Illinois passed a ban today that covers all public places.
posted by ROCK1 at 04:59 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 24, 2007 #
But the proposal still has a long way to go before it could become state law."........
Tracy Sabetta (sp) whined not long ago, about the fact that Michigan sent the smoking ban to 'committees to die', where, she said, it could languish for a good long time, or forever.
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall reading on a Michigan smokers' rights forum, that Michigan's laws are worded in such a way, that they can't be tampered with by higher govt. I would assume, at any rate - before any ban is passed, it'd go to a vote first. If not, then we really need to shed a tear for this country - facism will indeed have settled in rock hard.
posted by starling02 at 05:30 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 24, 2007 #
wonder what would happen, if ALL of Ohio's restaurants, bars, bowling allleys, bingo, VA & pool halls declared a mutiny, and just allowed smoking. As long as they have signs posted & ashtrays removed, they've complied with the law. It is not their job to enforce the ban (and they sure don't get paid to do so). I imagine at first there'd be a lot of reported violations, but how could the health dept. keep up? If a violation is reported, then the health dept is sent out in a day or two to check if somebody was smoking (How on earth do they prove that after the fact?????? It's all 'he said, she said'.). The cost to enforce a mutiny like this would be astronomical - they'd have to hire more help to inspect all the reported violations, and even then, be able to PROVE smoking occured, that the owner was aware of. (How can they site a bar or restaurant owner if somebody snuck a cigarette in the restroom? How is the owner supposed to know if that even occurred, or who did it?). I'm disqusted with all this ban nonsense. It was easy enough for people to exercise their freedom to choose to enter, or not enter. Not enough smoke free bars to suit ya? OPEN ONE. Talk is cheap - walk the walk, if you think it's so easy to make a smoke free place work.
posted by starling02 at 05:30 P.M. EST on Tue Jul 24, 2007 #
"Will it help business?"
Of course not. It's always been a myth that once bars went smoke-free, the non-smokers would crawl out from under their rocks and start going to the bars.
Do the math. If at least 70% of the public doesn't smoke, why didn't the bar and restaurant owners change their businesses to become smoke-free long ago before the ban-craze began? In theory, they would have at least doubled their business by going smoke-free. Before the bans, why didn't a local chain of smoke-free bars and bowling alleys pop up to tap into the larger market?
We had all these smoking bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys competing for the small piece of the pie that represents 30% of the population. Why didn't some entrepreneur get the bright idea to be the only smoke-free sports bar to go after the larger piece of the pie that represents 70% of the population? Before the smoking ban craze, it seems a smoke-free chain of bars or whatever would have made a mint. In theory.
Now that we have the ban, has every bar, restaurant, bowling alley, etc. more than doubled their business? The mathematics says they should.
Before the smoking ban, some restaurants, coffee shops, or diners were already smoke-free. Has the smoking ban hurt these businesses that were already smoke-free? Think about it. Before the ban, they offered an option for the non-smokers. But now that every place in Ohio is smoke-free, these early adopters of non-smoking loss their edge or uniqueness among the non-smokers.
With Ohio's smoking ban, has there been a change in tax revenue collections for the cities? In theory, the smoking ban should increase tax revenue collection. The bar owners have doubled their business, right? That means more money for the city, and maybe no new future "garbage fee" taxes for the citizens.
posted by jr at 12:04 A.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#The_effects_of_bans
No one is denying anyone the right to smoke. If this was a ban (a misnomer), smokes would be illegal and jacked up in price (and not subsidized by the guvvers). This is like telling mopeds to stay off the highway because you're slowing everyone else down.
You guys are so on a mission, much like this guy:
"My lungs should be able to listen to carcinogens and dance with them and even force people around to do the same."
Perhaps the larger portion of the population decided that smokers would probably be less harmful outside masturbating their nicotine receptors. It's harm control, not a ban. Although it provides hours of ad nausea entertainment listening to y'all cry rights when your real rights have been trampled.
When will the people learn democracy doesn't work? -HS
posted by charlatan at 02:48 A.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
I frequent the bars on the South End/Maumee mostly on Thursday and Friday nights and I haven't seen a drop off in patrons. There are plenty of times that my friends and I have to drive from bar to bar till we find a place that we can get a table to sit together.
posted by SensorG at 08:33 A.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
So charlatan, you're implying that you're a mathematical imbecile.
30% of the population smokes. Bar, restaurant, and bowling alley owners permitted smoking.
