Frankly, I don't go out some weekends because I can't stand my house smelling like the next day, no matter how much I bag and bury the clothes. Good riddance!
I didn't make a difference in California or Australia, both of which enacted this years back. It'll be rough for the first few months as smokers pout, but they'll adjust and business will again be normal. They really have no other option.
Bar owners cried bloody murder in NYC when they enacted the ban, but business went up, not down. This has been the experience of numerous other cities as well, as noted in the previous comment.
I can tell you up here in Massachusetts it seems not to have made one lick of difference in business.
WF
Outdoor patios will become very popular for the near future. We have many more smokers in Cincinnati than in NYC. Longterm? I hope N.KY institutes a similar law soon.
Hurray! Time to go clubbing again (w/o smelling like ass afterwards)!
Realistically, smoking is bad for people and if making it more difficult to smoke makes some quit, that is a good thing.
The science is there on ill effects on health.
If you are worried about your health, then why are you in a bar in the first place.
At least you can still smoke like a free person in KY bars.
Just to be fair, Northern Kentucy is the last major "urban" area in KY to not have a smoking ban. Louisville and Lexington both have bans in effect. I'd be willing to bet KY has a statewide ban in the next 2-3 years... pretty much every state will have one soon, look at these victory margins.
As a bar owner, I'm thrilled that the ban passed. It will protect the health of my employees and customers, and I think more people will start coming out because they won't ruin their clothes or smell like smoke the next day. And we'll make sure we have nice outdoor smoking area, too.
I work for Guinness-Diageo Imports, one of the largest beer/wine/spirits importers in the industry, covering several states and I can tell you that in every area that enacts a smoking ban bar business drops for a few months but in EVERY case has bounced back within 3-4 months. In about 70% of the markets with smoking bans business had actually increased within a year of the smoking ban's enactment.
If a bar owner is so concerned about the health of their employees and customers why not just make your bar non-smoking? Why does it take a law to get a bar to be non-smoking?
Oh, I know...because a non-smoking bar would fail. So now we have to ignore what the free market dictates and make a law to "level the playing field". What rubbish.
We don't have an unrestrained free market in this country, sorry. We have a regulated free market.
I could move a ton of liquor at 3am, but government regulations make me stop at 2, because of a perceived negative impact on society. That's a regulation of free market economics.
If we let market demand decide everything, cocaine would be sold at grocery stores and we wouldn't have health inspections.
And yes, leveling the playing field was the only way this could happen. This is not a decision that can be made effectively by individual businesses. It was a public health decision made by a ballot vote of the people.
Nick you could have just banned smoking in your place if you were so-o-o-o-o concerned about your employees health. Instead you took the chicken shit way out.
I think there is some intellectual dishonesty in the argument that businesses couldn't have effectively implemented a no smoking policy. If a pub allows smoking and people want to go to a pub that doesn't then there is a market niche for a non-smoking pub. Period.
I have no big beef with the law but let's be honest about what it is.
If cigarettes are so bad for the populace then I think if we look real hard we may find the suppliers and go about it that way.
It's a bit like outlawing crack smoking but not the manufacturing and distribution of crack.
We allow drinking, but not everywhere. Second hand smoke hurts other people.
You can do what ever you want to yourself, but don't trample on my right to breathe smoke free air. I have a right to go to a bar and not have to breathe your unhealthy smoke.
And let's not forget, this is what the greater majority of people wanted not just in Ohio, but also in Hamilton, Butler, Clermont, and Warren counties. This was not government shoving the ban down our throat, this was an amendment where the people shove the ban down government's throat (for not doing it on their own).
"I have a right to go to a bar..."
Let's see that one again, Chuck:
"I have a right to go to a bar..."
How about the slo-mo?
"I have a right to go to a bar..."
Are you SERIOUS? You honestly believe that you have an inalienable human RIGHT to go to a BAR?
When did we start making up imaginary rights? Like the right to never encounter anything that offends us? This is absurd. If you don't like how you smell when you go to a bar, and it bothers you that much, DON'T GO TO A BAR.
I don't like the traffic near the stadium after a game...should we outlaw people driving to sports events?
I'm so glad the state is so concerned about our health, though. We can surely look forward to lower-emission standards for vehicles and the closing of all McDonalds restuarants.
Can't we?
We should also think about the people who make their living working in restaurants and bars. They are forced to breath 2nd hand smoke. There's no escaping it. I used to bartend and my clothes, car and apartment reeked of smoke constantly. If you want to kill yourself with that cancer stick be my guest, but don't expect me to have to share your smoke with you.
Now let's wait for the nutcases to shoot back 'well then they should work somewhere else'….
Anonymous coward said: "Are you SERIOUS? You honestly believe that you have an inalienable human RIGHT to go to a BAR?"
So I guess that this einstein thinks that he has a RIGHT to smoke?
"I could move a ton of liquor at 3am, but government regulations make me stop at 2, because of a perceived negative impact on society."
Maybe over the internet. People in Cincinnati and most of the rest of Ohio are pretty much all in bed by then.
I am already having romantic visions of huddled smokers standing outside in the cold, and butt littered streets.
"I guess that this einstein thinks that he has a RIGHT to smoke?"
Reading comprehension FTL. See: "When did we start making up imaginary rights?"
