some disgusting looking obnoxious b!tch lit a cigarette inside McDonalds... and she was a crewmember... on her shift... and she did it in front of kids that were sitting down... with their happy meals. I wish I had my camera.

I don't know the specifics of other statewide bans, but based on my travel experiences I'd say it seems Ohio's is one of the most strict, and I have to ask why. Banning smoking within twenty feet of entrances, all places of employment, non-freestanding tobacco shops where less than 80% of revenue comes from tobacco, no patio with more than three sides, etc. ?Other states have passed successful smoking bans but allowed some places to remain that alow smoking. For instance I've noticed Boston and New York all have cigar bars and Hookah bars that will permit smoking, and California has coffee shops and very liberal definitions of patios where people can smoke. 

 

For the people who voted for the Ohio ban;

1. Is it necessary to completely erradicate smoking in public?

2. How was your experience between the law was enacted and the time it was enforced? Did it bother you there were a few places that still allowed smoking, even though nearly 90% (or whatever percent) of places were enforcing the ban?

 

For the record, "20 feet" is an urban legend.  The law merely says "adjacent", it does not define that word.

 

Indeed, the reason the enforcement date was pushed back from December to May was attempts by ban advocates to enforce it as widely as possible.  There were people saying that any smoking in parking lots was even banned.  The tavern owners group filed the lawsuit because of this, saying basically "how can you tell us to enforce rules you haven't even written" and the state was forced to agree.

 

Is there an effort to eradicate any and all smoking in public?  Absolutely.  The gross exaggeration of the hazards of "second hand smoke" is a part of this. 

 

Of the three highest profile bars in Bedford, two enforced the law starting in December, one only did when forced to.  Most of the smaller bars only did when forced to, so there's no real comparison there.  The two enforcers lost a lot of business, mostly to the non enforcer.  I never heard of more than a couple patrons complaining there, and it was very common for "new" people to say "we can smoke here?  cool!".

 

The simple fact is the people who say they can now go out because the smoke is gone aren't doing so more than once a month or so.  This is why there were few if any "smoke free" bars before.  If there had been a real rather than a rhetorical demand for such, they would have already existed.

 

Patios are nice, but expensive to build and not all bars have the space.  Plus there's the noise issue if there are neighbors.  The "outdoor open container" issue is becoming a problem a lot of places too.

We all have a responsibility to respect one anothers' personal space. If you can't handle yourself with respect to smoking, drinking, and annoying your neighbors, no law is going to help you.

 

My unusual choice of typestyle and color should underscore the importance of my statement.

"The simple fact is the people who say they can now go out because the smoke is gone aren't doing so more than once a month or so."

 

Well gee, then the bars that I have been frequenting here in Lexington would have been going out of business long ago. Too bad the data I cited earlier pretty much refutes anything that you said relating to that.

 

"A week ago I went to Red River Gorge and we stopped at this McDonalds along the way, in Kentucky. Some disgusting looking obnoxious b!tch lit a cigarette inside McDonalds... and she was a crewmember... on her shift... and she did it in front of kids that were sitting down..."

 

Welcome to Kentucky. Unfortunately, there are many rednecks and idiots down there who could give less a flying fuck about their children. I went to a MCD's (when I still ate fast food) near Red River last week and was blown away when I saw a mother and father SMOKE in front of their kid, and BLOW the smoke in their kid's faces. The kid was no more than 5 years old, and was hacking and wheezing. I popped by the table and told them how much I was disgusted by their awful habit, and how much they were damaging their child's lungs. (Which is also well cited and sourced, E Rocc.) The father said, "I'll quit smoking over my child's dead body."

 

Looks like he may get his chance sooner than later.

"The simple fact is the people who say they can now go out because the smoke is gone aren't doing so more than once a month or so."

 

Well gee, then the bars that I have been frequenting here in Lexington would have been going out of business long ago. Too bad the data I cited earlier pretty much refutes anything that you said relating to that.

 

There's a post just before mine that suggests that bar profits are way down.  Going out of business?  No.

 

E: I believe our business is off, some.  We've kept our regulars, but they have to go outside which is causing a whole new set of problems.  Come wintertime it will be worse.  Ostensibly this is to "protect" the employees.  Never mind that for the most part, they smoke too.

