Ohio Smoking ban finally gains teeth
Our legislators are really good at coming up with new laws, regulations and restrictions- without figuring out the costs of enforcement. When the smoking ban went into place it was totally unclear about who would enforce the ban.
As some establishments chose to ignore the ban, thinking fines were just going to be a cost of doing business- the state finally has figured out a way to take that idea out of the equation:
A handful of area businesses owe tens of thousands of dollars in dozens of unpaid fines for smoking violations, which under a new state initiative could put their liquor licenses at risk in the future when they are up for renewal.
In a precedent-setting move, the Ohio Division of Liquor Control this month denied the liquor permit renewal of the Hamilton County business Peg’s Pub, on the grounds that it repeatedly disregarded state law by incurring about 18 fines and failing to pay $55,900 they owed, said Jen House, spokeswoman with the Ohio Department of Health.
Until now, Liquor Control never used smoking-ban violations and unpaid fines as criteria when evaluating renewal requests for liquor licenses.
Although no local businesses owe nearly as much as Peg’s Pub in Evendale did or accumulated as many smoking fines, the Miami Valley Sports Bar in West Carrollton owes $32,000, Webster Station in Dayton owes $27,000, Coyote’s Pub & Grub in Dayton owes $20,100, and the Harem strip club on North Dixie Drive owes $15,000, according to the state health department…
Through March, Public Health — Dayton & Montgomery County had issued 158 smoking violations, worth more than $220,000, to local businesses. Owners have only paid about $16,000, the agency said.
In Montgomery County, at least 10 businesses owe $5,000 or more in fines, according to the state health department….
Bill Wharton, spokesman for Public Health — Dayton & Montgomery County, said his department has issued about $28,000 in fines to Ziggy’s Ritz Night Club and $17,500 to BoJangles Nightclub. He said the fines may be still under review or appeal.
Considering the ban went in place back in 2007 and we are now just starting to find the way to enforce the law is yet another example that our politicians have hugely been rendered impotent by big money influence. Ohio has already diverted the anti-smoking money from the big tobacco settlement away from its primary mission.
New packaging to “scare off” smokers will be introduced in 2012- yet the only thing that has proven to reduce smoking has been raising taxes on cigarettes to painful levels.
While libertarian commentators on this site will scream about personal freedom and personal choice, tobacco consumption has huge costs to society. If, in order to purchase and use tobacco, you sign away all rights to any public or group health care, and becoming 100% liable for your own smoking-related illnesses until you die- cigarettes and tobacco users should be taxed to cover their real costs.
Also, since smoke isn’t the same as sticking a needle in your own arm- the locations that are acceptable to partake in the filthy habit, should be restricted to your private property, and nowhere else. I’m tired of walking through a wall of smoke to enter public buildings- and I’m tired of seeing the trash that smokers seem to feel they have the right to generate by discarding their butts at will.
It’s time for Ohio to join New York in putting real teeth into the public smoking ban- and to raise the cost of tobacco to the painful level. We also need to ban the sale of singles- in both cigarettes and cigars, which are straight plays to the poor, who can least afford the health costs.
Taking away liquor licenses for smoking violations should have started years ago- that it’s happening now is a good sign.
Great post. The only thing that would have made it better would be if you used the ugly rotting teeth cigarette package illustration instead of the black lung illustration… ban gains teeth… haha… OK maybe not.
While libertarian commentators on this site will scream about personal freedom and personal choice…(David Esrati)
…isn’t your comment that we will scream a pretty effeminate description? The Old Bandito, for one, feels aggrieved and victimized. Oh, sorry, wrong thread. Never mind…
I think the reason for the smoking ban is not costs to society in terms of medical, personal injury (a smoking driver is 50% more likely to cause an accident–only logical, how can you drive while burning plant matter near your face?), etc. I think the only reason for the ban is that I get to choose to go places and not inhale smoke.
That said, I think the ban goes a bit far. There ought to be public accommodations for smokers, so long as tobacco is legal. Let’s face it, the law allows the addiction.
But I think the smokers brought on the extreme law by their cavalier attitude. How long did people think they could light up in elevators, pharmacies, hospital wards, etc. in defiance of no smoking signs–and then become aggressive and insulting when politely requested to stop?
