Dublin Pub; Dayton Ohio’s Authentic lawbreakers
I went to the Dublin Pub tonight- looking forward to being able to eat indoors, normally, due to the smoke, I can only eat on their patio. I see the no smoking sign posted in the window- but inside people are smoking- and there are ashtrays on the bar- and the tables.
I went to the bartender and said “I was looking forward to eating here without the smoke- I don’t appreciate your breaking the law”- and left after getting “two thumbs up” from the bar tender.
Not only will I no longer eat at the Pub- I would advise others not to.
I called the 800 number- and sent an e-mail to the violation reporting address: [email protected]
If the Ohio Department of Health wants to see instant enforcement- the simple answer it to pull the liquor license from establishments that can’t follow the law.
That will work better than fines.
Frankly, I like the pubs food- but, if this is the way the owners want to treat the laws of our state- maybe they should go to Ireland- they can’t smoke in bars either.
Ireland became the first country in Europe on Monday (March 2004) to impose an outright ban on smoking in workplaces.That would be a true “Authentic Irish Pub.”
Even though I was not in favor of the law, I think it is an absolute JOKE that people are still smoking in bars. I believe that we should not go to places that choose to break the law. I can understand an owners frustration, but knowingly and happily breaking the law is a sign of things to come. Typical of people in the progressive Dayton region – How is this being handled in Cleveland, Cincy, C-Bus?
I’ve seen reports that since the state announced they would not be able to enforce the new law for six months that several establishments in many communities have allowed smoking to continue. This has frustrated the establishments that are abiding and they are citing loss of regular business to the non-abiding establishments.
Right now there is not a level playing field those that are complying. Some interim measure should be provided.
I agree with Bruce.
It’s a darn shame about Dublin Pub, because I like to go there as well, primarily for the Guiness and the quality of entertainment. But I’ve always hated the smoke, which can be particularly bad in a smaller establishment such as the Pub. Who in their right mind actually enjoys walking out of a bar, restaurant, etc. smelling like an ashtray ??? I think these places are losing more business than they realize by not complying with the law. Embrace it, change and move forward, or don’t change and try to hold on to the type of customer who will eventually be non-existent in another five to 10 years anyway.
It has been an interesting time to evaluate which bar owners enforce the law and the discussions that result. I love listening to people explain why they think it is ok to break this law. I have not complained but smokers are addicts and will rationalize anything to maintain their comfort when they smoke. These discussions come close to blows as the smoker makes arguments that are unreasonable.
Conversation
Smoker: The government has no right to tell bar owner how to run a business.
Greg: The government tells me that I cannot sit at this bar and slam heroin into my arm.
S: That is not the same, that drug cause social ills.
G: (I smirk at this logic, causing agitation, because our smoker knows he has a large shovel and still keeps digging) My use of heroin would impact the people at the bar less than your smoking. Don’t you believe in Democracy? Isn’t that what we are fighting for in Iraq?
S: You do not have to come in here if you do not like the smoke! You have a choice?
G: I like this band and the atmosphere, just not the smoke. The people have spoken and you should listen. It is a Democracy!
The patron, whose eyes have gotten large, and is swaying with agitation stomps off.
I really do not want to take anybodies rights away, which is one of the reasons I was against this law, but anybody who argues that cigarettes do not impact the person next to them is obviously a top candidate for head of the EPA , FDA or Science Advisor to President George W. Bush.
Well, the Stage Door is still allowing smoking while this lawsuit plays out..but that’s a gay bar. I can understand how the GLBT community, or some of it, can look askance at this kind of moral busybodyness (and there is a lot of that in this anti-smoking movement…its not just public health concerns).
Yet, the reality is the ‘Door is the classic “Smokey the Bar” as most of its patrons smoke. So they are going to keep on permtting smoking until absolutely forced to stop.
Civil Disobedience? With the vote to ban smoking I wonder how many who voted for the ban are active bar patrons? I would guess that enough of people voted for the ban despite being people who will go into the Dublin Pub….think married couples from the burbs, some older folk and other homebodies.