70% of the population doesn't smoke. If a bar, restaurant, or bowling alley owner changed business practices to become a smoke-free biz, then that person's business would have more than doubled. Or if an entrepreneur opened a new bar, restaurant, or bowling alley that was smoke free, that owner would have owned a large percentage of the 70% of the population that doesn't smoke because of no competition.
Why didn't bar, restaurant, and bowling alley owners make this business practice change on their own 10+ years ago? Why did these business owners choose not to double their business? Where were the entrepreneurs?
For years, bar, restaurant, and bowling alley owners denied themselves more money by not going smoke-free. And now government and mob rule have forced these businesses to make more money by catering to the 70% of the population that doesn't smoke.
The real complaint here is not that smoking is banned in bars, restaurants, and bowling alleys. People are complaining that these businesses are overcrowded and the owners are now making too much money because their business has more than doubled, and the government is getting more tax revenue from these businesses.
The mob rule had no right to force these businesses to become more successful. These business owners should have the right to make less money by allowing smoking.
And charlatan, even you probably know that government cannot outlaw tobacco because government makes too much money from tobacco taxes, which is used to fund all kinds of non-tobacco-related projects.
posted by jr at 08:38 A.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
LOL, Charlatan, f*cking Footloose.
Whatever happened to Lori Singer, anyhow? She was hot.
posted by McCaskey at 09:49 A.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
It makes sense to make as many people as possible happy from both a business and political perspective.
The 70/30 you seem to be stuck on doesn't mean much. There are casual smokers, chain smokers, addicts, obedient smokers, rebellious smokers, angry smokers with ED, etc. I'd say of the alleged 30% a small percentage are gung ho/militant about their addiction.
It seems most smokers I know don't mind either way. They're called sensible tolerant people who are aware that their airborne habits effect others negatively.
If Michigan bans bar smoking, it will level the playing field and see that a fledgling economy, not a smoking ban, is the reason while most business's are struggling.
I'm willing to bet the health insurers might have waived heavily on this as cancer, asthma, etc. means a cut in their lucrative profits.
posted by charlatan at 10:58 A.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
I believe that the 70/30 are the percentages that smokefree, et al has given - that 30 percent of the people smoke. charletan - wow, you sound really angry & have lumped most smokers into this ugly pile. Most smokers I know are decent people, who are polite about smoking. I just have to wonder, why nobody's making these generalities about drinkers - who do cause more deaths, damage, disease than shs does. Nobody seems to be making any kind of a fuss about drinkers, and yet, I have never heard of a smoker killing a family of 5 in a car crash because they were smoking; or starting a bar fight. Most smokers I know, are friendly (more so than a lot of non-smokers I know), polite, considerate. Methinks you see a pile of butts & just get angry at all smokers in general. Not fair - no more than getting angry at everybody who drinks a beer because a drunk driver caused a 3 car pile up.
posted by starling02 at 10:49 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
The important numbers here are the sub sets: 1.The percentage of people who smoke AND frequent taverns and bars. 2.The percentage of non-smokers who would never frequent a bar or tavern. 3. The percentage of people who do not smoke and would frequent bars and taverns. Hence a bar gains or loses one of the sub sets, not 70%. I've said this before but I'll repeat it and risk the condemnation. Smokers, and business owners under the capitalist system, have rights and they should not lose them. I'll wager that you will see bars and taverns fail in Michigan at a rate comparable to Ohio's, should a Michigan ban prevail.
posted by holland at 11:13 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 25, 2007 #
I hope Michigan passes this soon because it will give us more choices of restaurants and bars that we will patronize.The last time I went to a restaurant in Lambertville we got up and walked out because the place smelled like a ashtray and that was in the so called no smoking section.The waitress asked what was wrong and we told her we were going back to Toledo to eat because their restaurant smelled of smoke and that it was bothering us.I guess Ohio will be getting all of our restaurant and bar business from now on.
posted by buckeye277 at 11:17 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
buckeye - there's not too many places to eat in Michigan, near the border. Not anything close to what Toledo & it's burbs have, not in quanitity or quality.
posted by starling02 at 07:05 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
Butt, I thought thats all you went to anymore -was MI places?!?!?!