Of course I don't have a "right" to smoke. Smoking -- like driving, or eating at McDonalds, or drinking -- is a privilege. I no longer have the privilege of smoking in bars. But I no longer have the privilege because others seem to think they have rights they do not have.
"Now let's wait for the nutcases to shoot back 'well then they should work somewhere else'…."
It seems that the stated reason for the ban, concerns about the health of servers and bar staff have given way to 'Now my clothes don't have to smell gross'. That's a sense of entitlement that I find repellent.
I mean, if people were really concerned about the health of servers and bar staff, you might raising the minimum wage for these workers, and providing them with health care.
So what we're really talking about is allowing people to annoy us with their disgusting, soured perfume and cologne.
Swell. The adults ruin all the fun yet again.
Cologne doesn't cause lung cancer. Loser.
"Cologne doesn't cause lung cancer"
Neither does secondhand smoke, according to every reputable study ever done on the topic. Look it up, chief.
"I mean, if people were really concerned about the health of servers and bar staff, you might raising the minimum wage for these workers, and providing them with health care."
Dude. We passed minimum wage boosts in Ohio and nationally we went big for the party stronger on national health care. Two out of three isn't bad for now.
Brooks:
Obviously, you take this topic very seriously. I applaud that commitment.
What I would not applaud, however, are ad hominem attacks. Afterall, you implied that anybody that disagreed with you was a nutcase, and I didn't even take the tack you were predicting, since yer so clever. Maybe that's what got you so salty? You don't know me, bud, so why not keep the playground at the playground.
Fucking toss-pot.
Anonymous loser said:"Neither does secondhand smoke, according to every reputable study ever done on the topic."
Every study ever performed by Phillip Morris, American Tobacco Company, Brown and Williamson, Liggett Group and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
You are an idiot, Chief.
The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see. Submitted by the five major American cigarette companies to the Dept. of Health and Human Services in April of 1994, this list of ingredients had long been kept a secret:
Acetanisole Acetic Acid Acetoin Acetophenone 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
Acetylpyrazine 2-Acetylpyridine 3-Acetylpyridine 2-Acetylthiazole Aconitic Acid dl-Alanine Alfalfa Extract Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil Allyl Hexanoate Allyl Ionone
Almond Bitter Oil Ambergris Tincture
Ammonia Ammonium Bicarbonate Ammonium Hydroxide Ammonium Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Butyrate Amyl Formate Amyl Octanoate alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
Amyris Oil trans-Anethole Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil
Anise Anise Star, Extract and Oils
Anisyl Acetate Anisyl Alcohol Anisyl Formate Anisyl Phenylacetate Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins
Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate
1-Arginine Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil Ascorbic Acid 1-Asparagine Monohydrate 1-Aspartic Acid
Balsam Peru and Oil Basil Oil Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil Beeswax White
Beet Juice Concentrate Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal Benzoic Acid, Benzoin Benzoin Resin nzophenone
Benzyl Alcohol Benzyl Benzoate Benzyl Butyrate Benzyl Cinnamate Benzyl ropionate Benzyl Salicylate Bergamot Oil Bisabolene Black Currant Buds absolute Borneol Bornyl Acetate Buchu Leaf Oil 1,3-Butanediol 2,3-Butanedione 1-Butanol 2-Butanone
4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-
One Butter, Butter esters, and Butter Oil Butyl Acetate
Butyl Butyrate Butyl Butyryl Lactate
Butyl IsovalerateButyl Phenylacetate
Butyl Undecylenate 3-Butylidenephthalide Butyric Acid] Cadinene Caffeine Calcium Carbonate
Camphene Cananga Oil Capsicum leoresin Caramel Color Caraway Oil
Carbon Dioxide Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder
Carob Bean and Extract beta-Carotene
Carrot Oil Carvacrol 4-Carvomenthenol
1-Carvone beta-Caryophyllene beta-Caryophyllene Oxide Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract Cassia Bark Oil Cassie Absolute and Oil Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute
Cedar Leaf Oil Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana Cedrol Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin
Cellulose Fiber Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract Chicory Extract Chocolate
Cinnamaldehyde Cinnamic Acid Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract Cinnamyl Acetate Cinnamyl Alcohol
Cinnamyl Cinnamate Cinnamyl sovalerate
Cinnamyl Propionate Citral Citric Acid
Citronella Oil dl-Citronellol Citronellyl Butyrate citronellyl Isobutyrate Civet Absolute Clary Oil
Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder
Copaiba Oil Coriander Extract and Oil
Corn Oil Corn Silk Costus Root Oil
Cubeb Oil Cuminaldehyde para-Cymene
1-Cysteine
Chemicals in Cigarette moke:
Hydrogen Cyanide
Carbon Monoxide
Ammonia
Hydrogen Cyanide
Sounds lovely, doesn't it? Puff away your life, chief.