Every bar I have been in has allowed smoking….and after talking to a few owners here was some of their rational. 1) They would rather have the drunks in the bar with their drinks instead of out on the sidewalk. 2) Without cigarettes many patrons actually drink less, either due to the time spent walking back and forth and outside or because the stimulant of the cigarette isn’t there to counteract the depressant of the alcohol therefore they are sleepy. 3) Smokers without cigarettes are grumpy!
I think instead of a ban there should be air flow improvements (exhaust fans anyone?) and people need to realize just like with food, quality over quantity. Roll your own cigarette with good tobacco without all the crap and have one or two of those instead of a pack of “fast food†cigarettes.
I MISS THE SMOKERS
The Smoking Ban has been one I can take both sides on (and have) and based on the analysis I am going to revert to my original opinion, which was to target the makers of the product so it can be less dangerous and to make a minimum air standard for the patrons. I have to say that the bars that are obeying the ban have a great deal less character than of old. I guess the adage may be true that smokers are cool and those that hang out with them must be cool?
I will work with the smokers to get this deal undone, but the smokers should look at what they choose to say is wrong and fight for the rights of all humans to kill themselves anyway they see fit.
End the war on drugs, education is the only way.
There are excellent solutions available for indoor air quality, and not extremely pricey. Electronic filters that replace the disposable filters in the ventilation system are nearly 99% effective.
The best solution is to have a separate HVAC system to handle the smoking area (with electronic filters). This costs very little extra when included in new construction but retrofitting can take some bucks. This creates a separate air zone and will cause very little mingling of polluted air with neighboring zones even without doors and partitions.
But to get this law changed as Greg suggests is an uphill battle. And it’s a very steep hill.
It will not be so steep as the enforcement will be the deciding factor. The legislature has 6 months so the data will indicate that it will probably go to the Health Dept. as an unfunded mandate, which means no enforcement.
Then the bitching can begin again and we can start over.
I listened over the weekend and it is one more reason for people to leave Ohio. Young people seemed serious in their desire to move to a more tolerant smoking state.
I was in Chicago over the weekend and the places that were the most alive were the smoking places. I will grant that some places I went to were non smoking, but the places that moved were the smoking ones. The non smoking ones were temporary, high class eating joints like Joe’s Stone Crab. They may have even been smoking there, but due to the configuration I classified it as non smoking.
I would also contend that smoking may be in one of those classes of drugs that may be part of the creative process as well as the nervous process. The brain and its chemistry are quite interesting and one wonders if we would have all of the great artists in the world without those darn mind altering chemicals whether they be self inflicted or part of the genetic makeup of the twisted artist?
I know something has been lost.
Humans are selfish – this is not bad – it’s natural. Our own personal comfort is paramount. Non-smokers wanted to be more comfortable in certain businesses – perfectly natural. Smokers wanted to continue to be comfortable in certain businesses – perfectly natural. But, to be blunt – it’s not your business – smoker or non. Updated Conversation Smoker: The government has no right to tell bar owner how to run a business. Greg: The government tells me that I cannot sit at this bar and slam heroin into my arm. S: And, if it were the 1800s you COULD “slam” heroin at the bar if the owner said you could – while being armed, smoking, drinking, and gambling. Further, if it were the 1920s, you wouldn’t be allowed to have that pint of Guiness – but, you could still smoke. But, what does that have to do with the ethics of this law? Not much. Comparing a legal drug, to an illegal drug enforced at a national level is an illogical argument. Comparing it to alcohol, caffeine, or NyQuil would make more sense. G: (I smirk at this logic, causing agitation, because our smoker knows he has a large shovel and still keeps digging) My use of heroin would impact the people at the bar less than your smoking. Don’t you believe in Democracy? Isn’t that what we are fighting for in Iraq? S: Thomas Jefferson – you know, one of the primary writers of the Declaration of Independence, third president of the United States – once said of Democracy: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule; wherein 51% of a population can tell the other 49% what to do. And, this is why we do NOT have a democracry, instead it is a constitutional republic with democratic tendencies (specifically when it comes to passing laws at various levels and electing representatives). This is why it requires a supermajority to pass laws at the national level; because, that is at least 66% of representatives telling the other 34% what to do. However, in regard to this law, it was… Read more »
