Smoke Free Starts Today!

[GOTV]

Do you think Bars will be implementing this right away? Or will they wait for the Department of Health to finish the rules?

I'll be going to several bars in my area tomorrow to see what happens.

[AngryOldDem]

1. Bars/restaurants around here...

...are already complying, as far as I know.

But just how they expect to enforce this ridiculous law is beyond me.

As someone pointed out to me, the potential economic ramifications of this are enormous.

[geiger]

3. In Minnesota's Mall of the Americas the whole second floor

that used to be bars and restaurants frequented by the twenty-something group is basically SHUT DOWN. My brother who is a truck driver and has witnessed the before and after effects of so called "Smoke Free" legislation, says the economic impact in that example has been devastating.

[GOTV]

5. Do you know any details?

Like, was it a state-wide ban?
Where did the smokers go?

California has been smoke free for how many years? Are they suffering economically?

[geiger]

6. statewide issue in Minnesota

I do not know the details of California's restrictions

[GOTV]

9. So since they couldn't migrate to bars that allowed smoking...

... I assume they migrated to bars where the outside was easier to reach. I would think, being inside a mall meant that if you wanted a quick smoke you had to go, not just out of the bar, but all the way out of the mall to the mall parking lot. What a hassle.

Could the loss of business in the mall bars have been offset by increased business in the smaller bars near the mall? You know, smokers might have gone there because complying with the smoking ban was less of a hassle in a small bar.

[geiger]

23. not if there is a statewide ban

in Ohio even if a bar has an outdoor patio and there is a door leading to the inside where smoke could get in, no smoking is allowed and the penalties are steep.

[GOTV]

26. Yes, but you go as far away as you need to...

... if there's no smoking on the patio, you go to the parking lot, or the sidewalk.

The point of the post you responded to is that the Mall of the Americas (once the country's largest mall right?) is a unique situation. The bars there might have suffered much more than regular bars because you would need to go much farther to find a place it was legal to smoke than you would at a nearby corner bar.

Do you see?

That the Mall bars were devastated might not mean that bar business throughout the state was hurt.

I didn't think about it but it's probably a bad time to own a mall bar in Ohio unless you have your own entrance to the street to allow smokers an easy exit for a quick smoke.

[GOTV]

10. The way it will be enforced...

... is through anonymous complaints, leading to inspections, leading to fines. I'm pretty sure cops won't be patrolling the bars.

Although, if bars are voluntarily and immediately complying, there may not be much of a need to enforce the law.

[geiger]

11. cops luv to be patrolling bars, sorry

DUI quotas is a racket in Ohio

[GOTV]

13. Of course, but they won't be enforcing the smoking ban...

... is what I'm saying. That responsibility falls with the health department.

I'm not a lawyer, and could be wrong, but it's one of the things I'm keeping an eye out for.

[geiger]

15. My husband is Director of Administration for a small Ohio town

The police are definitely in on the act, and they will use it as an excuse where you dont have good chiefs, to harass people in any way they like.

[GOTV]

16. Well, I guess you can run into a bad cop anywhere...

... in which case any excuse is good enough for them.

Still, cops operating ethically and within the law will not be enforcing the smoking ban any more than they enforce other health regulations. Inspectors do that.

[GOTV]

28. More info about enforcement

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061203/NEWS01/61203014

"But some business owners say they’re confused about how the law will be enforced — it’s mostly complaint-driven, according to state health officials. Proprietors will get a warning letter for first offenses, with subsequent violations carrying civil fines of $100 to $2,500."

[geiger]

29. more than fines for possession of pot

[GOTV]

30. Good point...

... But I think it's because it's being levied against companies and not individuals.
The fine has to be something that would dissuade a company.

[geiger]

2. the restaurants and bars in this area are in compliance today

the fines are too stiff if they're not. I cant believe people voted for this. I dont smoke, but all this legislating stuff has just gone too far. People are still going to get lung cancer, too, whether they smoke or not. The current administration refuses to update Blue Skys, we have millions of toxins in our foods and environment, and now we tell the people who pay all the cigarette taxes and build stadiums they cant smoke. Ridiculous way to think you're solving problems. If you're a contractor or drive a public vehicle, you cant smoke in your vehicle either. Where does it stop....

[GOTV]

4. I see the personal freedom angle but...

... I think the economic impact will be small for anyone not involved directly in tobacco.

I just noticed the lobby of the building I work in, and our one bar, has put up laser printed no-smoking signs with the complaint number.

Since the health department has like 6 months to determine the rules implementing the law I really thought most bars would wait it out.

[geiger]

7. Again, I dont smoke, but I think there are things killing us faster than smoke

One restaurant manager I know thinks he loses family business when his restaurant is too smoky. This is a restaurant I never take my two boys to because they have asthma.