The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see. Submitted by the five major American cigarette companies to the Dept. of Health and Human Services in April of 1994, this list of ingredients had long been kept a secret:
Acetanisole Acetic Acid Acetoin Acetophenone 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
Acetylpyrazine 2-Acetylpyridine 3-Acetylpyridine 2-Acetylthiazole Aconitic Acid dl-Alanine Alfalfa Extract Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil Allyl Hexanoate Allyl Ionone
Almond Bitter Oil Ambergris Tincture
Ammonia Ammonium Bicarbonate Ammonium Hydroxide Ammonium Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Butyrate Amyl Formate Amyl Octanoate alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde
Amyris Oil trans-Anethole Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil
Anise Anise Star, Extract and Oils
Anisyl Acetate Anisyl Alcohol Anisyl Formate Anisyl Phenylacetate Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins
Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate
1-Arginine Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil Ascorbic Acid 1-Asparagine Monohydrate 1-Aspartic Acid
Balsam Peru and Oil Basil Oil Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil Beeswax White
Beet Juice Concentrate Benzaldehyde
Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal Benzoic Acid, Benzoin Benzoin Resin nzophenone
Benzyl Alcohol Benzyl Benzoate Benzyl Butyrate Benzyl Cinnamate Benzyl ropionate Benzyl Salicylate Bergamot Oil Bisabolene Black Currant Buds absolute Borneol Bornyl Acetate Buchu Leaf Oil 1,3-Butanediol 2,3-Butanedione 1-Butanol 2-Butanone
4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1- One Butter, Butter esters, and Butter Oil Butyl Acetate
Butyl Butyrate Butyl Butyryl Lactate
Butyl IsovalerateButyl Phenylacetate
Butyl Undecylenate 3-Butylidenephthalide Butyric Acid] Cadinene Caffeine Calcium Carbonate
Camphene Cananga Oil Capsicum leoresin Caramel Color Caraway Oil
Carbon Dioxide Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder
Carob Bean and Extract beta-Carotene
Carrot Oil Carvacrol 4-Carvomenthenol
1-Carvone beta-Caryophyllene beta-Caryophyllene Oxide Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract Cassia Bark Oil Cassie Absolute and Oil Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute
Cedar Leaf Oil Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana Cedrol Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin
Cellulose Fiber Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract Chicory Extract Chocolate
Cinnamaldehyde Cinnamic Acid Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract Cinnamyl Acetate Cinnamyl Alcohol
Cinnamyl Cinnamate Cinnamyl sovalerate
Cinnamyl Propionate Citral Citric Acid
Citronella Oil dl-Citronellol Citronellyl Butyrate citronellyl Isobutyrate Civet Absolute Clary Oil
Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder
Copaiba Oil Coriander Extract and Oil
Corn Oil Corn Silk Costus Root Oil
Cubeb Oil Cuminaldehyde para-Cymene
1-Cysteine
Are you suggesting these items are bad? These items are in our food & drinks. You eat & drink these every day.
I look forward to voting down other people's freedoms now.
You can't drink in the park.
I think that's kind of silly. That me and some friends might want to hang out at Burnet Woods today, and bring some beers with us. We're responsible adults over the age of 21, we're not driving, etc. And that's DRINKING, which doesn't have any real health impact on people around us, unlike second hand smoke. But where we can drink is regulated in the interest of public health and safety.
Get used to the fact that alcohol and nicotine products are HEAVILY regulated by communities at all levels. And smoking will get it especially bad because it direct,ly impacts people not participating.
The voters made a public health decision. No city or state that has enacted one has seen a long-term drop in bar or restaurant business (in fact, many have seen an increase). Its over. Let go. That margin says there will be no rematch. Go to Kentucky to smoke for the next year or so tops, until they pass theirs. Recognize that you're in a minority, most people want to keep your smoke and its effects away from there, and deal. Yeah, the government tells you what to do all the time, whether its drinking, smoking, driving, travelling. You do not live in an unregulated state where you can do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it. Sorry.
Those cigarette companies are amazing in their ability to evade identification and capture by our government.
I'll come back to my original point: battling smokers is easier than battling large election year contributors but if we as a society feel the negatives of smoking outweigh the positives to the degree some claim then it seems a bit ridiculous to let the manufacturers and distributors of the hook when many bar owners and restuarants can easily choose to have a non-smoking establishment.
I think Canada got this one right: sin tax the hell out of cigarettes and let establishments choose their own way of conducting business. That way it hurts the tobacco companies because it's too expensive for most teens to start in the first place and sales go down as well as profit margins.
As it is it is just another budget sucking beauracracy we'll need to start up for enforcement. And, until N.KY comes up with their own law it will be more entertainment dollars not being spent in Cincinnati.
Otherwise outlaw the manufacture and distribution if it's so important.
Since I wrote the above before I saw the Nick Spencer post above it I just want to say that eminent domain is very strong but at this point there is still a big difference between a private establishment and a public park.
The point is that these are heavily regulated industries, but to hear some people talk, you'd think otherwise.
And if we're talking about private buildings, let's try this one. Say I host a party at my house. A lot of people are coming, and instead of drinking all my beer for free, I'd like to charge them a $1 per to recoup my costs. That's illegal. Why? Because the sale and consumption of alcohol is HEAVILY regulated in the interest of public safety and health.
My point is that many smokers are acting as those this is the first time the free market has been curbed in regards to these products. But its still pretty hard to buy Liquor on Sundays, and where you can drink it is regulated like crazy. You don't have unlimited and unrestrained access to these products, its a fact of life.
That's some really moronic reasoning, Nick.
Anyway, the reasoning for most of these liquor laws has more to do with morality & religion than health.
