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.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

19 Responses

  1. Gene December 13, 2006 / 8:47 am
    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?
  2. Bruce Kettelle December 13, 2006 / 10:05 am
    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.
  3. PhotoJim December 13, 2006 / 1:05 pm
    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.

  4. Greg Hunter December 13, 2006 / 6:07 pm
    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.


    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.

  5. Jeff December 15, 2006 / 5:21 pm
    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.

  6. jrlocke December 17, 2006 / 2:09 pm
    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.

  7. Greg Hunter December 17, 2006 / 4:03 pm

    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.

  8. Bruce Kettelle December 18, 2006 / 10:10 am
    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.

  9. Greg Hunter December 18, 2006 / 10:36 am
    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.

  10. Josh Bruce December 22, 2006 / 6:04 pm
    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 a democracy, and 58% of the population told the other 42% (actually less because they really just told business owners) what to do. Specifically which legal drugs their guests could partake in.
    G: I like this band and the atmosphere, just not the smoke. The people have spoken and you should listen. It is a Democracy!
    S: Then you should have opened your own bar, recreated the atmosphere, and invited the band – just made it non-smoking. Or, you could have spoke with the band/promoter and a bar owner that doesn’t allow smoking to get the band in there. This is called enginuity, drive, and determination – which is going the way of the dodo I’m afraid – but, it is also inconvenient (which is uncomfortable and hard). It’s easier just to vote against smoking because you don’t like smoking – after all it’s your personal comfort which is paramount, not someone who has made different lifestyle choices than you, or the actual owner of the business. Afterall, a business owner has no right to decide which legal drugs his patrons (who are there of their own volition and choice) imbibe – right?
    “…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, in today’s society, if someone says “there oughta be a law” – there really shouldn’t be one.
    (Further, placing a comment containing a conversation against a fictional opponent to demonstrate your own prowess in an argument, and the inability/shortcomings of the other side, is kind of like a 20 year old of 300lbs beating up a 3 year old on a playground whose hands are tied behind his back, and five of your buddies are holding him down.)
  11. Greg Hunter December 24, 2006 / 11:55 am
    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, in today’s society, if someone says “there oughta be a law” – there really shouldn’t be one.

    Wow a guy making a constitutional argument is now making a religious argument, the religion of unfettered capitalism. I find it hard to believe that the Constitution is based on that religion. Look I am not for laws, but the uneducated masses demand it. Unfettered capitalism drives a society to one that looks like Plantation life or work inside the steel mills under the tutelage of Carnegie. The logical argument you propose would be that there should be no regulations which impact the bottom line, no public health standards, no air standards, and no traffic regulations. Nice try Josh, but try to focus on the topic and address the issues that I raise.