[GOTV]

8. Could be true

But I've never seen a study that suggested cigarette smoke wasn't a major killer.

I'm also a non-smoker btw, and a frequent bar goer who was only very rarely bothered by other people smoking. I do know of few people that seems very sensitive to the smoke in public places.

Your restaurant manager friend may see increased business due to the smoking ban.

I suspect that the number of people who avoid going out at all because of smoke was pretty small. In my area (Cleveland) there were already a handful of smoke free bars you could go to. And plenty of bars that allowed smoking were not that bad. Sensitive non-smokers just adjusted where they were willing to go. So I doubt that the smoke ban will bring out legions of new patrons causing a boom for bars.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

12. It not only bans it in bars but bans it in ALL

BUILDINGS that are open to the public - and any vehicle that is used for commercial purposes. THIS LAW IS VERY PAINFUL...

[GOTV]

14. Smokers used to be able to smoke in their offices, they adjusted...

... if your "office" is a company car or truck, will you not adjust like your office bound coworkers did years ago?

I agree it's painful.

[Deep13]

17. Not as painful as emphesyma.

If smoking is inconvenient, then don't do it.

[GOTV]

18. I don't smoke. (?!)

[geiger]

20. Hey, chill

It's inconvenient that oil companies are not paying their due taxes, it's inconvenient that other big companies continue to pollute our air, water and food, it's inconvenient that two percent of the population has half the nation's wealth. This is small potatoes. No wonder some people want to smoke. Maybe they should go underground and smoke crack or do meth, that would be more convenient?

[Deep13]

21. You just put a stool next to that premise and milked the hell out of it.

Wow.

[geiger]

22. no disrespect intended, i am just sick of all the bandaid solutions

both my grandfathers died of emphysema, one from the coal mines, and one from the combined coal and steel mines. noone needs to tell me about emphysema, or asthma, or bronchitis, or allergies.

[Deep13]

24. Wasn't responding to you and I only know...

...what people choose to post. Sorry to step on a nerve, but this is an important issue and I'm not going to avoid responding on a public forum out of fear of hurting people's feelings. I hardly think that ending or at least curtailing the cause of the vast majority of emphesymas, lung cancers and a good fraction of heart attacks and strokes is a band-aid solution. One may as well say that public water treatment is a band-aid for cholera.

[geiger]

25. nothing, absolutely nothing, hurts my feelings anymore, i am absolutely numb

the criminality of the priviliged few, the pain of the masses, the injustice of it all. so, respond away, i dont think you can hurt anyone's feelings, nor should it matter. it is, after all, like you say, a forum. i certainly dont pretend to have any answers either....

[Deep13]

19. Aww-right. Guess I'll be lounging in the tavern this weekend.

Could never go before because of the stench. Now I can go out and not need to send my coat to the cleaners as soon as I come home.

[GOTV]

27. I'm going to hit as many of my regular bars as I can...

... this weekend to see what they're like with the smoking ban - if they're even observing it.

[cmd]

31. So we're having our Christmas party at a private club

I just called one of my friends reminding her that the women dems are taking appetizers and items for Harbor House. Her reply was that she might not go because of the smoking ban.
Last year our party was at a non smoking place. There were no complaints. She was there the whole time. Go figure.

[geiger]

32. A local restaurant owner was running around town yesterday

exclaiming his absolute delight over the passage of the smoking ban, so now his restaurant could be "smoke free." This is not a stupid man, but there's obviously plenty of irrationality going around on this issue. He could have made his place smoke-free years ago if he wanted, and I think his restaurant is the longest-existing one in town, to boot. Goofy.

[MeDeMax]

33. I agree wholeheartedly, he could have done something years ago ...

made an accomodation for smokers outside, perhaps shared the cost with other businesses in the
building and told people he wanted to offer a healthy atmosphere for children to eat in, most
smokers wouldn't have punished him for that.

Each to his own...

[GOTV]

35. Smokers would have punished him...

... by making the rational economic choice. Unless his restaurant had something incredible, like best chef in town, the only pizza place in town or something like that, most people will not make the altruistic choice.

If two reasonably equivalent restaurants were nearby but one made smokers go outside while the other allowed people to smoke at their tables most smokers would choose convenience - especially on cold or rainy days.

And punish is not really the right word. It's not like they want to see the restaurateur hurt economically any more than I do when I choose one restaurant over another, they just make the simple rational choice that works for me.

The end result is that, if they have a choice people will generally go to where their preferences are met. Take away that choice and restaurants will be chosen on the attributes over which they still have choice.

Obviously the restaurant owner in this example believes as I do.

[MeDeMax]

37. the flaw in your rational choice argument ...

is that for the same reason people who dislike the smell of smoke indoors, I being one of them,
would have chosen the restaurant that didn't allow smoking at the tables.

