I regretably was at NOTL last night and was taken back when there were people smoking inside.  I felt as if I was in a third world country or something.

I avoid kentucky bars because of the smoking

I remember thinking how funny it was when restaurants would have smoking and non-smoking sections but wouldn't even have enclosed rooms for the smoking section, rendering it ineffective. Cigarette smoke lingers like no other. The worst are smoking rooms in the airport.

I avoid kentucky bars because of the smoking

 

I do too, but I still am appalled that Ohio actually banned it.  I would have supported other measures to incentivize going smoke-free or creating a smoking license (similar to a liquor license) instead.  If I owned a cigar bar in Ohio, I would be extremely PO'd.

^I agree.  I like the ban in commercial establishments, but I am totally against banning it in private clubs.  These groups have every right to smoke in private.

^I agree.  I like the ban in commercial establishments, but I am totally against banning it in private clubs.  These groups have every right to smoke in private.

 

Dan you are so right, based on the law, the people who patronize these places, can smoke in the privacy of their own homes!  Ha! :mrgreen:

I avoid kentucky bars because of the smoking

 

I do too, but I still am appalled that Ohio actually banned it.  I would have supported other measures to incentivize going smoke-free or creating a smoking license (similar to a liquor license) instead.  If I owned a cigar bar in Ohio, I would be extremely PO'd.

 

As I've observed earlier, I work in a bar, I have a background in occupational safety, and I don't smoke.  Based on all this, I outlined a completely fair way to address this:

 

1)  Establish scientifically supportable PELs for environmental tobacco smoke.  (This was the original approach the antismoking zealots took, until OSHA advised them that the limit would end up being high enough to meet with engineering controls rather than a ban).  The idea that the mere aroma of a cigarette is as hazardous as actual smoking can't be fairly described using words nicer than "scientifically illiterate".

 

2)  Require businesses which allow smoking to prominently post this fact on all entrances.

 

I'd say at least 95% of bar owners would have no problem with this.  The rejection of this approach made it clear that ETS is merely an excuse to limit behavior the zealots don't like.  In this respect, they are no different from religious extremists like the CCV.

You can convince me that the aroma of rotting meat is perfectly safe to breathe, but it will never change the fact that it ruins my appetite, fouls my clothing and makes me feel like crap.

 

Show a link between cancer and the smell of rotting meat, and you can be sure the aroma of rotting meat will be banned. The only difference here is that huffing rotten meat is neither an aggressively marketed pastime, nor is it a highly addictive behavior.

 

In Ohio, the voters have spoken out against smoking. Perhaps someday they'll realize the error of their ways and reinstate it. That's all we can hope for in a democracy.

 

Until then, Erocc, even though you know what's best for the 58% of the voters who passed the ban in 72 out of 88 counties, you'll just have to give Ohioans a little credit.

>I avoid kentucky bars because of the smoking

 

I patronize them for the second-hand atmosphere.  And when people visit from New York and other smokeless locales, we always hit them up and the Waffle House afterward.

 

A few weeks ago I went to Bogart's for the first time in years.  It just wasn't the same without the haze of smoke.  I mean, how the hell are you supposed to sneak a few hits of the fun stuff at a GWAR concert if there's no traditional smoke screen?

You can convince me that the aroma of rotting meat is perfectly safe to breathe, but it will never change the fact that it ruins my appetite, fouls my clothing and makes me feel like crap.

 

Show a link between cancer and the smell of rotting meat, and you can be sure the aroma of rotting meat will be banned. The only difference here is that huffing rotten meat is neither an aggressively marketed pastime, not is it a highly addictive behavior.

 

In Ohio, the voters have spoken out against smoking. Perhaps someday they'll realize the error of their ways and reinstate it. That's all we can hope for in a democracy.

 

Until then, Erocc, even though you know what's best for the 58% of the voters who passed the ban in 72 out of 88 counties, you'll just have to give Ohioans a little credit.

 

But the point is that as long as cigarettes are not illegal, consumers should have the CHOICE to support or not support establishments that allow smoking.  If smoke-free is so popular, it shouldn't require a law to force the issue.  There's room in the market for owners to choose to make their establishments smoke-free instead of having it rammed down their throats by the government.  This is less about smoking than it is about the gov't overstepping its bounds.

And since it's been at least a year since I posted it, I'll repeat: 50 years ago EVERYONE smoked, every interior was perpetually smokey, yet you didn't hear people complaining about the smoke.  It's been introduced into people's minds that cigarette smoke is "disgusting" and apparently almost as bad (worse?!) than smoking itself, and the rest is history. 

Eventually every state will have smoking bans. States like (but not limited to) kentucky, north carolina, virginia & tennessee will probably be slow to embrace such bans as their economies rely on tobacco more so than most other states. More people are 'looking down' upon smoking for various reasons and its becoming a negative stigma.