The same defiant aggression is being displayed by the bar owners. Seems to me that taverns that offer good value and pleasant environment are doing fine since the smoking ban; I know that I’m much more likely to go places now that my tobacco allergy won’t be an issue.
Of course, now I’m going to have to check in advance to learn if the bar allows guns. Sure, criminals will not be deterred, but cross-fire is a bitch, y’know?
In addition, I’d like to know the name of one bar in Dayton that was put out of business by the smoking ban.
New packaging to “scare off” smokers will be introduced in 2012- (David Esrati)
…these are great ideas, dear David. But why stop there? The Old Bandito has witnessed some grisly accidents. So why not a poster, in the window of each new car, of the results of a Volkswagen-Mack Truck head-on to scare those who would drive like Hell ain’t half full? And some of the Old Bandito’s old drinking buds are beginning to show the mental and physical signs of long-term firewater impairment. How about a sticker of an enlarged cirrhotic liver on the front of every bottle of brewski or fifth of ignorant oil to scare off that bunch. And we won’t even elaborate on the diseases and nasty critters one can contract in the Oregon District after applying enuff alcohol to the a complete stranger. Perhaps every bar in the OD should be compelled to scare the promiscuity out of their customers with enlarged stills from that old VD movie the Army used to show basic trainees…
…hey, David, how about a new campaign slogan for your next stab at elective office?
…”Hi. I’m David Esrati and I know what’s best for you…..”
This post reminds me of how effective the cameras were at stop lights … most people I know did not get enforced to pay that fine, and the company behind that one were losers, too!
One day, society will might open their minds to letting weed get smoked in designated places, after all, it’s only a little weed, all kinds grow everywhere, most are harmless …
And not only do we see cig butts laying around everywhere, lazy smokers leave their cig packs wrapping behind, too! All-in-all it’s a filthy habit, with many additives in it, too …
“In addition, I’d like to know the name of one bar in Dayton that was put out of business by the smoking ban.” Jaime
The Thirsty Dog in Centerville threw in the towel back in 2005 when Centerville passed their ban according to the owners. Granted that was before the statewide ban and folks just went down the street to a bar they could smoke in. http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2005/09/19/daily30.html
“Also, since smoke isn’t the same as sticking a needle in your own arm- the locations that are acceptable to partake in the filthy habit, should be restricted to your private property…” DE
Except of course busy body big government types don’t think your small business is your own private property.
It’s not just “busy body big government types,” joe_mamma, who don’t think that “your small business is your own private property” with which you should be able to do absolutely whatever the hell you want.
For example, according to a 2010 poll of Republican primary voters in South Carolina, even 58% of Republicans in a Southern state support the Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, restricts your right to discriminate in your own private property if you choose to operate a public accommodation on it. I know Rand Paul, when he’s not back pedaling in order to trawl for votes, would like to repeal the Civil Rights Act, but good luck with that.
And good luck trying to repeal the state and local zoning laws so that you could do work on your house without the proper permits or so that you could, for example, decide to operate a bar on your personal private property in the middle of a residential subdivision. If the majority of people were so opposed to zoning laws, you’d have an easy time electing Montgomery County Commissioners who wished to do away with this local department (it’s not just a federal “big government” issue).
@ David Lauri, The building regulations department you linked does not oversee zoning.
” even 58% of Republicans in a Southern state support the Civil Rights Act,…”DL
I would argue that most Republicans….epecially those running the party are screaming big government busy bodies. Screaming in this context is meant to imply effeminancy ;)
David,
I think it a wonderful idea to let people “opt out” of the “societal safety-net”. Don’t force people to pay into a system that diffuses costs. Instead allow them to choose to pay if they meet certain requirements. This way people can be free to choose (to borrow a phrase I rather like). It seems like the healthcare system we had before government stepped in and dictated that everyone (well the half of us who work) had to pay taxes to ensure that everyone (this time I mean the 28% who choose not to purchase health insurance) had access to emergency care.