Me confusified.
posted by Ryan at 08:09 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
ryan - Michigan restaurants ARE the only places we eat at anymore. Buckeye made the comment that he hoped a smoking ban would pass in Michigan, because of all the restaurants he hoped to be able to eat at there. I was simply pointing out, that in comparison to the number of non-smoking restaurants in Toledo (and it's burbs)- (they all are) - that at the border Michigan's number is quite small, and only a small number of them are quality. I never said that by the border Michigan had a large number of quality restaurants - ever. The best we've found, are La Dolce Vita, Angelo's Northwood Villa, Magdelainas, Joe's French & Italian Inn, Chateau Louise and Evan's Street Station (a 5 star, very expensive, farther away, but wonderful). He can find a Cracker Barrel & Red Lobster in Toledo. There's a small handful of other restaurants - we didn't care for as much (Quimby's was good the first time, paled after that; Frog Leg Inn was a serious disappointment - 4 bad meals). So, yes, we only eat in Michigan, and yes, the food is excellent, but no, there is not a large variety to choose from. For the record - I have told my husband I'd go with him to any restaurant he wants (no pouting or whining) - he doesn't smoke. But he is against the smoking ban because it's just wrong. We want out dollars (or lack of) to be shown in the end of the day receipts. Yes, it will hurt local restaurants I'd think - but the pro ban people keep saying how wonderful the ban is for restaurants, that business will be booming (wait till it October when they close the patios or it's cold out), so I guess our business didn't matter after all.
ryan, you're still coming off a bit as juvenile & confrontational with an agitating mouth.
posted by starling02 at 10:59 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
I've heard of a few bars in Michigan that are supposed to do a great hamburger, will be checking those out. Once in a while, we get a craving for Outback - we get take out. But that doesn't help the waitress with tips (although I always tip a couple of bucks when she brings it to the car).
posted by starling02 at 11:01 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 26, 2007 #
True about Ryan, but he isn't as juvenile or elitist as F**keye.
posted by Darkseid at 01:39 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
I seriously was asking a question. I don’t think I am as juvenile as you are defensive.
Chateau Louise rules!
posted by Ryan at 07:28 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
"True about Ryan, but he isn't as juvenile or elitist as F**keye"
At least I don't have to stoop to calling people names when they don't agree with my point of view.Now that's what I call juvinile!
posted by buckeye277 at 09:05 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
True about Ryan, but he isn't as juvenile or elitist as F**keye.
Tsk, tsk, there you go again, "feeding the trolls."
LOL, Christ, you can't even follow your own advice.
posted by McCaskey at 11:55 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
starling02,some of the restaurants you have mentioned in Michigan are of excellant quality.Our favorite being Evan's Street Station.For us it is a special occasion type of place.It's too expensive to be going there often.The place that we walked out of was Quimby's.We could smell the cigarette smoke over the food so we chose to leave and as I said before that was in the no smoking section.
posted by buckeye277 at 01:06 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
"Tsk, tsk, there you go again, "feeding the trolls." "
And I wasn't even hungary! LOL!
posted by buckeye277 at 01:10 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
buckeye - the first time we ate at Quimbys, the smoking section was right when you walked in the door. A few months later, they'd moved the smoking section to the very back, behind the bar, into the pool table room. Service was horrible, it took almost an hour to even get waited on (there weren't that many people there at that time, it was still early, about 5 pm). The food was passable, but not nearly as good as it first was. It was packed the first two times we went there. But the way they stuck the smokers back by the pool tables, indifferent to service, no ambiance at all, & the poor quality food meant they lost our business. There's too many places to find a good steak to tolerate being treated like a second class citizen. Note - It is not that they moved the smoking section to the back that was the problem, it made sense to do that (even to me). It was that they banished the smokers to a butt ugly part, made no attempt to make it less butt ugly, and they didn't even seem to know we were there, dispite the fact that they showed us to our table. I also don't think they have a good ventilation system either. The only other time I felt banished to a dank celler atmosphere, was at Manhattans, when their 'smoking section' was (I think) an unused coat room, tiny small, felt more cement than anything, they'd placed a high wobbly table with very high stools in there, and it just felt like 'celler' to me. That was when they had a 'smoking section'. The food was less than I'd expected, mildly disappointed for all the hoo-ha I'd heard about it.