Josh I appreciate the effort and you are a true politician and probably a smoker. However I am not a great writer and the subtleties of my wit were lost in translation. The argument was not with a fictional straw man, but an actual conversation; however, I will not deny that the places that I choose to have these arguments is analogous to your 3-20 year old argument as I am using “talents on loan from God, with one half of my brain tied behind my back.” I appreciate that you notice. The reason that I use the Iraq argument in that conversation is that I deduced that the arguer was for the war and that we were in Iraq to promote Democracy and when he was confronted with the argument, that Democracy that he is willing to send Americans to fight and die for, does not apply to him in the smoking case. This is called hypocrisy. Yes I agree that we are Democratic republic and I have argued at many other topics about the loss of rights due to the American public’s in adequate knowledge of our system of government. I am believer in the 2nd amendment and interpret to mean that whatever weapons the feds can have, so can I, but that went out the door during prohibition when the feds were being out gunned enforcing that stupid law. This is not the current interpretation, but the only option open is civil disobedience. I will admit I am lost on why I should use alcohol or NyQuil, my point was that Democracy made heroin illegal and now Democracy has made smoking illegal. Smoking, unlike heroin or alcohol, does directly impact the health of the patron adjacent to him at the bar. There is no way you can argue that it does not. “…anybody who argues that cigarettes do not impact the person next to them is obviously…†Anyone who argues that “leveling†the business playing field through legislation is a good idea, carries a premise which is against capitalism, a free market, and natural selection. Chances are,… Read more »
“Josh I appreciate the effort and you are a true politician and probably a smoker.” This is what is known as Ad Hominem, and it is one of the many argumentative fallacies. It is used in argument to associate your opponent with an ideology, with the hopes that your audience will do the same and that the ideology is regarded as “bad” or “good” (because, by some people’s standards being a smoker would be a compliment). It would be like me saying: Given your apparent belief that the government’s place is to protect its citizens from their own stupidity through legislation, you’re probably a socialist. Which is bad form in an argument. However, by being non-absolute (i.e. adding the word probably) you allow yourself an easy out if you are proven to be wrong in your assumption. Be careful when you add the word hypocrisy or point out someone’s hypocrisy in an argument (it’s like bringing your queen out too early in a chess match) because it opens the door for your opponent to point out your own hypocrisy. i.e. I have the right to be comfortable in this place (that I don’t own), but you don’t. Or, to paraphrase Orwell: “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” Because it’s usually not who said something first, but who said something last that sticks with the audience. The Second Amendment was put in place to keep congress from taking away the right of a citizenry to protect themselves from the state — any state — including our own. Civil disobedience is exactly what business owners are performing by not following this law, and implying it is okay in one regard, but not in another, is hypocrisy. I concede that smoking in an enclosed area affects the health and comfort of the other individuals in that area — which is one of the reasons I don’t go to bars — smoke filled rooms without proper ventilation is a big turn off for me — but, so is watching people drink alcohol. I also don’t… Read more »
I am sorry, look I think we have the same basic beliefs but your arguments are a little weak. …Given your apparent belief that the government’s place is to protect its citizens from their own stupidity through legislation, you’re probably a socialist. Which is bad form in an argument. However, by being non-absolute (i.e. adding the word probably) you allow yourself an easy out if you are proven to be wrong in your assumption. Point Taken – I understand my non absolute was less subtle than the “It would be like me saying:†, but the implication is still there, – I am a socialist. The constitution is based on the “religion†of liberty — freedom of persons to determine their own future — capitalism is an economic structure which allows this No proof that this model is sustainable as I will cite the erosion of the Roman Empire for instance. I will continue to argue that unfettered capitalism leads to poor use of resources and discounts the talents of a great number of people; however, I have no inclination to get into the tit for tat on capitalism. The parsing of the dogma is endless. For example: Does public financing of________ support a socialist system or a capitalist system? In the blank put in any service provided by the government and let the nuance begin. (Blank = Education, Defense, USDA, FAA) Incorrect. I believe that the methods/ingredients of products should be public knowledge, this is one reason that the FDA was created and we put nutritional fact tags on everything including water. However, things begin to be taken too far when we take away someone’s ability to choose. I agree with this statement and in fact it is one of the reasons I use heroin in my argument. I should have the right to choose to use this drug and the FDA should just provide the facts on the use of the drug. Education, not legislation. One could draw a line connecting heroin and alcohol in the sense of how they act as a drug; however, the logic is… Read more »