 

I remember when smoking was allowed in government facilities and it was common for many employee desks to have ashtrays.

Eventually every state will have smoking bans. States like (but not limited to) kentucky

 

Actually, most of the major cities sans NKY apparently have smoking bans. Lexington, Louisville, Ashland, Richmond, Owensboro, Bowling Green, Paducah... even many counties, including Fayette (Lexington), Madison, Franklin, Jefferson...

 

I love how people rail against anti-smoking "zealots" but then forget to mention that it was VOTED upon by a MAJORITY that a ban would be in the best interest of OTHER people's health.

^ I don't have a problem with people voting on it (believe me, I'd be absolutely livid if a ban were imposed and it wasn't on the ballot), my concern is that we've needlessly given yet another power to the government, while taking choice away from both bar owners and patrons.  If a particular bar is too smokey, DON'T GO TO IT.  We don't need the state to hand-hold us through that decision.  Just another example of the erosion of personal responsibility in favor of the nanny-state. 

 

By the way, does anyone know what the long term plans are for the Havanna Martini Club?  For those who don't know, they're a cigar bar in downtown Cincinnati that signed a 10 year lease in the Carew Tower the year before this went on the ballot.  This ban has effectively closed the niche that they've catered to for years.  Anybody know if they're going to be able to stick it out?  I'd hate to see them close or have to move again. 

You can convince me that the aroma of rotting meat is perfectly safe to breathe, but it will never change the fact that it ruins my appetite, fouls my clothing and makes me feel like crap.

 

Show a link between cancer and the smell of rotting meat, and you can be sure the aroma of rotting meat will be banned. The only difference here is that huffing rotten meat is neither an aggressively marketed pastime, not is it a highly addictive behavior.

 

In Ohio, the voters have spoken out against smoking. Perhaps someday they'll realize the error of their ways and reinstate it. That's all we can hope for in a democracy.

 

Until then, Erocc, even though you know what's best for the 58% of the voters who passed the ban in 72 out of 88 counties, you'll just have to give Ohioans a little credit.

 

But the point is that as long as cigarettes are not illegal, consumers should have the CHOICE to support or not support establishments that allow smoking.  If smoke-free is so popular, it shouldn't require a law to force the issue.  There's room in the market for owners to choose to make their establishments smoke-free instead of having it rammed down their throats by the government.  This is less about smoking than it is about the gov't overstepping its bounds.

 

The smoking ban passed on a voter referendum. Citizens ordered the government to ban smoking, and it did. Until the government reinstates smoking over the will of the voters, then it is overstepping no bounds. As of now, and on this issue alone perhaps, our government is perfectly in bounds.

^ I suppose you have me there.  But I stand by my sentiment that this was an unnecessary infringement on the rights of the individual, even if it was supported by the majority.  Sadly, I've never been a smoker and I prefer the bars in Ohio now.  I just philosophically oppose this type of thing. 

^Fair 'nuff. Trust me as a former smoker: you're not missing much.

 

The smoking ban passed on a voter referendum. Citizens ordered the government to ban smoking, and it did. Until the government reinstates smoking over the will of the voters, then it is overstepping no bounds. As of now, and on this issue alone perhaps, our government is perfectly in bounds.

 

So what?  I don't doubt that with proper marketing, you could get the voters to declare pi equal to 3.0. For that matter, what if the various civil rights laws of the 60s were put up to referendum, then?

 

We're not a democracy and were never intended to be.  We're a representative republic with strict limitations on the power and authority of government.  As Justice Douglas (that notorious reactionary) ruled in the Barnette case:

 

The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

 

You may not consider the right to establish rules in one's own business based on the decisions of the owner and preferences of the customers to be a fundamental right, but I would. 

^Clever marketing will never trump an individual's right to self-determination, hence the failure of the Tobacco industry's valiant efforts confuse the voters with Issue 4.

 

Douglas' criteria was well in play. Smoking infringed upon the voters' life, liberty and property. And in deciding to ban smoking, the voters employed free speech, free press and freedom of assembly.

 

As for freedom of worship, all I can say is there's no law preventing you from lighting up in church.

So what? I don't doubt that with proper marketing, you could get the voters to declare pi equal to 3.0.

 

I like this one.  Consider me slain.

You dont think this infringes on property rights? So it's ok that owner isnt even allowed to smoke on his own property that he pays taxes on? No one ever forced anyone to enter a smoke filled bar.

 

^Clever marketing will never trump an individual's right to self-determination, hence the failure of the Tobacco industry's valiant efforts confuse the voters with Issue 4.