Certainly, morality/religion plays a role in these things, but they're also valid public health/public safety issues. There's nothing moronic about that fact, despite crankiness exhibited regularly by smokers when these issues are discussed.
These are heavily regulated industries, in terms of sale and consumption. The market does NOT run free and unrestrained in this country.
I don't want to get into a picky tit for tat but I do want to point out that having regulations on one thing do not automatically justify regulations on other things. Turning a residence into a business is a whole other issue than just whether you are selling alcohol or not. And if it were there are specific licenses required for selling alcohol while there are not for selling cigarettes.
How about regulating the decibel level in loud night clubs ?
Certainly, that should be a health issue.
Just because there is a precedent in regulation doesn't mean that the regulation of things should be celebrated with an unending and increasingly non-sensical escalation of regulation.
"It seems that the stated reason for the ban, concerns about the health of servers and bar staff have given way to 'Now my clothes don't have to smell gross'. That's a sense of entitlement that I find repellent." - The Wizard.
Nice spin, Wizard. The fact is, smoking is bad for my health. If throwing human feces on me in public were legal, it would threaten my health and make me smell. If it then became illegal to throw human feces on me, I would not only be happy that my health was protected, but I'd also find simple pleasure in the fact that I no longer am saturated in and smell of human feces. In the same way, I am happy I am no longer saturated in and smell of smoke. I hope you can understand that.
I've never heard of anyone leaving a bar and being pulled over for driving under the influence of cigarettes.
Second hand smoke causes 3,400 lung cancer deaths per year according to the American Lung Association.
Meanwhile, alcohol related car crashes killed more than 16,000 Americans in 2004 according to Alcohol Alert.
Which product sold and consumed at Ohio bars and restaurants is more dangerous than the other in regards to bystanders not using said product?
My argument may be just as shallow as all the others I've read on here, especially the bizarre hypotheticals from the Nick Spencer guy, but my emotional reaction is simply that bars had a choice to allow smoking or not and now they don't because most people don't like smoking. Now the minority doesn't even get the option?
But they could've gone somewhere else - I don't see anything wrong with that argument, simple as it may be.
I smoke, and I'm sorry most of you don't like it - but why can't a business allow smoking if it wants? You know the "danger" going in, so take your self-righteous lungs and go somewhere else.
Michael - Your point is that smokers should be able to go to any bar (after all, they don't have to smoke!). However, people who suffer from asthma or who want to avoid smoke for other health reasons will have to go only to the handful of non-smoking establishments.
Under a smoking ban, smokers may feel left out, but like I pointed out above, they don't have to smoke. They are still free to go to any bar/restaurant in the state, and people who are concerned about their respiratory health aren't prevented from having a social life.
Johnny,
I'm not sure I follow your logic for the use of private property. I have conductive hearing loss. My doctor recommends I avoid any and all loud noises. I want to go to a Bengals game or night club or rock concert (I already figured out the cutting the grass part). Should the laws be changed to have all private venues be quieter so I can go to their events without further damaging my ears? Or should the laws be changed only if a simple majority of people have conductive hearing loss?
Carsick,
Your hearing loss doesn't adversely affect anyone other than you. Smoke does. I actually know whereof I speak. My father died with one lung. On the way to the hospital, he was smoking a cigarette in the back seat of the car. I used to smoke. I quit. I'm glad I quit. I like music and comraderie. I don't like smoke. I am thrilled that I will be able to endulge without coming home smelling like an ashtray.
I like to masturbate. Why shouldn't I be allowed to masturbate anywhere that I damn well want to? If I want to masturbate in a bar or restaurant it's none of your business. If you don't like it then you should take your self-righteous eyes elsewhere.
That's right Smoking Kills - if you choose to go to a bar that allows public masturbation and that policy is clearly stated - then jerk off, young man. Those of us who frown upon it can GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, and then go home to masturbate because no one goes home with us because we smell like smoke.
I'm glad you follow and agree with my logic.
Thanks to all the busybodies and do-gooders who have now made our state less free. You may spout off statistics about second-hand smoke and such but time and time again it comes down to one thing: You don't like cigarettes, and YAY now you don't have to smell like smoke. Well good for you, you got your way.
Please reread my posts. I'm not arguing for smoking or against it. I'm arguing that the focus is on the wrong spot.
The last time I was at the Southgate House I saw a band without a haze of smoke around them. That was great but it was also the establishment's decision.
I find it ridiculous that smoking is being made illegal but the manufacturers and distributors are left off the hook. If it's important to our society then make it illegal otherwise let establishment owners do as they choose. The market has room for all niches and personal decisions in this case. No longer though.
and PS High decibel levels affect everyone whether your ears are healthier than mine or not. You may CHOOSE to expose your ears to dangerous levels or not. Of the roughly 40 million Americans suffering from hearing loss, 10 million can be attributed to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL).
If we are concerned about an employee's involuntary inhalation of airborne irritants why don't we start by placing restrictions on the biggest offending occupations. Not waiter, waitress or bartender. According to the Occupational Saftey & Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor some of the primary occupations associated with occupational asthma, and hence exposure to airborne contaminants, are "health care; animal handling; work with grains; bakeries; work with red cedar; laboratory work; snow crab and egg processing; manufacture of detergents containing biological enzymes; work with paints, plastics, and adhesives; work with metal salts; jewelry making; nickel plating; the tanning industry; and soldering."