 

"A week ago I went to Red River Gorge and we stopped at this McDonalds along the way, in Kentucky. Some disgusting looking obnoxious b!tch lit a cigarette inside McDonalds... and she was a crewmember... on her shift... and she did it in front of kids that were sitting down..."

 

Welcome to Kentucky. Unfortunately, there are many rednecks and idiots down there who could give less a flying fuck about their children. I went to a MCD's (when I still ate fast food) near Red River last week and was blown away when I saw a mother and father SMOKE in front of their kid, and BLOW the smoke in their kid's faces. The kid was no more than 5 years old, and was hacking and wheezing. I popped by the table and told them how much I was disgusted by their awful habit, and how much they were damaging their child's lungs. (Which is also well cited and sourced, E Rocc.) The father said, "I'll quit smoking over my child's dead body."

 

Looks like he may get his chance sooner than later.

 

Actually, what really amazes me is you took it upon yourself to butt into someone else's business in such a manner.  Though I would agree that blowing it right at the kid is irresponsible.  I wouldn't see it as my place to say something.

 

The point (at least mine) all along has been that normally encountered levels of environmental tobacco smoke are not proven to be hazardous.  Indeed, before the issue became politicized OSHA and the World Health Organization both went on record as saying that they are not.  The secondary point has been that there is a big difference between wafting clouds of ETS, and the mere stray smell of a cigarette. 

 

The reason the hazard has been overstated: to provide an excuse for the law.  Most people would still oppose passing laws against things they consider "disgusting" or "unhealthy" as long as bystanders are not harmed.

>"A week ago I went to Red River Gorge and we stopped at this McDonalds along the way, in Kentucky. Some disgusting looking obnoxious b!tch lit a cigarette inside McDonalds... and she was a crewmember... on her shift... and she did it in front of kids that were sitting down..."

 

 

Everyone who works at a restaurant smokes.  I was a bus boy at Frisch's Big Boy in high school, I was practically the only person who didn't smoke.  The break room was solid smoke.  And it being Frisch's about half of the women were pregnant.

 

And let me add that while seating people, it was pretty rare for people who chose to be in non-smoking to complain about the smoke coming over the non-existent wall separating the smoking and non-smoking sections.  Again, it's all in the head of people who claim to be irritated by cigarette smoke.

 

Again, it's all in the head of people who claim to be irritated by cigarette smoke.

 

Huh?

You seem to be an expert on environmental contaminants, erocc, so for the sake of this discussion I'll accept your suppostion that cigarette smoke is as harmless as fresh cut daisies. I have strong experiential evidence to the contrary, but I'd like to move past the science and get to the heart of the issue. Ready?

 

Cigarette smoke is irritating as f•ck.

 

Not the stray smell of a cigarette kind, but the kind that makes you need to take a shower when you come home from the bar, and then take another shower in the morning to take care of the secondhand smoke you sweated out at night.

 

And with the unjust passage of the cruel and unusual smoking ban this tyranny of crybabies has shreaded the constitution and ushered in a sinister new age of the nanny state.

 

But of all the environmental regulations we should be very very angry about, this smoking ban is by far the least deserving of your righteous indignation.

 

But hey, that's the title of the thread. Someone please start a new one about the suppression of compensation for victims of asbestos exposure and the gutting of programs designed to remediate lead and mercury contamination in poverty-impacted urban centers.

Again, it's all in the head of people who claim to be irritated by cigarette smoke.

 

Huh?

 

Of course supporters of the smoking ban are only pretending to be irritated by cigarette smoke. If their experiences and desires were genuine, we'd have to feel sympathy for them.

>Huh?

 

Somebody was telling me about some experiment where they gave a control group real beer and the test group O'Doul's or whatever in a simulated keg party environment and found that the people drinking the non-alcoholic beer started acting drunk.  Also, if you ask people a question randomly on the street, you will get much more random answers than if you tell people previous answers ahead of time.  Youtube is a great example of that, how obscure clips once they get a certain amount of momentum explode while others wallow in obscurity for months.   

 

And I just remembered that in 6th grade I went as a cigarette for Halloween.  I just rolled up a piece of white poster board into a tube and cut a hole for my head.  I fashioned a filter out of a brown grocery bag.  I tried to get the rest of my friends to do it too so we'd be a whole pack of cigarettes but I think only one guy showed up and I can't even remember what he went out as. 