 

Douglas' criteria was well in play. Smoking infringed upon the voters' life, liberty and property. And in deciding to ban smoking, the voters employed free speech, free press and freedom of assembly.

 

As for freedom of worship, all I can say is there's no law preventing you from lighting up in church.

I just feel that people have the right to choose what they want to subject themselves to. I personally hate cigarette smoke. But I also know that I can spend my dollars in places that are non smoking.

 

^Clever marketing will never trump an individual's right to self-determination, hence the failure of the Tobacco industry's valiant efforts confuse the voters with Issue 4.

 

Was that why there were two similar choices on the ballot?  I don't live in Ohio, so I didn't get to see this personally, but some co-workers of mine claim to have voted for the wrong one.  They're smokers and were not happy to see the ban pass.  Personally, I think if you can't figure out what you're voting for, you probably shouldn't even be voting to begin with.

You dont think this infringes on property rights? So it's ok that owner isnt even allowed to smoke on his own property that he pays taxes on? No one ever forced anyone to enter a smoke filled bar.

 

For many, many years a person who wished to consume a drink in public was forced to enter a smoke-filled bar.

 

^Clever marketing will never trump an individual's right to self-determination, hence the failure of the Tobacco industry's valiant efforts confuse the voters with Issue 4.

 

Was that why there were two similar choices on the ballot?  I don't live in Ohio, so I didn't get to see this personally, but some co-workers of mine claim to have voted for the wrong one.  They're smokers and were not happy to see the ban pass.  Personally, I think if you can't figure out what you're voting for, you probably shouldn't even be voting to begin with.

 

The Tobacco lobby's proposal was presented as a moderate measure, but was actually a constitutional amendment that would've overturned existing state bans and made it impossible to ban smoking at the state level. It was based squarely on the "if you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em" principle. In this case, the people of Ohio were unconfusable.

So glad the ban passed.  I understand the philosophical argument about "private businesses", but I have to say that it doesn't pass the sniff test.  It makes tons of sense to be allowed to smoke, but in places that allow non-smokers to move throughout the city and to frequent businesses without having to deal with a public health hazard created by smokers.

You dont think this infringes on property rights? So it's ok that owner isnt even allowed to smoke on his own property that he pays taxes on? No one ever forced anyone to enter a smoke filled bar.

 

For many, many years a person who wished to consume a drink in public was forced to enter a smoke-filled bar.

 

 

This was beginning to change though, as many bars and restaurants were starting to go smoke-free on their own.  Applebee's is the first that springs to mind, but there are many others.

 

So glad the ban passed.  I understand the philosophical argument about "private businesses", but I have to say that it doesn't pass the sniff test.  It makes tons of sense to be allowed to smoke, but in places that allow non-smokers to move throughout the city and to frequent businesses without having to deal with a public health hazard created by smokers.

 

But you already had the choice to not frequent businesses where you would encounter smoke.  "Businesses" pretty much only means bars, and many of them were already smoke-free or had large patios where smoke wasn't a big issue.  I can't even remember the last time I saw someone smoking inside any building that wasn't a bar.

 

I honestly wouldn't have too much of a problem with this if businesses were able to file for a variance or a special permit if they really wanted/needed to cater to a crowd that smokes.  These could be handed out on a case by case basis or treated like a liquor license.  There are a few Middle Eastern restaurants in NKY that have hookahs, which are a little weird looking, but they add to the exotic nature of the establishment.  As I've already mentioned, upscale cigar bars are another example of a legitimate business that will be hard hit by this.  A ban of this nature is just overkill, that's all.  Hopefully, they'll modify it in the future to make it less broad.

That was my point about private clubs.  How does this bother anyone?  There is a little neighborhood vets club in Detroit-Shoreway on Herman Ave, a block from Stone Mad.  There are only a few of them left, and the club is only open on Wed. and Sat. morning.

 

Someone please give me a logical reason why these men can't smoke in their club?

 

If any of you are in the neighborhood, it is a fascinating place.  Every one of the "boys" who went to fight in WWII has a picture on the wall in his service uniform.  Each of those no longer with us, has a little cross on their photo. 

^ Huh.  I thought you still could smoke in truly private clubs.  But then, I'm hardly an expert on these matters.  If it's private property, those guys should be able to do what ever they want, IMO.

Nope, it pretty much a blanket law. The VFW just lost a fight to lift it from their clubs. It's pretty ridiculous. Our service members who put their lives on the line at 18 cant drink till their 21 and then come home and arent allowed to smoke in their own club.

And their non-smoking brethren can now truly enjoy their company. Sounds like a happy ending to me.