Because that isn't what this is ultimately about. Compassion for waiters and bartenders is just a red herring. This is about people not liking cigarettes, and passing a law to get their way.
Having moved here from MA and going through that smoking ban its no suprise to see that the biggest comments are "I am thrilled I no longer get to smell like smoke when I come home". It sure is clear that people voted for public health. Gimme a break, people voted for their own damn self interest like every other time they vote.
AND for all the comments about how this "helps bars and clubs in the long run" take a real good long and hard look at the statistics from the states that have recently enacted bans like MA. Yeah, sure, overall there was about a 5% increase in revenues after the first year of the ban... but thats across THE WHOLE INDUSTRY in the state. It completely neglects the number of small local establishments it put out of business entirely. I, for one, happen to enjoy a beer at local "dive" bars. Three of my favorite small town locals died off as a result of the ban in MA, but because big name places made gobs more money, in the end it was "OK". How many of those do you think will have gone out of business in OH by this time next year? Yeah, the pub at rookwood and nichelson's aren't going to lose out by virtue of their popularity, size, and clientele. But the little locals?
Anyhow, get off your self righteous high horse with this being about the health benefits for bar workers, if you even know their names, maybe you'd care to ask them what their thoughts are on the matter. Face it, you voted the way you did because you like doing less laundry. Its OK, but don't deny thats the "real" reason for your vote. Its pure hypocrisy to say that alcohol is OK because it doesn't affect other people's health. It most certainly does in many ways (dealing with the problems of alcoholism, drunk driving deaths, costs of healthcare, etc., etc.) No, the market is not "free", but the argument that your "right" to nice smelling clothes (clothed in the argument "oh those poor bar workers) trumps my "right" to go out to a bar and have a smoke is simply tyranny of the majority and frankly, if you really looked at it from another perpective you'd probably see it as such.
Anyhow, of the list of issues facing Ohio right now, this was way low on the priorities, but I am happy that issue drew voters to the polls for a win for democrats.
PS - before you start calling me a dirty smoker, I quit quite some time ago, but I still recognize how nice it is to not be a second class citizen.
It is against the law for me to walk outside naked. It is against the law for me to be naked in every bar in Cincinnati and Hamilton County during regular business hours.
Why the nudity ban not being challenged as much compared with the smoking ban? Granted, I know me being naked may kill people on the spot, which makes my nudity a threat to national security, but that aside...
I greet the negative reaction to this new law with a big, "Tough shit."
I see, so next time somehting you enjoy becomes "illegal", I'll remember to send that "Tough Shit" right back at ya Louis.
Fortunately for me, I don't enjoy anything.
Why I am reminded of the Big Lebowski... "We believe in nothing"...
The law is passed but if you don't see the inherent hypocrisy of attaching the penalties to the small business and individual instead of the large corporation then what will you do when a anti-porn or anti-jihadi internet measure shows up at the ballot box. It will essentially be an anti-net-neutrality measure but so what - we'll get porn off the net and those jihadis won't be able to set up websites.
Sites like this one will disappear when the anti-net-neutrality folks win. Not enough profit stream for TimeWarner/AOL dontcha know.
In any measure I look to see who is being made to pay the price, the establishment owner's rights in this case, and who is being let off the hook.
On the otherhand, I think HBO (all tv and cable actually) should be all G-rated all the time because I want my kid to watch HBO but he may turn to violence if he watches the violent content they show currently. Sure, you may say "Just turn the channel." But I could easily reply "Just go down the block to another bar."
This is another case where the big political donor gets off at the expense of the little guy with no voice ie. not enough dollars for his free speech to be heard.
Large restuarant and bar chains don't mind this law because they'd rather not pay for the industrial sized smoke eaters they currently need. Soon enough though those chains would have gone no-smoking anyway as they worked to keep effinciency in their system to keep prices down. The greater market in this case would have adapted to the desires of the majority of their consumers - inexpensive food in a smoke free environment. And those niche establishment owners who felt that smoking was a luxury they would like to offer their clientelle would be allowed to offer it. No longer though.
Sit at home on your couch and smoke your filthy brains out. Kill yourself, but leave me out of it. You can cry about the injustice of it all while you get lung cancer & heart disease.
It's called thinning out the herd.
Jeez...Guess you won't be coming to the Christmas Party then...
John Galt
I think you'll have to show me where I've exhibited any "filthy brains" otherwise I'm at a loss to comprehend your comment.
I'm the one who wants all tv, cable and movies to be G rated so I don't have to make any choices myself about what my child watches.
Are ya with me?
This whole thread is proof that the silent majority spoke November 7th when voting for Issue 5.
Hardly silent majority I would say. (See margin of passage) Lets just hope our favorite places, most especially the blue collar, average joe places John Galt apparently hates so much, make it through. Clearly a paragon of liberated thinking exhibited by Mr. Galt.
Its just amazing that it went to a complete ban without trying other more sensible proposals. How about tax credits or health benefit subsidies for bars that go smoke free? I fully realize this is an issue that bar and restaurants are hard pressed to move forward with sua sponte so to speak, but aren't there less draconian measures than a complete ban? Like I said, I am no longer a smoker, but why can't there be options and choice? A REAL selection of bars/restaurants that were smoke free and bars/restaurants that are smoking (yeah, I get it that there aren't that many smoke free bars or restaurants here) would make it a choice for everyone (including the folks that work there)
Chris S, you need to look up the definition of MAJORITY.