It is always wonderful to see you make a statement that actually makes sense. Let me stop paying taxes that fund public health services and let me find my own health care providers and figure out how to fund it. While you are at it, let me stop paying into Social Security. Because I drive like I am in a Formula 1 race and will likely not make it to 65… I would much rather leave that money to my family to help them pay for their lung transplants (as they are smokers) than to you puritanical busybodies who live to 90.
So ice bandit how is the free market going to curb the massive costs to taxpayers caused by smokers?
“I’d like to know the name of one bar in Dayton that was put out of business by the smoking ban.”
There was a bar on Watervliet, across the street from Rich’s Pawn Shop, that blamed the smoking ban for putting them out of business …. but a retired Dayton fireman and his family (I think) have re-opened the place and seem to do quite well.
Ice, I hope you don’t mind but this is just too funny.
Clayton,
That is the funniest question ever. Let me see if I understand. How will not having government involved in other than the protection of personal property and individual rights going to reduce costs to taxpayers caused by smokers?
Unless a smoker is breaking into your house to steal your stuff or has physically assaulted you then the government should have nothing to do with them. And lets be clear that those behaviors really have nothing to do with smoking. Unless of course we make tobacco illegal and start a “war” on it…but that is a separate conversation.
The government shouldn’t pay for sick people or charge sin taxes. The government should protect our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness and leave us alone after that.
I assume based on the inane question that you have posed that you assumed that government has a natural right or responsibility to pay for people once they are sick… Revise the assumption that government has rights (any at all) and responsibilities (other than those I listed above) and much of your confusion will dissipate.
So your answer is get rid of Medicare and Medicaid? I was asking for a solution. Not a make believe dream world. Idk if you knew this but Americans tend not to be ok with people dieing because of money. Also Medicare and Medicaid protects our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness.
Along the lines of not allowing smokers access to public or private health care, instead, how about adding a “health insurance premium” fee to each pack of cigarettes ? :D
Libertarian Rob Says: David, our government, by forcing social programs on to us has served up a financial reason to control every aspect of our lives. Be careful when you use this “cost to tax payer argument”, because I can apply it to fast food, red meat, anal sex, football, red cars, etc. Now some of these would be extreme, but some of them are not so extreme and may be the next logical step for cost reduction (food). It is very odd circular argument which implies “In order to protect your choices and freedoms, we must limit your choices and freedoms”. So, I do not disagree with you on the costs. But, how can I ever argue a libertarian point when a very non-libertarian idea has already been forced upon me and creates a rational cost reason to take away my freedom? So, I am forced to choose: 1) a greater likelyhood that cost to the tax payer will increase and therefore I will be taxed more and therefore I will lose more freedom OR 2) I lose freedom in the form of tobacco use and potentially lay ground work to lose more freedom. *** I have to choose #1, both suck, but I never want to lay foundations for reduction in freedom. Pragmatic Rob: OK, my take on culture. I grew up in restaruants. Lots of smoking in restaurants. 16 Years ago, I started at The Chop House. They had 4 total “rooms” and 2 of them were smoking. Jay Alexanders was next to it and opened as a non-smoking establishment. Chop Houses progression due to customer complaint and market pressure was something like this: After 2 Years: No more cigar smoking After 2 more years: Smoking reduced to one room After several more years: Non-smoking establishment All of these happened well before the law was considered or passed and there was a cultural move to make this happen. MVSB in W.C., I stopped frequenting their location and drove tons of business away from it because I did not like the smoke. Beef O Brady’s was my favorite hang out for football Sunday’s, they had a non-smoking policy. I have not been back… Read more »
@Hall- that’s what the additional tobacco taxes should do- fund cessation programs, and oxygen tanks for the suckers who did it.
But- as a whole- I think that smokers shouldn’t be able to join health insurance pools- except those of only smokers.
Just like I think if you ride a motorcycle- and don’t wear a helmet, you get all the health care YOU can afford- not the rest of us. Once the money runs out- they leave the OR- and unplug the equipment.
@Hall- the restaurant was Angies Tavern on Waterveliet and, it wasn’t the smoking ban- the food wasn’t what it used to be.
Robert, you liked Beef O Brady’s before the smoking ban because they voluntarily adopted a non-smoking policy, but now that Beef O Brady’s has no choice but to follow the statutorily-imposed smoking ban, you refuse to go there. I must be missing something. Did the owner of Beef O Brady’s advocate for the state ban?