  12. Josh Bruce December 24, 2006 / 10:45 pm
    “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 go to clubs, because the music is typically really loud and affects my comfort (and my health in regard to my ability to hear). However, it is my choice not to go to these places, and it is the owner’s right to allow drinking and play the music as loud as he wants. Further, I will vote down anything that says that someone can’t do it inside an establishment I don’t own — out of sheer principle.
    Your arugment (with the afore mentioned smoker) is based on the premise that smoking affects the health and comfort of other individuals — I never said it was wrong (neither did the individual in the initial argument) — and anyone who says that it doesn’t affect other people is wrong. However, what anyone does in the sight of anyone else also affects their health (mental or otherwise) and comfort; so, it’s not saying much. What I did say is that whether you are a smoker or a non-smoker it is not your place to tell the owner what to do in his establishment, because he didn’t ask you to show up, you came of your own free will. In other words it is not a smoker’s right to walk into Panera Bread and light up — not his business. I don’t have the right to walk into Dublin Pub and tell everyone to quit drinking. Further, I don’t have the right to walk into the Foundry and tell them to turn the music down. Finally, I don’t have the right to walk into Wal-Mart and bring a beer.
    Alcohol causes liver and kidney damage, inhibits one’s ability to think, speak, to act rationally, and is addictive — but it’s legal. Combustion (from any source) creates carbon–monoxide and releases carcinogens — in regard to cigarettes — it causes emphysema, heart disease, and is addictive — but it’s legal. Heroin causes liver damage, inhibits one’s ability to think, speak, to act rationally, and is addictive — but it’s illegal. One could draw a line connecting heroin and alcohol in the sense of how they act as a drug; however, the logic is still invalid, because one is legal and the other is not. It is illogical to compare cigarettes to heroin as far as how they act as a drug, and because one is legal and the other is not. It’s called a red herring.
    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 — therefore, it is one of the founding principles of this country. Stating that the “uneducated masses” demand it, is creating a group of which you are not a part. It is like saying, “I’m educated and you’re an idiot, therefore, I must be right.” In the sense of a philosophical argument based on premise, premise, conclusion it doesn’t hold water — because, every human, despite their education, has the ability to think rationally when uninhibited (another founding principle of this country). I am human — how you react to that statement determines not only your view of me but of yourself.
    “The logical argument you propose would be that there should be no regulations which impact the bottom line, no public health standards, no air standards, and no traffic regulations.”
    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. If someone wants to make Dr. Simon’s CureAll from snake–juice I’m all for it — I won’t buy it, but if someone else does, I’m not going to stop them. If you don’t like how Wal-Mart treats its employees — don’t shop there and don’t work there. If you don’t like the way that factories create their products (and their affects on the environment) — don’t buy them and don’t work there. None of the products which have been created since the industrial revolution, or the founding of this country are yours by right, nor are they necessary for survival. The owner of a business did not create the business so you personally would be comfortable — he did because he wanted to — and, he set the rules according to his own philosophy. If there was such a high demand for non-smoking bars in the state of Ohio, an ingenuitive individual would have seized the opportunity to take advantage of it and clean house. However, given the rationale bar owners in Toledo (who banned smoking before the state) gave as to why they closed demonstrates that, at least in Toledo, the demand was not that high — because patrons just went outside the city. This is one reason the language of the law was altered to “level” the playing field for all businesses in the state of Ohio.
    ps. By stating that you “appreciate the effort”, and that it was a “nice try” is not denouncing the argument which was presented. It would be like me saying “you seem like a pretty intelligent guy, but…” It’s condescending and, again, a major faux pas in argument. I perform in debate as a mental exercise. I could argue your side if I wanted — two things stop me. (1) Since the age of about 17 I stopped playing devil’s advocate for the fun of it; instead, I now play devil’s advocate as a means to show someone the fault in their argument so they, in turn, can make a better argument. (2) It also doesn’t touch on the larger issue of how Private Property becomes Public Domain — not by force, but through the legisltative process itself. I see no fault in your other two arguments/opinions — not because I agree with them; rather, because they are sound arguments/opinions.
  13. Greg Hunter December 26, 2006 / 11:21 am
    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 still invalid, because one is legal and the other is not.

    Again another hypocritical argument, because one drug is already illegal, you appear to presume that it was a rational process that made the drug illegal. My contention is that the illegality of heroin, and how it became so, was done with no consideration of the rights of the users or the health effects as compared to other drugs in society. The path to making cigarettes illegal is proceeding down the democracy path from the ground up instead of the heroin path where those on high demonized the product. The path for each is different, but the result the same. Illegality with no education or choice or reconsideration is a sign of stifling stupidity.

    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 never implied that it was not OK, and I used it for a very good reason, because I agree with it. I will not be like the owner of this blog and drop the dime on a business owner who allows patrons to smoke. The business owner is accepting that risk as well as the patron, just like I am accepting the risk for ignoring any law that disagrees with my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Put us in jail, put everybody in jail and maybe the system will finally break and only put those in jail whom have performed violence too or stolen from another. I am for Civil Disobedience and we need a great deal more of it.

    I appreciate your effort in trying to make a better argument, but stopping at a point because one is already law does not allow for true reason. So in the spirit of true reason lets put in on the table with regards to this smoking BS.

    The issue would have never reached the voting public if the legislature had done its job. The elected officials have seen this issue brewing and did nothing because they were complicit in taking a great deal of money from the tobacco industry as individuals and as part of the Tobacco Settlement. The settlement was used to pay off developers to build more schools, which in some way I suppose was going to educate children on the dangers of smoking. OY!