 

>Huh?

 

Somebody was telling me about some experiment where they gave a control group real beer and the test group O'Doul's or whatever in a simulated keg party environment and found that the people drinking the non-alcoholic beer started acting drunk.  Also, if you ask people a question randomly on the street, you will get much more random answers than if you tell people previous answers ahead of time.  Youtube is a great example of that, how obscure clips once they get a certain amount of momentum explode while others wallow in obscurity for months.   

 

And I just remembered that in 6th grade I went as a cigarette for Halloween.  I just rolled up a piece of white poster board into a tube and cut a hole for my head.  I fashioned a filter out of a brown grocery bag.  I tried to get the rest of my friends to do it too so we'd be a whole pack of cigarettes but I think only one guy showed up and I can't even remember what he went out as.  

 

I can now see that I've entered into a conversation where logic and fact are not welcome. Goodbye Ohio Smoking Ban thread.

>Huh?

 

Somebody was telling me about some experiment where they gave a control group real beer and the test group O'Doul's or whatever in a simulated keg party environment and found that the people drinking the non-alcoholic beer started acting drunk.  Also, if you ask people a question randomly on the street, you will get much more random answers than if you tell people previous answers ahead of time.  Youtube is a great example of that, how obscure clips once they get a certain amount of momentum explode while others wallow in obscurity for months.   

 

And I just remembered that in 6th grade I went as a cigarette for Halloween.  I just rolled up a piece of white poster board into a tube and cut a hole for my head.  I fashioned a filter out of a brown grocery bag.  I tried to get the rest of my friends to do it too so we'd be a whole pack of cigarettes but I think only one guy showed up and I can't even remember what he went out as. 

 

I can now see that I've entered into a conversation where logic and fact are not welcome. Goodbye Ohio Smoking Ban thread.

 

I don't know: I rather enjoyed the Halloween anecdote. Good show, j.

I don't know what it is about cigarette smoke specifically, but it always irritates me to. I go to the hookah bar occasionally but that smoke doesn't irritate me as much; maybe because its flavored or because its pure tobacco and the water filters out the tar and such. In small bars, my eyes will start itching and watering if theres a lot of smoke and its definitely not just all in my head.

>Huh?

 

Somebody was telling me about some experiment where they gave a control group real beer and the test group O'Doul's or whatever in a simulated keg party environment and found that the people drinking the non-alcoholic beer started acting drunk. 

 

That's called the placebo effect.  It's pretty well known in pharmaceutical research, and indeed must be accounted for any testing to be considered relevant.  There's also a very small amount of alcohol (0.5% or so) in O'Doul's, and I suppose its possible that the brain, expecting alcohol, magnified its effect.

 

I would say that the hype about "second hand smoke" has caused people to find it to be more irritating, and indeed I find it to be irritating myself above certain levels. 

 

However, do we normally pass laws against things that are "irritating"?  No.  If we did, perhaps we should have votes banning loud drunks, country music, cologne that must be named "Eau de Pepperspray", guys that hit on every woman in the place, etc.  Setting "irritating" or even "disgusting" as the standard for legal prohibition opens the door to the CCV types in a big way.

 

The initial excuse for this law was exposure of employees to ETS. In normal cases of occupational exposure, government regulation normally kicks in with concentrations scientifically determined to be toxic, and concentration is always referenced in the regulation.  For example, asbestos and mercury both have PELs.

 

As I've said, the right way to approach this would have been establishing a scientifically supportable PEL for ETS, and perhaps requiring businesses to post signs on their doors stating that smoking is permitted in this establishment.

 

The PEL process was bypassed here in favor of a generic "ban".  Politics was substituted for science and the result was an abuse of the property rights of business owners.

 

Everyone who works at a restaurant smokes.  I was a bus boy at Frisch's Big Boy in high school, I was practically the only person who didn't smoke.  The break room was solid smoke.  And it being Frisch's about half of the women were pregnant.

 

And let me add that while seating people, it was pretty rare for people who chose to be in non-smoking to complain about the smoke coming over the non-existent wall separating the smoking and non-smoking sections.  Again, it's all in the head of people who claim to be irritated by cigarette smoke.