Hello DL,
It is not a refusal, but a preference. I value the environment above the beer selection and/or the food. Their company policy gave them a competitve advantage for my consumer dollars. Now that their policy is instituted as a state wide ban, their competitive advantage is no longer in force. I may still go there on occassion, but I prefer other places food and beer selections. But, believe me, if the smoking ban was lifted, I would write my favorite watering hole of my intent to not re-visit if they went with smoking. I would expect them to act in their best interest and would hope that it matched mine. But, if not, there are plenty of watering holes.
Clayton,
Do you know the difference between positive and negative rights? Answer me this…at whose expense should you or anyone else be able to exist? How is it possible that my “negative” rights are not trampled by your “positive” right to healthcare. Who will produce the healthcare? Why? Who will pay for the healthcare? Why?
Are you not necessarily violating my right to my own private property if you can take it from me and give it to Joan simply because Joan is sick? What makes it different if you and Joan vote to take it from me? You have won via a vote? That changes my fundamental right to property?
This is just silly. To say…we can’t roll back any of the terrible decisions that have brought us to the brink of collapse because too many of us like the idea of the medicaid and medicare system. Therefore the only way to fix it is to further limit the rights of individuals who would dare stand opposed to the wishes of we who like the current system. Therefore all smokers should have to pay more in taxes, as should the fat, and those born with heart conditions and those who perform other risky behaviors, such as having multiple sexual partners.
Yours is a dangerous argument and one not very well thought out. Freedom is the only solution.
Your statement that people shouldn’t die due to lack of money is so asinine that I will not spend much time on it other than to post this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg
It isn’t about healthcare per se, but the fundamental argument is exactly the same.
“Are you not necessarily violating my right to my own private property if you can take it from me and give it to Joan simply because Joan is sick?” – taxes don’t violate your right to private property ,Under your logic any type of taxes is stealing.
I’ll Get to the you comparing a health choice to a health condition, and the defining of how a republic works because you for some reason think the will of people infringes on your rights when i get off work.
I’m 99% sure that they blamed the smoking ban… It can’t be their fault, i.e. the food, right ? :) I’ve tried searching for an article that I read that in using “Angi’s Restaurant” as well as “Kelly’s Corner Tavern” with no luck.
Ohio has already diverted the anti-smoking money from the big tobacco settlement away from its primary mission. (David Esrati)
…and an East Dayton crack-ho diverted $100 from a customer’s wallet while the John was “distracted” taking away the Benjamin’s primary mission as a car payment. If your looking for sympathy, dear David, because the state spent that $17 billion big-tobacco shakedown loot so quickly George Washington complained of wind-burn, you’ll find it in the dictionary. And spend thet ill-gotten lucre they did. On everything except smoking ban enforcement and cessation programs, natch. And when the do-gooders from the anti-smoking groups and the Heart Association bitched a blue streak about the hypocrisy, the state got a fatwa from the Ohio Supreme Court saying the legislature could do anything with that money they wished. So this begs the question dear David; why would you entrust a state government that has already shown its’ incompetence, hypocrisy and dishonesty in handling tobacco money with even more tobacco money…
The former owners of the Thirsty Dog can try to blame non-smoking ordinances, but those of us who watched them start well and then decline badly in terms of price, quality and service know the real reason they’re out of business–and it’s the same reason that most new businesses (especially restaurants) close within their first five years. Nothing to do with smoking. Everything to do with competence.
“The former owners of the Thirsty Dog can try to blame non-smoking ordinances, but those of us who watched them start well and then decline badly in terms of price, quality and service know the real reason they’re out of business–and it’s the same reason that most new businesses (especially restaurants) close within their first five years. Nothing to do with smoking. Everything to do with competence.” trrudick
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But spoken like a man who has never met a P&L. As a brewer I know that the brewpub business is a tough one. Margins are thin and there are usually additional regulations and costs that need to be borne because of the brewing aspect. My friends and I frequented T-Dog every week. Perhaps its age or I’ve inbibed in too many of my own fine brews, but I don’t recall any degredation in service, product or prices until after the smoking ban went into effect. We stopped going after the ban because several in the group were smokers. Think about it for a minute…it was a niche business. If you wanted a Bud and smoke you drove right past T-Dog and onto Tailgators or Geez. The only folks going to T Dog were craving the ambrosia that was Hoppus Maximus or Old Leghumper. When you are running on 5% margins losing any of your revenue stream is a big deal…it quickly makes you rethink the cost/benefit and the last they needed was government radomly giving competitors down the street an advantage.