Most of these other jurisdictions weren't neighboring other ones that had yet to pass a ban, with the exception of NYC.
Given that most in Cincinnati drive, I think this could be a real drag on Cincinnati nightlife as the youth in the region seems to smoke at a much higher prevalence than the national average and will just goto NKY.
For most of Ohio I think its great, but for bordering areas get ready for the continued pain. Personally as a nonsmoker I welcome the ban: unlike other areas where the youth smoke lightly in Cincinnati they seem to be in a race for cancer.
Hmm, I've heard that Silent Majority term before. Oh yeah that's right...and I must say I'm looking forward to Ohio becoming a Christian state.
Tyranny of the majority at work. I think the ill-effects of second-hand smoke, while real, have been overstated. If it was that deadly, everybody over 40 would have cancer by now. I'm old enough to remember when almost everyone smoked almost everywhere.
I strongly favor restrictions on public smoking. But things have just gone too far. Some beaches in California ban smoking- in the open air, far from any enclosed area, where second-hand smoke isn't an issue. My place of employment forbids employees from smoking in their cars in the parking lot. So it's clear that what's really at work here is the majority trying to dictate to the minority just because they can. Fuck that!
we do have the rite to smoke this is supposed to be a free country if you dont like smelling the smoke and think you are going to live for ever put a mask on to block out all the other poluitants in the air.
Haha, I'm not used to hearing conservatives complain about tyranny by the majority. Regardless, tyranny by the majority is part of our democracy to be sure. Protection against it is found in our federal constitution.
Shaun, please cite where this right to smoke exists in any state or federal constituion, or legal precedent.
BAM, I'm the one who complained of tyranny of the majority. What on earth makes you think I'm a conservative? Kusinich was my candidate of choice in the last presidential election, I'd like to see capital gains taxed at 30%, increased windfall taxes for big oil, a prompt pullout from Iraq, and socialized medicine.
Opposing a blanket ban on all public smoking doesn't make me a conservative, or even a libertarian, and I resent your characterizing my position as evidence of conservatism.
Or is it conservativism? I can never remember. Anyway, BAM, call me a conservative again and I'll blow deadly second-hand smoke in your face.
Yeah, people that drink don't harm the other around them?!?!?! Ever known anyone to be hit and killed by one of you jack ass drunk driving dipshits?
Illegalize alcohol and cigarettes and stop bullshitting. Fucking hipocrites.
louisms--I used to agree with you, but the reason it is forbidden on beaches is smokers tend to relish the fact that the beach is one giant sand ashtray at their disposal--it has nothing to do with health affects or lack thereof.
There wouldn't have to be as many restrictions on smoking if most smokers weren't inconsiderate assholes. How often have you been behind a car that disposes of their cigarettes by just throwing the butt out the window?
the thread of the year - 75 posts & going strong!
who knew?
p.s. "the departed" is a great film (lot's of cigarettes).
I think the ban is an overkill but it's fun watching smokers get worked up. UK fans, right-wing Christians, and smokers love to think of themselves as victims.
Bob Buford, you do have a point there. Smokers have been inconsiderate, and that might have contributed to the anti-smoking backlash. But I still think an outright ban is overkill.
I need to look up the meaning of majority? Lets take a look at what I said: "Hardly silent majority I would say. (See margin of passage)"
Someone seems to be sarcasm impaired. The comment I made was the the majority was FAR from silent given the fact that the ban was overwhelmingly passed. Any plain english reading would apply the term silent to either the first word it modifies (silent) or to the whole phrase (silent majority) not to the last part of the phrase (majority).
As far as the comments on this thread going nuts, just watch, this one will likely break 100. My one comment about the ban is a) don't give me any crap about how it was for the health of the bar workers - you all know you voted for the ban for your own selfish reasons of not liking the smell of smoke and b) there are better ways to accomplish the same ends short of an outright ban.
For those who say "show me where this right is in the constitution", I wonder if you are same folks who say there is no right to privacy in the constitution? (you know, that right upon which the right to have an abortion is based, the right which makes it possible to buy contraceptives, the right which allows you to read what you want in your own home, the RIGHT which is nowhere in the constitution) Somehow I doubt you REALLY want to be making the argument that the only RIGHTS are those explicitly enumerated.
I dont have to show you any thing but it would be like you saying i dont have the right to drink cola even though it is for sale in alomost every grocery and gas station in the us. Try looking at freedome of choice their are alot of ither things poluting the air and causing cancer. people dont need the goverment to protect them on every little thing that can hurt them they need to learn how to protect them selves.
Shaun, I think you missed my point. My point was that not every right is enumerated in the state and federal constitutions. Just because there isn't the "right to smoke" amendment in our constitutions doesn't mean its not a right. In other words, I'm agreeing with you.
Okay...I have my own bias about this subject, but I gotta say this: Tuesday was a historic day in the history of this country, and you are still arguing about this? Seems a little petty.