 

That's hardly truth. If only 30% of Americans smoke... gee, they seem to congregate at the local fast food joint then.

 

Of course supporters of the smoking ban are only pretending to be irritated by cigarette smoke. If their experiences and desires were genuine, we'd have to feel sympathy for them.

 

Right, so the wheezing and panting that I feel after coming out of a smoke-filled restaurant or bowling alley is just baloney? I believe you owe many, including those with allergies (people with allergies may be more sensitive to cigarette smoke than other people, and research studies indicate that smoking may aggravate allergies -- Alan Greene MD FAAP), a huge apology for your overgeneralization and insult there.

jmecklenborg, E Rocc, kingfish out of water: Have you cited any sources for your allegations that smoking does not harm others, that second hand smoke does not affect others, that people with allergies are not affected by smoke, and so on? I believe that David, myself, and others have well more than gone the extra mile to cite factual evidence by reliable sources -- including my three reply pileon earlier that disproved most of your allegations.

 

But I can see how you can refute it. Some simply have no faith in factual evidence, despite all the sourcing by reliable sources. You can join the West Virginian woman who believes that 70% of Americans smoke it up, and how the government "falsifies" statistics for their propaganda.

 

Good to see logic and fact are welcome in this thread. Now please fess up and produce some reliable sources.

Uh, seicer, I've been ADVOCATING for the ban all along. The quote you've highlighted employs a little thing I like to call "irony."

 

Now if you excuse me, I have a carload of nuns and orphans to kill.

 

Yes: that was irony, too.

Then accept my apologies. There has been so much mismash in this thread it is hard to keep track.

Right, so the wheezing and panting that I feel after coming out of a smoke-filled restaurant or bowling alley is just baloney? I believe you owe many, including those with allergies (people with allergies may be more sensitive to cigarette smoke than other people, and research studies indicate that smoking may aggravate allergies -- Alan Greene MD FAAP), a huge apology for your overgeneralization and insult there.

 

I am alergic to dairy, can we work on making that illegal so my restaurant experiences can be more plesent?

I don't like this thread anymore. I'm taking my iron lung and going home...

I don't doubt that smoking can be irritating. Even as a smoker, I've been in situations where the smoke starts to irritate me. However, a light to moderate dose of second hand smoke isn't enought to merrit the hand waving in front of the face and dirty looks. I believe that most people find the odor of second hand smoke offensive, because of social constructs more than anything.

 

Maybe I just give more credence to the existance of social constructs, because I've been educated in sociology. But I think most people on this forum will aggree that social constructs are real and we need to be more aware of them before judgement is passed. If you look at the anti-tobacco or clean air interest their focus is almost entirely on cigarettes. This could explain why hookahs, cigars, aerosol sprays, camp fires, grills, and car exhaust don't get the same reaction from people as cigarettes do.

 

Just as it is possible for someone to be socialized to believe that cigarettes are offensive, it is also possible for someone to be socialized to believe that cigarettes are not offensive.  If you have traveled to certain other parts of the world, you can also look at the reversed situation in societies where smoking is much more common place and there isn't a very strong anti-tobacco campaign. In those societies people there, including nonsmokers, exhibit very few signs that smoking irritates them.

 

I guess my point is this, odor alone is not really a fair factor to include in the anti-smoking campaign. Another unfair, but unspoken, factor is also the mere sight or thought of someone lighting up. For instance I wonder what made those people who never go to bars anyway to vote no on Issue 4. To focus on the odor or sight of smoking could be interpretted as a sign of intolerance.

I don't like this thread anymore. I'm taking my iron lung and going home...

I find it quite amusing considering pretty much everything said on the last 10 pages were probably already said on the first 10.

or second

Hey, I know contributing this thread is probably bad for me, and is really a big waste of time, lost productivity and whatnot. And yeah, sometimes it really gets to me, especially when I have a cold, or when the rhetoric gets really thick. But you know, I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it. Gives me something to do with my hands, you know, relax a little. Could be worse. I could be playing Second Life. And the thing is, I can quit whenever I want. But at this point in my life, this thread, I just really enjoy it. Yeah. It works for me. It really does.