…according to a 2010 poll of Republican primary voters in South Carolina, even 58% of Republicans in a Southern state support the Civil Rights Act..(David Lauri)
…well, DL, if 58 percent of Republicans in a Southern state thought it a good idea for you to meet a nice Jewish girl and settle down, would it have any impact on your decision to do so? Didn’t think so, nor should it. However, rather than the Old Bandito’s initial thought that almost sixty percent of Republicans in a Southern state are wrong, further review perhaps reveals an statistical polling deception known as the Bradley Effect. Quite simply, when confronted with polling questions concerning race caucasians questioned will tell the poll-taker what they think they want to hear, rather than be branded a racist. The correct response however is “who died and made you Elvis? It’s none of your fricken business…..
It’s not just “busy body big government types,” joe_mamma, who don’t think that “your small business is your own private property” with which you should be able to do absolutely whatever the hell you want. (David Lauri)
…no, dear DL, joe_mamma is correct, it’s big government busy bodies that are a the enemy of property rights, and not the least bit bashful about implementing the rule of law to enforce their preferences on others. Unless, of course, you categorize bluenoses, super-nannies, buzzkillers, the self-righteous, members of the “somebody, somewhere is enjoying something I don’t like and I can’t stand it” cult and priests and nuns in the Order of the Easily and Perpetually Offended” as separate entities…
Well here’s something that’s even more effective than polling to reveal people’s true beliefs, Ice: election results. Libertarians clamoring to repeal big government’s interference into what people may do with their own private property simply have not won elections in large enough numbers to implement such repeal.
If people were truly so fed up with government saying that we may not discriminate if we choose to operate public accommodations on our private property, then they’d be electing politicians who would do away with such laws. It hasn’t happened. Okay, yes, Rand Paul got elected, but he had to back pedal on his desire to repeal the Civil Rights Act. I don’t think it’s going to be repealed any time soon.
And I don’t think that zoning laws are going to be repealed any time soon in Montgomery County or its political subdivisions, and I don’t think that the laws requiring permits to build or do any remodeling with your own private property are going to be repealed any time soon. I don’t need polls to tell me whether most people are fine with that — I can just look and see that politicians advocating doing away with these laws are not being elected.
There’s a simple reason why no one outside of the Republican or Democrat party gets elected: $$$
I’m willing to bet that if you look at the amount of money spent on elections and campaigning, the winner or 2nd place finisher will have spent the most money.
A government’s exercise of it’s police power is presumed to be constitutional, and anyone challenging an exercise of the police power has the burden of establishing that the use of the police power was arbitrary and unreasonable and unrelated to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare…..Any politician that tries to eliminate federal, state, or local police powers will find themselves in court defending against the govenment agencies and nonprofits that exist because of the law.
The last five comments / commenters are off topic and make no sense to me!
I wholeheartedly agree with Joe_mamma’s last comment, though … I love micros and craft brews; and I don’t smoke tobacco! :-)
First off, our state legislators didn’t dream up the smoking ban, didn’t write it, and didn’t decide to fund enforcement of it or not. If you’ll recall, the 2 anti-smoking measures got put on the ballot in a similar fashion as the anti-SB-5 measure did. By special interest groups, who talked their minions into dragging around petitions and bothering people getting signatures on them. The 2 measures both banned smoking in some form, the one that passed completely banned it in most everywhere but your own home. The alternate measure would have allowed businesses to have smoking sections IF they built a completely separate area for smoking, and insured no smoke would come in contact with non-smokers. Then, to put the measure that passed over the top (I guess they feared there weren’t enough former hall monitors who had been given “wedgies” in school to pass it), the supporters of the measure lied their ass off to all the fraternal and veteran groups, telling them they’d be exempt from the ban, since they were private clubs. Of course, that got that segment of society, as all these lodges figured they’d get way more members (and business) from smokers looking for a place to have a beer and a smoke. David, you speak of New York’s efforts, as if you really believe that making smoking very expensive made everyone quit smoking. I’m in New York every week, generally twice or more. I see as many smokers in New York as I do anywhere else. And as a matter of fact, their ban is much less onerous than Ohio’s, they have smoking sections, done up the way the alternate version we voted on described. That measure was killed by the huge attack ads claiming that measure was funded by “big tobacco.” I guess that’s the new world way of making a group a demon, simply describe them as “big” and they’re suddenly evil SOB’s. But there’s been a lot of talk about the use claimed for the tobacco settlement Ohio (and most every state in the union extorted… Read more »
Hi Pat.