Nope, it pretty much a blanket law. The VFW just lost a fight to lift it from their clubs. It's pretty ridiculous. Our service members who put their lives on the line at 18 cant drink till their 21 and then come home and aren't allowed to smoke in their own club.

right now I would rather the "activists" focus on adequete after care and other benefits for veterans rather than advocating for them be able to smoke their lungs out at the VFW. I love focusing on the little picture, it is so blissfully districting

Nope, it pretty much a blanket law. The VFW just lost a fight to lift it from their clubs. It's pretty ridiculous. Our service members who put their lives on the line at 18 cant drink till their 21 and then come home and aren't allowed to smoke in their own club.

right now I would rather the "activists" focus on adequete after care and other benefits for veterans rather than advocating for them be able to smoke their lungs out at the VFW. I love focusing on the little picture, it is so blissfully districting

 

there is a thing called free will. this isnt a communist nation yet.

right now I would rather the "activists" focus on adequete after care and other benefits for veterans rather than advocating for them be able to smoke their lungs out at the VFW. I love focusing on the little picture, it is so blissfully districting

 

And I'm talking about personal choice for 85-90 year old men who are told they don't have the capacity to decide for themselves if they should smoke or not.

 

right now I would rather the "activists" focus on adequete after care and other benefits for veterans rather than advocating for them be able to smoke their lungs out at the VFW. I love focusing on the little picture, it is so blissfully districting

 

And I'm talking about personal choice for 85-90 year old men who are told they don't have the capacity to decide for themselves if they should smoke or not.......

 

 

....indoors, at other's expense

^ You are missing the point.  There are only a few of them, they are all in agreement.  The people who work there are volunteers, and members of the club. 

right now I would rather the "activists" focus on adequete after care and other benefits for veterans rather than advocating for them be able to smoke their lungs out at the VFW. I love focusing on the little picture, it is so blissfully districting

 

And I'm talking about personal choice for 85-90 year old men who are told they don't have the capacity to decide for themselves if they should smoke or not.

 

 

I'd figure by age 90 not being able to light up is a fairly low grade annoyance.

^ You are missing the point.  There are only a few of them, they are all in agreement.  The people who work there are volunteers, and members of the club. 

 

So if I walk into a VFW right now, this very second, and I survey everyone, all 100% will say I love cigarettes, light 'em up?

So if I walk into a VFW right now, this very second, and I survey everyone, all 100% will say I love cigarettes, light 'em up?

 

I never said it was a VFW Club.  It is a small club, called the Neighborhood Vets Club.  Its really no more than Tony's back room in the Bada Bing. 

 

Its not some big club with a large group of members ranging over several generations.

 

But....  if you walked into a VFW and surveyed everyone and 100% said they didn't care if people smoked, then what business is it of the government to prevent it?

 

 

^Actually, doesn't this ban require a complaint to have it enforced?  So if there are only a few of them, and they're all cool with it, then they could all smoke anyway, right?  I mean, I'm still opposed to the ban, but I think these guys could get around it.

And I'm talking about personal choice for 85-90 year old men who are told they don't have the capacity to decide for themselves if they should smoke or not.

 

Sure they could. They voted, right? For or against the smoking ban?

 

Everyone had a voice. If you didn't vote or voice your statement for or against, then those "85-90 year old men" have no standing.

Allow us to revisit my post from exactly a year ago:

 

 

 

Re: Ohio smoking ban

« Reply #837 on: June 19, 2007, 05:48:40 PM » Quote Modify 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>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?  

 

 

 

Verdict:

The people chose Barabbas. 

 

I think we're revisiting a lot from one year ago.

^Actually, doesn't this ban require a complaint to have it enforced?  So if there are only a few of them, and they're all cool with it, then they could all smoke anyway, right?  I mean, I'm still opposed to the ban, but I think these guys could get around it.

One person could just decide they are POed at the club and call the snitch line.

^I bet it'll be Stumpy. He's still sore at Dutch for poking that farm girl in Lisieux.

^ I find it hard to believe this will pass..

 

Due to a dramatic drop in business attributed to the smoking ban, Moose Family Center will announce this morning it is closing, according to Seitz's office.

 

 

What ever happened to the old saying "a family who smokes together stays together"?

 

Sad.

^ I find it hard to believe this will pass..

 

Agreed, but perhaps it is a first step towards something a bit less oppressive than the current situation. 

 

 

"Senate Bill 346 would exempt family-owned business, outdoor patios and private clubs from the current smoking ban."

 

Aren't outdoor patios already exempt?

If I remember correctly this was a State-wide ballot measure that passed with nearly a 2-1 margin.  I'm not sure why State lawmakers are now considering an option that would go against the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

Randy, there were 2 very confusing measures on the ballot.  Most reasonable people would agree that no one anticipated the ban at private clubs and establishments.

^And you have big tobacco/bar/bowling alley to thank for better than 50% of the confusion. Didn't quite work out as they planned it.