There are many more non-smokers than there are smokers, and if you discount I-smoke-when-I-have-a-drink
smokers the ratio is even smaller. So between the restaurants in your example that one that didn't
allow smoking at the tables should have fared better before the ban and the other would fare better now.

Btw, I never said throw the smoking bums into the rain, I said modest accommodation.

There are plenty of customer friendly options between smoking at the tables and throw the bums out :-)

[GOTV]

39. Well, what you suggest is what we had... and the voters didn't like it.

I don't mind the smell of smoke usually and when I chose a bar or restaurant I didn't consider it's smoke free nature. But if it was important, there was only about 4 or 5 places in the entire greater Cleveland area that I can think of to go.

Since there was so few non-smoking choices and smelling smoke was not going to kill me immediately, I like most non-smokers, did not give much of a boost to the non-smoking bars.

So I don't think your premise is correct, that non-smoking bar and restaurant goers, typically went to smoke free bars and restaurants - not enough choices to make that work.

Bars and restaurants had decades to make modest accommodations and generally the accommodations were sub-modest. You had smoking sections directly next to non-smoking sections and most bars made no accommodations at all.

[GOTV]

34. He could have made his restaurant smoke free at anytime but...

... then it would have seemed like him against his smoking customers. Also his smoking customers might have migrated to restaurants that still allowed smoking and hurt his business.

Now he has the voters for cover. Also, since all the restaurants are now smoke free, he won't be losing customers to other restaurants.

It's much easier, and economically safer to go smoke free with everyone than to go it alone, although a small percentage of bars had gone smoke free independently.

[Sara Bradi]

36. wanna bet ?

>> Also, since all the restaurants are now smoke free, he won't be losing customers to other restaurants.

many of my friends and I are in the dating circuit and if we can't drink and smoke socially at the places
we used to hang out at, we will find places where we can.

Between Friday & Saturday evenings, we spend two hundred dollars a head easily. Hope they sell enough
happy meals to make up for it.

[GOTV]

38. Sure, I'll bet...

... look at what I said.

"since all the restaurants are now smoke free, he won't be losing customers to other restaurants."

You said: "we will find places where we can."

All restaurants are now smoke free (except for a possible patio exemption). You will find places where you can smoke. Therefore you will not be in restaurants, which are smoke free. Therefore no owner will lose business to other restaurants.

Do you see? All restaurants are smoke free. You may stop going to restaurants, and he may lose business, but he won't be losing business to restaurants that allow smoking because there are none.

If he unilaterally went smoke free, THEN he would lose business to all the smoke friendly restaurants around him.

The voters forcing all restaurants to go smoke free gives him economic cover to do what he wanted to do anyway.

[Sara Bradi]

40. you are on buster !

check back 12/8/2007, we shall see how well the "I didn't loose customers to other restaurants" are doing.

[GOTV]

41. So, which restaurants will you be going to?

[Sara Bradi]

42. You are not getin it

It is not a question of one over the other, they will all loose business.

If bars & restaurants are going to be so hostile why would my fiends & I want to patronize them ?

[GOTV]

43. No - YOU are not getting it.

You have just repeated exactly what I said.

One restaurant will NOT lose business to another restaurant. Here I'll copy it for you

"he won't be losing customers to other restaurants."

There. Directly from the post you responded to. In fact it's the part YOU copied and responded to.

Now you say

"It is not a question of one over the other, they will all loose business."

Like it's YOUR idea. So WHO doesn't get it?

Apparently we agree. If the restaurant owner in question barred smoking on his own, he'd lose business to OTHER restaurants... in fact rather than retyping it, let me just copy from my previous post "Now he has the voters for cover. Also, since all the restaurants are now smoke free, he won't be losing customers to other restaurants."

So, since you agree with me, what's the issue?

[Sara Bradi]

45. I'll try one last time

You are saying one restaurant will not loose business to another because all restaurants have banned smoking.
I think you are also claiming there will be a negligible loss of business overall.

I am saying many, if not ALL, bar-restaurants will loose business due to the ban period.

I don't see how we agree and I am done here.

[geiger]

44. that's what happened in Minnesota

I guess we all just go to the wine shop and party at home, but what's next. I've actually heard of cases of parents of children being sued for what someone else deemed inappropriate smoking around or near their children, even if outside.

[Sara Bradi]

46. funny you should say that

A girlfriend of mine is a dancer (the exotic kind) and she is friends with a few regulars, one of them is an attorney and he was suggesting something along the lines you suggest.

Have private parties at someone's place, or at a regular rental, everyone pitches in for the food and beverages. So long as the neighbors don't complain about the loud music and the dancing, we may be okay if things are done right.

Blows my mind how things can get so crazy so quickly.