I already know that bars post “no guns” signs on the door–or they don’t. I’m already limiting my patronage to some establishments that welcome guns. I saw too many bar shootings in my few years as an X-ray tech, I am not willing to risk having someone play “find the bullet” on my abdomen with a portable unit.
So calling me ignorant is, well, ignorant on your part.
Joe-mamma: I agree on the outrageous costs associated with licensing a microbrewery in Ohio, so many good ones locally have failed (anyone remember Growler’s? Or that place in Centerville–forget the name–now I think it’s a Hooter’s?). The $8000 cost of the license is a big issue. This week’s City Paper has a good article explaining the issue; I’ve already signed the petition to have the licensing fees reduced to a reasonable level. I urge everyone to hunt down and sign a copy of the petition.
Now–back to the discussion of competence–the operators of Thirsty Dog knew going in that the cost of the license would be what it was. Did they know they were entering a high-risk venture? Did franchise fees help kill them? There’s still a Thirsty Dog open in Akron–does that mean that the good citizens of Akron care less about smoking than Daytonians, or does that indicate that the management in Akron ran their business better?
I think that the first suspect in the demise of any business is the management–whether through failing to have a good business plan in the first place, failing to “stick to the knitting”, failure in internal management of processes and employees, or failure to adapt to changes. Blaming a failure on a law that applies to all similar businesses is a little like a basketball player complaining that her shooting percentage is poor because the hoop is too small. If you like free markets, then a business that fails in a level playing field is just part of the game.
“Now–back to the discussion of competence–the operators of Thirsty Dog knew going in that the cost of the license would be what it was. Did they know they were entering a high-risk venture? Did franchise fees help kill them? There’s still a Thirsty Dog open in Akron–does that mean that the good citizens of Akron care less about smoking than Daytonians, or does that indicate that the management in Akron ran their business better?
I think that the first suspect in the demise of any business is the management–whether through failing to have a good business plan in the first place, failing to “stick to the knitting”, failure in internal management of processes and employees, or failure to adapt to changes. Blaming a failure on a law that applies to all similar businesses is a little like a basketball player complaining that her shooting percentage is poor because the hoop is too small. If you like free markets, then a business that fails in a level playing field is just part of the game.”
I believe you are wrong about Thirsty Dog in Akron. That is just the brewery. You also need to remember that when T-Dog closed their doors in Centerville ONLY Centerville had the smoking ban. Surrounding cities were business as usual. Also…the Centerville’s bars that had a majority of their revenue from beer/alcohol were exempt from the ban. In other words it wasn’t an even playing field. Maybe…just maybe there was finally just enough disinsentive by government to make them pack it in after 6-7 years of seemingly good business.
There is no bar or restaurant serving alcohol at present that allows concealed carry (or illegal carry for that matter).
I really don’t see me acting any different at Bob Evans having a iced tea with my meal and my doing exactly the same at Outback.
Sorry that you haven’t seen this before making a blanket statement, Pat, but the Trolley Stop has a sign on its door welcoming firearms. Makes me sad, b/c the Trolley has been one of my favorite places, but I won’t be going in there except maybe for lunch. Perhaps they’ll make up for my lost business from the gun-toters who, I’m sure, will purchase enough soda or coffee to offset their lost profits from my draught beer. I suspect that most concealed-carriers will go ahead and order whatever alcohol they desire. At any rate, speaking strictly for myself, I will continue to check to see if establishments allow firearms, and will decline to enter if they do. The market place will determine whether the owner is making the wrong decision, I guess. Declaring my intentions in this forum might help some of them make that decision on a more informed basis.