    The argument that is was a health risk to the employees was one that could have easily been dealt with as an air exposure issue to smoke much the way we set a standard for personnel exposure to asbestos. Once the workplace standard was set then bars could have evaluated the atmosphere to determine if the indoor air met these standards and if so these data could be posted. As time went forward and personnel moved around this group of individuals would provide a baseline to determine the effectiveness of the standard in preventing illness from second hand smoke. This EDUCATIONAL process would also allow parents to understand the impact of smoking in the car or at home.

    Easy right! Well if Ohio had an enlightened despot like me yes, but thanks to the business community (including the DDN) we have Husted, White, Turner and Jacobsen which are more in line with those running the Spanish Inquisition.

    FYI – Setting the workplace standard. The setting of the standard could be based on studies that have been conducted using stewardesses exposed to second hand smoke. Or we could study the core group of workers at the Oakwood Club, Pine Club and Jay’s to determine the impact of the exposure levels from the various workers and differences in exposure due to the interior architecture of the structures to determine the appropriate indoor air quality as a baseline.

    Thanks for the help Josh.

  14. Josh Bruce December 27, 2006 / 3:45 am
    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 was for any reason from excessive religion, to a rat infestation. The only thing we have proof of as being sustainable is man’s ability to adapt and overcome his environment (been doing it at least 4000 years, I think that’s pretty sustainable). The overuse/misuse of resources is a conflict in the individual/group who is/are using/consuming the products (obesity for instance — not McD’s fault). Further, you cannot prove that someone is misusing or overconsuming something. Is it a misuse of wheat to use it as wallpaper? Was that wheat’s purpose? And, who said? Overconsumption is a little easier to argue, because you can always use the “eventually it will run out” argument — but, the counter is that just because that resource runs out doesn’t mean we won’t create something or have a new method to fall back on — oil for instance. At this rate, it’s going to run out — that’s natural — given that we actually use it for something. Oil wasn’t always on planet Earth, and eventually it won’t be again. Further, when man becomes extinct or our biological material gets compacted and heated enough there will be oil again. The question really is, how can we overcome it and still maintain the lifestyle we have grown accustomed to?
    There are three basic economic ideas. Employees own and run everything (Communism). An individual owns and runs everything (Capitalism). The government owns and runs everything (Socialism). All I said is that Capitalism is the only one which allows for the individual to determine his own future — and infer that the other two take away the sovereignty of the individual. The tit for tat elements are irrelevant to defining what does or does not belong to which ideology. Using state/city/income taxes from the “public” to fund the schools is a Socialist concept (I don’t have kids but I pay for yours to go to school) — just like Social Security. An individual paying the school for their own child to go there — that’s a Capitalist thing. The rest is all a question of morality, ethics, and how much you think you are obliged to your fellow men.
    Again another hypocritical argument, because one drug is already illegal, you appear to presume that it was a rational process that made the drug illegal.
    The argument I presented is not hypocritical — it may be illogical, and may be invalid (that’s for you to demonstrate) — but it’s definitely not hypocritical (contradictory to action). Comparing a national law to a State law is illogical. The banning of heroin for recreational use did not happen democratically. We hired some guys from all over the U.S. democratically (at least 51% to 49%). Those democratically elected officials agreed through a supermajority of at least 66% to 34% to pass the thing into law. The judicial branch didn’t step in as the check; so, it went onto the President to be signed into law. The President didn’t exercise his veto power, a check to the congress. Therefore, it became illegal to use or traffic heroin for recreational purposes. The smoking ban in the state of Ohio is different. 58% (8% less than a supermajority) of the population, elected by no one in particular, made this a law. If the law had passed by above 80%, as the statistic of 4 out of 5 people are non–smokers suggests, then we would not be able to complain — because, that’s a landslide — and apparently smokers really are a superminority in the state of Ohio and should just move somewhere else. 66% up to 80% I wouldn’t be announcing my disagreeance with this law as publicly or as fervently as I am — I would still think it was ludicrous but at least it was a supermajority — which is a couple of steps above a direct democracy. 