As for the smoking ban - If they'd have allowed restaurants to have separate smoking sections, with good ventilation systems, I fail to see why people would be bitching (in Ohio). They removed all choise from the business owners & smokers, and created instead, a world for only non-smokers. The Ohio ban includes cigar bars - good God. If smoke bothers you, you certainly do not go to a cigar bar (why would they even enter?). Lots of people enjoy a drink & cigar - but the nanny's removed that possiblity.
ryan - maybe I mistook your comment for sarcasm. If I did, I apologise.
posted by starling02 at 03:50 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
Ever think that ALL food will taste less than hoo-ha when you kill your taste buds with cigs? No hate - just saying.
You really do expect the world to cow tow to you and your ridiculous needs. Can you say high maintenance?
Really - the more you post about "punishing" the Ohio owners of bars/restaurants the more I realize you are insane. It makes NO sense and I think even you realize that. Sad.
posted by Ryan at 08:16 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 27, 2007 #
ryan said "You really do expect the world to cow tow to you and your ridiculous needs. Can you say high maintenance?" - No, it seems the smoke haters did that with the ban. I am not high maintenance at all. I simply make personal choises where to eat, and prefer a smoking section if possible (makes that long ass wait more relaxing). I'm aware that smoking hinders the taste buds, but my restaurant 'reviews' are not based on just my opinions - my husband does not smoke, and if he doesn't like the food, we don't go back. He was more displeased with Quimby's food than I was. Actually, I'm very easy going.
ryan also said "
Really - the more you post about "punishing" the Ohio owners of bars/restaurants the more I realize you are insane. It makes NO sense and I think even you realize that. Sad." - I don't believe I am "punishing" any bar or restaurant by simply choosing to spend my dining dollar where I find it more relaxing. It is the smoke nannys that "punished" the bars & restaurants, forced them to undo their business plan to appease the nannys. Very few are happy with the ban, business has dropped quite a bit (not counting chains) - will get much, much worse when the weather cools off & the patios close. They did not choose to ban smoking - it was forced on them. Many of these places had a customer base that was 70 - 90 percent smokers, and yet they had a ban force on them to appease that small handful that demanded a total ban, just in case they 'may want to eat or drink there'. Many of them will lose everything they've invested. Many of them are already having trouble paying the bills to stay afloat, many have closed their doors already. Their business goes under, they cant' make their mortgage payments, they go under - and why? Because the nannys forced a total ban against how they knew how to run their own business. I find THAT incredibly sad - and what is sadder, is I don't think YOU even realize that - you seem to think they're doing great, or will do great with a total ban - even when they can prove to you by their weekly receipts that they are dying. I think it's sad that the nannys pushed THEIR whims of not wanting to smell smoke on private business owners, and didn't have the balls to to say that - instead they constructed this huge shs scare fabrication to push it through. I think you're insane, with an uncanny, irritating resemblance to shane. And that is frightening.
ryan - I realize that non-smokers don't 'get' why people smoke - my two sons detest smoking, I GET it. Most smokers I know, smoke because they enjoy it, it relaxes them, calms their nerves. Many (like me) probably are more ADHD (before anybody invented that diagnosis), and smoking helps. I can't tolerate the meds for that - won't take them, the side effects scare hell out of me, and my body can't handle them. Smoking cessation patches, etc. have horrible side effects as well, you can have an instant stroke. My sister has seen a lot of American Airlines employees (where she works) taken out on stretchers from that shit. This new Chantrix drug they're pushing has horrible side effects, with similar results. My point, is to suggest to you, that before you lump all smokers into this 'filthy scum no self discipline' basket - is to stop & consider everybody who's on meds for ADD, ADHD, depression, etc. and tell them to just stop taking the meds. I am not suggesting that people smoke for medicinal reasons, nor should it be viewed as such. I can't speak for all smokers, but most that I know (me included) have been smoking as a stress reducer, nerve unjangler, mental calmer for decades - it is not just a nicotine addiction, it is also a psychological addiction, hand habit. I meet every qualification for ADHD but am not on any prescription drugs, by choise. Mostly though - I've just had decades of being able to use smoking to relax & unwind, so of course I much prefer eating at someplace that accomodates me. (that God awful long wait for the check........). I smoke when I'm tense, angry, bored, sad. I guess we smokers are not all as well adjusted & mentally perfect as you are. But I'd be very careful about slinging arrows about ADD & ADHD on this board - I've already done it & gotten pummeled. (I tend to believe these are things people have always had to deal with, forever - but they didn't have the fancy labels back then, and people just managed to deal with it all. I got labeled 'flighty' & "scatterbrained". We didn't have the labels to blame it all on. I'd much prefer to sit near a table of smokers, than a table of people on meds for ADD & ADHD - they all have serious side effects of serious mood swings, violence, suicide, homocide, depression.)
posted by starling02 at 12:43 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 28, 2007 #
Buck and McCasket's anti-smoker hero (he was a vegetarian, too)
posted by Darkseid at 04:27 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 28, 2007 #
Thankfully, Dr. Feel (a wholly owned subsiduary of Dr. Phil) is here to help you work through your problems.