Nice article that points our the unnecessary difficulties the state puts on breweries. No wonder we are so far behind Michigan and Wisconsin. BTW…Toxic Brewing Company is opening a brewpub in Dayton.
http://www.daytoncitypaper.com/will-dayton-finally-see-locally-produced-beer-again/
Property owners fight back.
http://www.wnem.com/story/15308606/lawmakers-banned-from-michigan-bars
What? Private property owners actually have rights???
I say “Good for the bar owners!” Send a message to those that don’t respect property rights.
If it’s a public accomodation, they have no right to bar orderly customers. “Private” property becomes public when I put out a business sign and open the door. If those barkeeps think they can exclude lawmakers (and BTW, how do they know which ones might be on their side in this issue?) then they’ll start to think it’s OK to exclude diabetics, health care workers, educators, Christians, atheists, hispanics, or blacks.
Keep in mind that many people suffer harm if denied a public accomodation. Diabetics, for example, need access to food. If the only restaurant in a certain vicinity kicks out people based on personal whim, then they risk sending someone into the nearest ER in a coma.
Again we see the self-centered attitude that’s displayed by so many smokers–if you want more evidence, just go to any designated smoking area and look down–does anyone but a selfish jerk throw trash on the ground like that?
“If it’s a public accomodation, they have no right to bar orderly customers.” – truddick
Not entirely true. If the patron is not part of a federally protected class, then legality comes down to whether the decision to ban is purely arbitrary or if they have a legitimate business interest. Some interesting reads on bans.
http://www.wlwt.com/news/28779589/detail.html
http://www.newsytype.com/8791-kids-banned-from-restaurant/
http://www.slashfood.com/2010/08/27/environmentalist-banned-from-restaurant/
Worth noting: heart attack patients at emergency rooms decreased 26% following the smoking ban.
I hadn’t considered that second-hand smoke would be an agent in those health crises, but there it is.
Also not mentioned here: when polled, around 80% of smokers say that they prefer to be in a non-smoking area. The other person’s ciggy is more offensive than your own.
I was of the opinion that the smoking ban was too harsh, but the health data has changed my mind.
I was of the opinion that the smoking ban was too harsh, but the health data has changed my mind. – truddick
If that is your logic then you should support an outright ban of tobacco.
Worth noting: heart attack patients at emergency rooms decreased 26% following the smoking ban. I hadn’t considered that second-hand smoke would be an agent in those health crises, but there it is. – truddick
Most if not all of the arguments against the smoking ban did not relate to health, but to the right of a business owner to determine whether they want to be a smoking or non-smoking business.
Also not mentioned here: when polled, around 80% of smokers say that they prefer to be in a non-smoking area. The other person’s ciggy is more offensive than your own. – truddick
Which is exactly why non-smoking businesses were popping up all over the state before the ban. We don’t need the state to dictate preferences for us. Owners know their clientele.
Stumbled across this over the weekend. Interesting stuff. BTW a great site for info on the Ohio brewing scene.
http://beer.ohio.com/2011/09/ohio-bar-visits-down/
Joe_mamma, the first response to that post brings up that bar business is down everywhere, even in states where smoking is unregulated. The economy has inspired people to drink at home, where the cost per serving is about 80% less and there’s little chance of getting stopped for DUI afterward. And note that, in many homes, smokers are required to take it outside…
An article from “Ohio Breweries”… Can you cite something that just might be a little less biased ? :)
“Joe_mamma, the first response to that post brings up that bar business is down everywhere, even in states where smoking is unregulated. The economy has inspired people to drink at home, where the cost per serving is about 80% less and there’s little chance of getting stopped for DUI afterward” – truddick
Of course because of the economy business is down. But the specific poll question cited was “Do you visit bars more often, less often or about the same since passage of the Smoke-Free Law?”. Folks are bright enough to know the question was about the smoking ban and not the economy.
And note that, in many homes, smokers are required to take it outside…-truddick
Exactly. Required by the owners of the house. Not the state.