Eat shit smokers-YOU LOST BIG TIME! If you don't like it move. Go to Mexico and smoke your lungs out. Smoke until that tumor gets so big you can't breath. Give the big tobacco companies your last dime. The rest of us will breath easy.
Ahh, yeah, yet another enlightened comment from 'Only rednecks smoke'. Its exactly that kind of MORONIC comment that makes me wonder why the hell I moved out here. Only rednecks make blanket statements like that. Only rednecks say "I want 25% of the poputlation to die". What's more redneck, smoking or making statements that show no capability to think in any kind of a nuanced fashion? What exactly does that add to the discussion? I mean come on. It adds nothing and merely proves my point that there was no real thinking behind this initiative, just a knee jerk reaction. The answer to our problems is not more regulation. I don't need the government acting as my parent.
This is my last comment on the issue, and its by no means the only issue I am talking about these days, in fact its quite low on the list. So, taking the cue from thewizard, I'll move on to somewhere else.
Chris S, you mischaracterized what I said about not having a right to smoke. In addition to constitutions, I included the phrase, "legal precedent," which would include concepts as the right to privacy which you mention. No one can show any legal precedent that one has a right to smoke which the majority - through democracy - cannot take away (like freedom of speech or right to privacy issues that you mention). So when people cry, "I have a right to smoke," I like to point out that they are completely wrong. Similar to the pleasure I take in pointing out that public places business owners' don't have many rights about running their business any way they choose.
*sigh*, I said the last post was going to be my last, but I can't just leave BAM's post hanging out there. As a law student I am well aware of the concept of legal precedent. If you really wish to know, my contention is that the current precedent relating to smoking as a right is incorrectly reasoned under both the due process clause and the equal protection clause. The courts in all of the cases questioning whether smoking was a fundamental right applied a particularly weak rational basis test. (weaker than even the normal rational basis test) I am one of those weird few who would like to see rational really mean RATIONAL, not just "yeah it sounds good". Additionally, I am of the belief that the rational basis test should include some analysis of whether the legislation is either under or over inclusive to accomplish its intended purpose. Again, my argument isn't that "there exists a right to smoke", but rather that "it is not inconceivable that such a right could or should be recognized". And lack of precedent doesn't keep me from arguing that past precedent is incorrect.
You could probably argue that you have a right to smoke in your home under the right to privacy, and I think everyone would agree with that. But people have very few real individual rights when it comes to the public arena.
And I didn't really want to know about your first year con law homework (how cute), I was just setting you straight that I did not type or imply all rights had to be written in text.
I'll come back to my original point. As long as cigarette manufacturers and distributors still have the 'right' to engage in their business so then small businesses should have the 'right' to accomodate their customers or not by allowing them to smoke on their premises if they so choose.
If it's bad for the populace then make it illegal to manufacture and distribute. Otherwise you're forcing small businesses to have no choice about how they want to engage in business with a legally obtainable product being used as it was manufactured to be used.
P.S., I like your double oven.
Nothing but a bunch of damn dirty drug dealing. No better than the gangs running crack networks in the inner citys. They sell the people drugs and restrict them. Everyone through out your beer, smokes, and antidepressants and give your congressman and pharmacist the finger for taking part in damaging society! Spend your money on something fucking positive!
So what, I can't spell "cities". Fuck you.
Heh, clearly BAM has not gone to law school given that there is no "homework" in law school, just reading and final exams 
I think the right to smoke at home argument is open and shut under right to privacy, but this isn't necessarily true - see drug prohibition in general. Personally I think that an argument for an absolute right to smoke in a public establishment is rather weak, but the point I was making is that this particular legislation is clearly over inclusive and my personal feeling is that rational basis is anything but rational when it doesn't consider something more than how compelling the government interest is.
Glad you think my outline of basic con law is "cute", but the real purpose of putting it out there was to give some foundation to what I was saying and maybe to inform those who aren't aware of the legal reasoning used when determining whether or not there is a right implicated and whether given legislation can trump that right.
PS - the double oven is sweet (even though it really cut into the home equity line)
Overall, I think the ban will increase the number of douchebags going to bars, by which I mean "people who don't go to the city for fear of adversity". This is a victory for the Milquetoast Majority.
Will more people go to Milton's now? Or Northside Tavern? Kaldi's? No fucking way.
The bars that will gain the New Douchebag Bar business will be the douchebag bars: Nicholson's, the Pub, Applebee's. And their increase in sales will overshadow the closure of neighborhood bars. It all makes perfect sense expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings, and pence.
Then again, I'll bet plenty of smaller bars just ignore the ban entirely, or get around it by firing all employees every 15 minutes--then it's not a place of employment.
I voted against the ban, because I think it should be decided on the city-level, not state. However, I don't see the ban as infringing on the rights of smokers or business owners.
Smokers will still have the right to smoke, just not in bars and restaurants.
All bars and restaurants are required to follow certain health code laws, and laws concerning how they do business. It is part of the cost of doing business.
If business owners want to allow smoking, now they will have to start a private club, a tobacco shop, or have their entire family operate the bar..
Oops, scratch that last comment.. Looks like family businesses and private clubs are only exempt if the family smokes in the kitchen, or the private club has no employees.
Well there's always the option of an outdoor patio.
"Well there's always the option of an outdoor patio."
That's probably next.