58%, however, is not a supermajority — it’s barely a passing grade in school; therefore, I think this is open game — and easy enough to get repealed. Things like the Patriot Act, legalization of heroin, etc. good luck. Because, again, that was at least 51% of every state’s population hiring a couple of guys, 51% of local populations hiring another couple of guys, then 66% of all those guys agreeing, the Supreme Court saying “okay”, and the President, who is elected by the most people per capita per region in the U.S. agreeing with everyone else. That’s a lot of people agreeing with the ethics, principles, and morals espoused within a law. Therefore, it is illogical to compare an illegal drug as defined by the State to an illegal drug as defined by the feds because the mechanisms are different. Further, the feds haven’t taken away the right of the people in a community to ban drinking — we do still have dry communities in this country — therefore, you can still compare cigarettes to alcohol and have it be logical because the mechanisms are the same.
    The process itself is rational the law itself may not be. No law is ever passed with consideration given to those who are actually doing it — that would be illogical. I’m not going to consider the feelings of a murderer when I decide whether to make murder illegal. I only consider him when I decide how to punish him — before that I’m only thinking of myself. Laws can only be considered as constitutional if you can prove that a certain level of risk/harm is given/happens to another individual. Notice the argument for banning smoking is not how much it affects the smoker, or the rights of the business owner? Guns, is not based on how many people commit suicide with a gun. Notice the argument to ban alcohol was not based on what it does to the user. Finally, anti–abortion arguments are based on the premise that the child is human before being born, therefore, has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — no one considers the mental and emotional trauma a woman feels after undergoing such a procedure. Laws are not created to save the life of the individual comitting the soon–to–be crime — they are created to lessen the act’s potential harm to others and allow the “community” to punish the “criminal” justifiably. Also, I’m actually all for “stifling stupidity” — I know what you were trying to say (at least I hope I do) — but there’s a better word to communicate the idea of overbearing stupidity (or rearrange the words in the sentence, …a stupidity which is stifling).
    We already know the impacts — through the scientific study of tobacco that we’ve been doing for years. The first rule is to study something — otherwise you have no statistics — which are “facts.” Second, make sure you only mention what it does to other people outside the “criminal” — I don’t care if you wear a seatbelt, I do care if I do (or let me know you not wearing a seatbelt could potentially cost me money then I might care). Third, be sure to word the statistics in such a way as to make them histrionic — otherwise no one will pay attention. Fourth, get enough people to sign your petition to get it on the ballot. Fifth, convince 51% of a community to vote for your issue. That’s a whole lot easier than waiting around with air standards, testing air quality like it were chlorine in a pool, and is less annoying (plus, that’s really going to cut into my time — voting — I’m in–and–out). Further, if we would’ve started out that way as a country we never would’ve had the Declaration of Independence. In that case “we” agreed on our premises of what is right and wrong, despite our difference in details, and drew the conclusion — wrote a letter and said: We the People of the United States in an effort to form a more perfect union… We’re tired of red tape in this nation — git ‘er done! Smoking’s bad, secondhand smoke is worse, make it illegal. That’s way less time than: Smoking’s bad, secondhand smoke is worse, let’s measure the air, create an air standards bill, petition to have it on the ballot, get it passed into law, and make employers test their air regularly, then turn it in to some state funded data entry office to study. Which the taxpayers will pay for, and will get investigated for misappropriation of funds (but it will create new jobs; so, I’m kind of torn on the idea).
    The hope has always been that people wouldn’t be jerks. There are two methods to make someone not be a jerk — take away his excuses — or hold him responsible. The case here is we slowly take away an individual’s excuse to be a jerk through legislation. The damage of secondhand smoke causes the state to spend more — which means you the taxpayer spend more. Well then Ohio needs to lower the income tax and stop taking the money from the tobacco settlement — but, they didn’t make it completely illegal. Therefore, ethically and morally speaking there will be no reason to stop taking the money, or to lower the income tax, because, well, smokers and smoking related illnesses are still possible. It’s what was happening during the uprise of prohibition, minimum wage, you name it. So–and–so did this, the reason he gave was because of insert excuse. Simple, make the excuse illegal — he’s still a jerk — well now what’s his excuse? we’ll make that illegal too. What I foresee with this latest of prohibitions is that when we finally do make it illegal, and people still keep getting lung cancer, emphysema, etc. we’ll either outlaw cars, or realize that death and disease are natural to life and if you live long enough you will die from something — and in all cases it could have been prevented, but you’ll still die. (Please note: This paragraph contains an illustrative slippery slope argument.)