I am sorry, look I think we have the same basic beliefs but your arguments are a little weak. No reason to apologize. No one is upset (at least I’m not) — just two people having a conversation in a public forum. Not passing judgment, just having a conversation. Just seemed to me your opponent earlier was a little unarmed and wasn’t given a lesson, instead it was a simple stoning — rubbed me wrong — but, who cares if it rubbed me wrong? Who am I in relation to you? Again, just two guys talking — and practicing our abilities/proficicencies for debate. Don’t say my arguments are weak — that’s not saying anything — show me their weaknesses — then conclude that they are weak. Democrats are a little weak, Republicans are a little weak, this coffee is a little weak. None of those statements is saying anything. Or at least cut out the words “a little” — take a stand. The hope in making a statement like that without any previous statements for support is like me saying: You’re an a**hole, now let me tell you why. Tell me what’s wrong — conclude I’m an a**hole — otherwise you lose the target’s attention right off the bat. Further,by placing it at the beginning, you are asking your audience to grant you some kind of respect by default. It is like if the President (whoever it be at the time) says: Nixon was a little weak. There is no “proof” that any economic structure (or what we call a society for that matter) is “sustatinable.” There are too many variables when it comes to such a statement. How long does something have to sustain before we say it was/is sustainable? Further, how far away from the original does a society or economic structure have to be, before we start calling it something else? And, is that a demonstration of it failing? The Romans were around, and in power, for a long time before they fell. And, depending on who you ask, you could say that the fall… Read more »
Josh
Based on your above statements then I must also presume you would extend your disgust at other Ohio voter ratified constitutional amendments and laws. If that is true then how would you propose trying to change the rules so this doesn’t continue to happen this way again and again as new special interest questions find their way to the ballot?
Bruce I get pretty disgruntled about anything that takes away someone’s right to do what they will with what they own — including themselves. To answer your question: Any issue presented to the State for consideration of inclusion on the ballot during any given year shall contain no definition list which defines any word or word phrase already contained within the lexicon. Any word or word phrase currently not in the lexicon shall be defined wihtout antonym, synonym, metaphor, simile, reference to previously defined words or word phrases in other laws, or using the word which is being defined within the definition. That’ll take care of some of the problems — for about a week — but, at least the dictionaries will get bigger. Given my deep appreciation for language, my disgust comes more from the manipulation of language in an effort to present something as benign in plain language (the ballot language) — when underneath it’s pretty malignant (full–text). And, ironically enough, my statement about Private Property becoming Public Domain is invalid (thanks Oxford dictionary) — any building open to the public is public domain — so, sorry Dublin Pub (or most businesses for that matter), the public can tell you to do whatever they want to — because it’s theirs. The statement was made using the Webster’s Unabridged from a couple of years ago in which public domain was run by the government. True democracy is mob rule which is why he have a two–thirds for congress, with a check and balance system in place. That’s what it should be for any law to pass. It is time that we realize that our population has grown immensely and make moves and changes accordingly. Some local communities of today have populations equal to entire states in 1850, when the U.S. census began counting women, children, and slaves. The population of Ohio is estimated to have over 11,000,000 people, which is just shy of half the population of the entire United States in 1850. A state law affects some 11,000,000 people now. 58% of which… Read more »