Please answer the questionaire below, so I know how best to treat you. And please have your insurance card ready for the wallet biopsy. This is a Capitalist country and I don't work for free. MY GUESS IS THAT YOU ARE IN THE B CATEGORY. Am I right?
I discriminate against smokers because:
A. The smell of smoke is icky and yucky, it makes my hair and clothes stink and I hate walking into a bar/restaurant where people are smoking. So rather than take advantage of the free market and go somewhere that is voluntarily smoke free, I would rather use the power of the state to impose my personal preference on my fellow citizens.
B. My beloved ___________ (choose one: husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, maid, dog, cat, goldfish, gay lover) died from _________(choose one: cancer, heart disease, emphysema, car crash, train wreck, terrorist attack, sting ray) because of their smoking.
C. I smoked for _____ (years) and now I am ________ (choose one: missing it, sick, dead, born again, enlightened, ashamed of myself, if I can't do it, nobody can) and want to share my experience with others.
D. The Big Tobacco companies are lying scumbags and must pay!!
E. I represent Big Pharmaceutical interests that benefit from the anti-smoking movement because it increases the sales of our Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products.
F. I am a deeply caring individual in the mold of Mother Theresa and I am speaking out due to my benevolent, philanthropic, altruistic concern about the health of my fellow man.
G. I am a research scientist and grant junky, and if I don't tow the party line my grant money will disappear.
H. I'm just a garden variety Fascist and Totalitarian and get a ______ (choose one: cheap thrill, natural high, erection, orgasm) by imposing my will on other people.
I. I am a retard who believes in bogus studies, junk science, the Easter Bunny and the Toothfairy. I fear that because I walked into a bar on Spring Break in 1987, and was exposed to Second Hand Smoke I now suffer from ______(choose one: AIDS, Herpes, Athletes Foot, Jock Itch, male pattern baldness, or genital warts)
J. I am a disgruntled, prissy and angry employee of a ______(choose one: bar, restaurant, club, casino) who can't leave the job because I am a _______(choose one: slave, indentured servant, sweatshop laborer, illegal immigrant) and had no idea there was smoking going on in the place before I took the job.
K. An elected public serpent, serving as a _____ (choose one: State Assemblywoman, Senator, Freeholder, city councilman, mayor) and I have failed miserably in my job and trying to tackle really tough problems like _____ (choose one: gang violence, income taxes, property taxes, crime, corruption), so I will support a smoking ban based on the talking points and literature that "M" has given me and claim that I have actually accomplished something to help my constituents.
L. A Socialist liberal Democrat who is desperate for Universal Healthcare so the proletariet will continue to keep me in power. But if I don't do something about the "demand side" health care costs caused by such global health menaces as _________ (choose one: Marlboro, Merit, Kool, Big Macs, Whoppers, Chicken McNuggets, Budweiser, Coors, Jack Daniels) my health care entitlement program will go ________ (choose your adjective: broke, belly up, bankrupt, insolvent).
M. A professional anti-tobacco activist who makes $450,000 per year. MY GOAL IS TO REDUCE SMOKING RATES FROM 25% TO BELOW 10%. KICKING THEM OUT OF THEIR FAVORITE BAR AND RESTAURANT IS JUST A SMALL STEP TO COERCE THEM TO QUIT. I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THE SHS NONSENSE MYSELF! Don't you dare try to ban cigarettes, if you do I will have to go back to my previous job ______(choose one: prostitute, drug dealer, pimp, state assemblyman, mayor) where I won't make nearly as much money and the bank will foreclose on my seaside villa and repo my _______(choose one: Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Hummer, Infiniti, Acura,Jaguar, Volvo, Bentley). I take advantage of the prejudices of categories A-L above to accomplish my goal.
N. I don't fit any of the above categories, I just like to argue with people.
posted by Darkseid at 04:37 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 28, 2007 #
posted by Darkseid at 04:39 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 28, 2007 #
Ta Ta, folks.
posted by Darkseid at 05:02 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 28, 2007 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