    The major problem that I have with your initial post is that it doesn’t take a defined stance (bad writer or not). Someone comes to you with a defined stance — government needs to stay out of this bar. You respond with “I can’t do this” — are you personally okay with that or not? Are you okay with Democracy or not? Are you okay with the war in Iraq? Etc. That’s why — as it pertains to a didactic communication with another individual — it fails and just irritates the “other guy” — whom you agree with according to your latest posts in response to mine. Your initial argument with the smoker was based on two assumptions: (1) the smoker was for the war in Iraq, and (2) that meant he was for democracy or didn’t know how the legislative process works. He wasn’t talking about the war in Iraq, or the legislative system of the country — you were — again, a red herring, and an attempt to “win.” Underestimating your opponent in any type of war/conflict is the first mistake most people make — and when you do it — it is typically your last.
    As regards this issue Esrati has earned my respect because he’s sticking to his guns. He doesn’t like smoking. Never has smoked. Wouldn’t be able to convince him it was anything but an addiction. He will wish everyday of his life that you don’t do it — would vote down anything that tried to stop you from doing it all together. Protested to raise awareness of it. And, voted for the issue to be law. He just doesn’t want to be in the room with you when you do it. To not call and tattle on businesses after all that, or to even still eat there after discovering they’re not following the law as of the date it officially started — that would be hypocritical. And, I can say this, on this particular issue, Esrati is no hypocrite — whether I agree with him on a moral, ethical, or philosophical level is immaterial.
    ps. I think it important to note that I don’t think you’re an a**hole — it was illustrative. I also think it important that you know the reason behind my participation in this conversation is to develop a cohesive premise upon which to logically draw the conclusion. This is why the pro–liberty anti–big–government folk keep losing their debates — they can’t agree on their premises, but they can agree on their conclusions — which is inconsistent and, if the premises are articulated well no one can not come to the same conclusion. i.e. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal — no other conclusion is possible. The beauty of most of the debaters today is that they don’t use this style of argument. One side has consistent premises, but their conclusions seem wrong. The other side argues to pity and then says, “Why don’t you understand I’m right.” And, no one in any of the other camps calls anyone on the fallacies within their arguments without it turning into name–calling. Further, most debaters believe that not only changing a conclusion is a sign of weakness or that they have somehow lost something (instead of gaining something), they also believe that changing their premises demonstrates the same. Many debaters today are trying to “win” the argument, not reach a goal or become more logical or philosophical individuals. The point of politics, and philosophy (which politics is kind of a branch of) is not just to be right — the point is to create a sound philosophy around which people can gather. This is how America started. This is how Russia became Communist. This is how Europe became Socialist. Notice none of them have stayed stagnate (most of them aren’t the same as when they started), because we are trying to figure out ultimately what the ultimate philosophy is — the hard part is people who disagree keeping throwing monkey wrenches into the machine. The more people who gather around the philosophy the better the chances of changing things. But, to have a philosophy around which no one can gather because they can’t put aside the petty — will fail to change the world every time. And, you don’t have to thank me, I do this for me. Having said that, I will thank you for your continued participation and making your arguments more sound as you go — it makes me work harder. Having an argument with someone (in the true spirit of argument) who is unwilling to move it up a notch is kind of like playing chess against yourself and making the other guy an idiot — not helpful.
  15. Bruce Kettelle December 27, 2006 / 12:22 pm