Sorry to come to this so late, but I just thought I should say a few words.
congratulations on the slippery slope you have started in taking the rights of bar owners (and citizens for that matter) out of their hands and into the governments. Frankly to tell a restaurant/bar owner that he/she can't decide whether a perfectly legal activity is allowed in their club is just shy of fascism.
And Nick, I think you've done a lot of great things for Cincinnati and I really do hope the most success on your business ventures, but saying that you needed the ban to stop smoking in your club is BS and incredibly weak (just my opinion). If smoking is really suck a plague to society and everyone hates it so, then you could have put up a no-smoking sign at any time. Then the market would dictate how you run your place (not the government). If business really has gone up in so many places after the ban, then your place would go through the roof.
And I do hope that business picks up for downtown Cincinnati, but it still doesn't excuse the fascist way that private bar owners are being forced to succumb to the whim of the general populace.
Joe, the reality is this: if 2 months ago, I had put up a no smoking sign outside, I'd be out of business. No bar can afford to block off customers that can be served at another bar a block away. Also, it would be impossible and ugly to enforce, since it was all self-imposed.
This was a decision that the public health concerns outweighed the market's desires. And my point is that this is neither the first nor last time the free market has been regulated in the name of health or safety. But we'll just respectfully disagree on this one, thanks for the kind words.
Who's gonna be 100?
I can't resist being the one who submits the 100th post!
Nick Spencer, here's a thought that occured to me on reading your last post. Would you be in favor of a federal law forbidding any city, state or municipality from offering any form of tax incentive, abatement, or special treatment of any kind to any business, sports team etc as an inducement to their locating their business in the area? After all, the reason we all have to bribe businesses, offer this corporate welfare, is because the other localities will do it if we don't. Following your logic, shouldn't the federal government (the only entity which could ever hope to dictate across state lines) level the playing field by insisting that nobody be permitted to offer such inducements? Do you see that your argument-that you couldn't make your place non-smoking uni-laterally because the customers would just go to another bar- could be applied to the issue of tax inducements?
This isn't an attack or a criticism, I'm just curious as to your thoughts(Putting aside the impracticality (and probable unconstitutionality) of such an incentive ban.)
Um, louisms that is a great issue you bring up. However, you imply it would be crazy to conclude no government entity can use tax incentives to lure business. In fact, many people believe government cannot. Further, the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that it was a violation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause for states to do just that. I do not know the name of the case or it's current status, but I thought you might be interested in learning more about this issue because you seemed to imply it was an open/shut case.
Very interesting, BAM. I've long felt that spending tax dollars- or, more precisely- potential tax dollars, to bribe already very rich corporations to locate in one's city or state was a regrettably necessary evil-everybody else does it, so any locality which chooses to refuse to offer such bribes would be in an untenably disadvantagious position- the bribers would get all the business while those localities standing on principle and refusing to add their taxpayers money to the corporate coffers would suffer a catastrophic economic decline. Yet I couldn't imagine that the federal government might actually have the right to forbid such bribery across the board. If, as you say, the Commerce Clause could be successfully cited as grounds for taking such action, I'd be delighted, and it would go a long way toward reducing the billions in corporate welfare we've been virtually forced to pay. Still, I can't imagine the states' rights folks would take that lying down, anymore than would the Bush administration, whose principal goal has always been to maximize the efficiency with which taxpayers dollars are syphoned into the pockets of corporations.
Sorry to drift off the smoking topic, but, as I said, Nick's explanation for why he couldn't practically make his joint non-smoking while others weren't seemed to contain a good argument for legislation such as I describe.
BAM and louisms, I believe the case you are thinking of is Cuno v. Daimler Chrysler, Inc., 386 F.3d 738. Dunno if this available online for free anywhere. (I snagged it off lexis, mmm, free research access). If you can't find it anywhere else, I can email you a PDF version or post it on my blog.
Basic overview of case: "On appeal, the local businesses' primary contention was that the Ohio statutes authorizing the investment tax credit and personal property tax exemption violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and that the tax incentives violated Ohio's Equal Protection Clause. The dispute concerned whether Ohio's method for encouraging new economic investment, conferring investment tax incentives and property tax exemptions, impermissibly discriminated against interstate commerce. The court of appeals concluded that the investment tax credit scheme violated the Commerce Clause. While the city's effort to attract industry was legitimate, and the investment tax credit was equally available to in state and out of state businesses, it discriminated against interstate economic activity by coercing businesses already subject to the Ohio franchise tax to expand locally rather than out of state. The conditions imposed on the receipt of the property tax exemption, however, were minor collateral requirements directly linked to the use of the exempted personal property and did not violate the Constitutions."
So yes, the incentive was invalidated under the commerce clause by the 6th circuit. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court granted cert, and heard the case on March 1st of this year and overturned the 6th circuit in its decision on May 15th. (126 S. Ct. 1854). But, its not that easy. The case was brought by local taxpayers, and the USSCT held that they didn't have standing to bring the suit, consequently the 6th circuit was improper to rule the incentive unconstitutional because noone with standing was before the court... and the whole stack of cards falls down... The court seems to hint (very vaguely) that if a plaintiff with proper standing (say another state) came before them they may rule in favor of allowing state tax incentives
That's the case, thanks for the follow up. Interesting.
Commenting by HaloScan