Josh, No offense taken, it just takes awhile to digest (food and information) during the holidays. I may parse later but a great deal of what you say is true about how I play the game of argument and the rallying around a cause or belief. I am trying to find a cause or person worthy enough to follow to make a better future. Better in the fact that every decision considers how it will impact the next 7 generations not the next fiscal quarter. It seems that you have faith in this experiment called the US as a democratic republic as did I. I am of the opinion that the founders were much more immersed in the techniques of constructing good government. The blend of states rights and federal responsibilities allowed for a certain amount of testing of different approaches to problems that could be rejected or embraced. I am at a point where I do not trust the populace to choose correctly the proper representatives or the proper course for the future. I love the Electoral College and I want to go back to the day when I did not vote for President. Then we would have real scrutiny about what exactly a life long congressman does in this world. It was a two year term for a good reason. Fresh Blood and Ideas. These things are gone and we have a one size fits all solution to issues and this groupthink pervades the elected officials at all levels. No incubation of new ideas gets funded or considered. For example Boston got money to build the big dig and now it is our turn to get money to build the Austin Road interchange. Boston probably needed the interchange, but we do not. It is a bad idea that moves capital and degrades existing older low income neighborhoods. Not smart policy, but it is good for those playing the Capitalist game; the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer. In my heart I want people to be more than bacteria, consuming to the edge of the petri dish… Read more »
Greg I still have hope. But, after 15 years of beating my head against the Sophist wall, I’m getting tired. Eventually I’ll be strong enough to laugh at it all — and stop my meddling. Blue laws frighten me, not because we don’t enforce them now, but because they have the potential to be enforced later (it’s kinda like WMDs). If this does become another blue law in the state of Ohio — I’m not worried for me — but someone else’s kids who happen to be alive when they do enforce it, that’s a concern. If you aren’t going to enforce it — delete it. Capitalism is the only economic structure based on nature. Even the “runts” can take out the king (after all we did in the beginning) — if they’re willing to put in the work and take the risks. Why do you think we love underdog stories in this country? I mean I’m a pretty talented fellow. However, I don’t have the drive or focus required to become a millionaire off of any one particular talent that I have — yet. Apple didn’t start as a multinational mutltimillion dollar corporation. Through capitalism and vision (that other people threw away), they built a solid computer, started making money, and then started building other stuff. The major problem that I see with most companies/individuals (startups in particular) is that they start building everything — instead of focusing on one thing and doing it better than anyone else. Once you have established yourself, then you can diversify (Google for instance) — or sell it for a bunch of money like the creator of Linux, or the owners of Myspace.com, or the former CEO of AOL. The choice is yours — afterall it’s yours. It isn’t owned by the employees, and it isn’t owned by the government. If you want to be a jerk and sell it to an even bigger jerk — that’s your own doing, and you’re the only one to blame. Further, if I do make a bunch of money doing something that I… Read more »
I am a smoker, yet I would indeed have voted for the smoking ban. The problem with this new fledgling law of ours is simply that it has not yet been completely written. The voters of Ohio have allowed the state to begin enforcing an incomplete and generalized ban on something that has not been clearly defined and communicated to the public. Countless news publications have released articles suggesting that voters were not clear on which side of the issue to vote for, rumors of a small team of legal secretaries scribbling down questions and restrictions on steno pads continually circulate, and authoritative answers are quite scarce. No one seemed to consider what the “workplace” really was when scribing these hash marks; we saw clear evidence of this when the whole truck driver debate erupted. So here’s my concern: Is America really to the point where we are signing bills into law that have not been properly outlined and accounted for? Are we willing to take on such roles of vigilance that the PEOPLE are going to enforce laws that the proper authorities are not? Are we willing to — as progressive and health-conscious as we claim to be — ignore the real issue behind the ban and project the addictive qualities, hazards, and all-around bad mojo of cigarettes onto the local business owner? It’s a shame that Ohio cannot boast the same sense of organization that, say, the State of New York had when their smoking ban went into effect. Businesses knew 2 YEARS in advance that they would have to comply with the ban, and a clear definition of the law was released long before the Tobbacestapo started marching the streets. I was in a bowling alley the night of December 6th, just at the stroke of midnight, when the manager came around and collected up the ash trays. People were actually forced to snuff out half smoked butts, as the threat of “what might happen if I don’t comply” lingered. No doubt, the Pub probably didn’t have “Civil Disobedience” in mind when they let their valuable regulars… Read more »