    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?

  16. Josh Bruce December 28, 2006 / 2:53 am
    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 equals 6,380,000 people. Which means there are 4,620,000 people who said “no.” But, that also means 6 million said “yes.” But, either way, the business owners are the one’s that really lost that day not the smokers.
    “Windmill or no windmill, life will continue as it always has…”
    As for your arguments, I enjoyed them immensely, and hope you didn’t get upset. The last part, of your last post, was wonderful (and, I do apologize if my sarcasm was not obvious when I “countered” it).
    Keep swimming up stream man. And be wary of committing Sophisms — like mine. It’s a good way to “win” an argument by making someone frustrated, and emotional; however, it’s one of the major problems we are faced with today. We call it spin. Smoking is bad for people — and no amount of arguing about property rights, liberty, or that sort of thing can stop a Sophist — and there are people out there even better than I. But, both of us need to discover a better way of presenting our beliefs in liberty. Until then, civil disobedience is still disobedience and should not be done. We can discuss, and argue against injustice but, if we ourselves are not living the law to begin with — that’s hypocrisy.
    When I was growing up I hated homework. I thought it completely illogical. If I learn everything based on the lecture, why do I have to do this stuff? (something I never faced until moving to Dayton btw.) Further, if I get A’s and B’s on the exams doesn’t that prove that I absorbed the information better than being able to turn in homework assignments which aren’t graded for accuracy but do go toward the final grade? I realized then that living outside the system and trying to fight it at the same time does nothing for your credibility. My school used to put a heavy portion of your grade into homework, and I graduated with a 1.5 gpa. I was told that I would never get into college. I went to college anyway. There is no “homework” where I went. There were suggested topics to read, and papers in lieu of tests that needed to be written (at home) but that was it. I started at Sinclair in Dayton. Then went to the Savannah College of Art and Design — to which I received an academic scholarship (4.0gpa). I then returned to Dayton and finished my degree at Wright State. I graduated with above a 3.0 gpa. And, I was on the Dean’s List my first 2.5 years. Which is when I was introduced to philosophy.
    Socrates, while living in Democratic Athens, had very anti–democratic views and was charged with denial of the Ahtenian gods, and corrupting the youth. He was sentenced to death after a vote by a jury of his peers, specifically 280 to 220 (56%), decided it should be so. In the prison cell Socrates was offered a chance to escape and flee to another city. Socrates merely said that he loved his idea of Athens, and that as long as he lived there he would live by the law of the land. Further, he said that if it be the will of the citizens of Athens, according to their laws, to see him die he would continue to live by the law of the land. Subsequently, Scorates offered one last prayer to the Athenian gods before ingesting the poison which would overtake him a few moments later.
    ps. Good night, and good luck.
  17. Greg Hunter December 28, 2006 / 1:59 pm

    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 called earth, but I do not see any evidence of this type of intelligence in any level of public persuasion. Capitalism, as it is practiced, is a boom and bust game.

    On language – There is a movie called Conspiracy put out by HBO about the meeting that put in place the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. It is set in a villa and the Ministers from all parts of the German machine are in the room. General Heidegger is attempting to get everyone on board (everyone is guilty) to get this process going. A poll is taken to determine everyone’s training at the table and most of the participants were lawyers. Major Langer who had participated in shooting 15-30k Jews at Riga said that his training as a lawyer was the reason he was in a combat unit. The training had made him distrustful of language; he preferred the gun as it meant what it said.

    I appreciate Major Langer’s sentiment.

  18. Josh Bruce December 29, 2006 / 5:29 pm

    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 love, then I’ll be much more proud than if someone “gave” me anything.
    “No one can make you a victim without your permission.”
    I am trying to find a cause or person worthy enough to follow to make a better future.
    Most people I know are waiting. But, we probably wouldn’t believe him if he showed up — but, we would do anything to make him stay when he decided to leave.

  19. Logan Reed December 31, 2006 / 8:20 pm
    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 continue to smoke. But what if they had? Is it truly disobedient to ignore a law that won’t officially go into full effect until June or July? (see: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/local/16312234.htm)

    I support A smoking ban in Ohio, and across the nation, as well. But it’s a sad day when we start beating up on each other for breaking rules that aren’t even rules yet. I think the IRS is a great example of what happens when a something is enforced that is not ready for enforcement. There is no clear law that says every American must pay income tax. Yet we all become slaves to it every time we get a paycheck. Ask them to show you where it’s written sometime.

    For the record, the Pub is NON-smoking again, thanks to some petition-wielding glee party’s trip to the city building. The pints are still perfect, and the people there treat you better then most bars I’ve been to around here. You can tattle and bitch all you want, but I know that I can go in there and shoot the shit with the bartender any day of the week. He’ll give me great service, because I never gave him any guff for accommodating his smoking customers. He’ll put a little clover in the head of my Guinness, because he knows that I support him more than I do the threat of legal damnation by some ill-organized lobbyist group. Or your local Tattle-Tale, for that matter…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *