I heard the director of COSI on the radio this last week. I think he made a very honest appeal - but maybe he should have spoken to the voters sooner.
He said that in (?)2000-2003 there had been some decisions made that could have been better. They've suffered some setbacks and are intent on taking a different operational direction in the next year. That he thought they could make it - and that they need tax support to get there.
I think if he'd made that statement more publicly and earlier on - he probably wouldn't have had a problem getting it through.
posted by katie82640 at 01:23 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Why does The Blah state that it won?
I think its defeat says a lot about the typical voter.
1.) Doesn’t affect them directly, they don’t go there, sheesh.
2.) COSI Who?
3.) And these are the same people who want downtown to come alive, yet cannot spare some change to keep that here. Why don’t we just tear down COSI and OI and build that amusement park Opal has been fighting for?
Selfish, small minded denizens of Toledo unite!
posted by Ampage at 01:31 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
They've suffered some setbacks and are intent on taking a different operational direction in the next year. That he thought they could make it - and that they need tax support to get there.
Perhaps if he worded it that way, he may have gained more support. However, he made it seem like COSI will no longer operate without tax support. That meaning, indefinately. That doesn't sit well with voters.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 01:56 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
And I don't buy that they'll have to close. They might, I don't have the numbers, but they should be able to stay open until the next election to possible put it back on the ballot. Second or third time is usually a charm with the voters in Lucas County.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 01:58 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
I'm disappointed that it didn't pass. COSI is a wonderful asset both to downtown and the community as a whole. (And I thought that even before I had kids.)
I hope that ToledoPlusPlus is right and that COSI is able to stay open until the next election. With the right publicity, I think we could sway enough voters to realize how important it is to the community.
posted by mom2 at 02:58 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
My honest opinion, I always thought COSI was a bad idea. You see it once, why come back.
I feel that being as the city was given the old Portside festival marketplace, they should have renovated it and reopened it with much lower rents for the merchants.
Better yet, make it a casino, no, wait, the stuffy sticks-in-the-mud don't like that idea.
The biggest roadblock to downtown being a popular destination IMHO is a lack of free parking. Worse yet, whenever there is a special event, they jack up the parking rates, thats just wrong.
posted by JeepMaker at 03:18 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Better yet, make it a casino, no, wait, the stuffy sticks-in-the-mud don't like that idea.
I DO! 8-)
posted by tm at 03:20 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
i'm glad it failed. why should the taxpayers artificially prop up a private enterprise?
down with the moralists....bring in a casino! ;)
posted by wholesaler1972 at 03:57 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
I'm all for a casino, but it needs to have a lot more than just slots.
posted by junta330 at 04:31 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
I voted against COSI. I really don't see the value and COSI doesn't revitalize downtown.
If you want to see an instant renewal of downtown Toledo, begin with tons of free parking at extremely convenient locations. If you want gambling, then do it Las Vegas style, complete with the billion dollar hotel industry that will move in.
posted by madjack at 04:39 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
I voted against this disgusting COSI levy, and with pleasure, and I want to make it perfectly clear as to why I did:
No private business "needs" a source of revenue derived from public funds.
The government has no business running entertainment (even edu-tainment) outlets of any kind. It should have never occured to COSI's managers to even pose the question of a levy. Toledo's voters should have laughed those welfare queens right off the polls, even so.
A levy for COSI is simply part of the huge mental derangement that afflicts too many Toledoans. People around here are in such deep dependency modes that they literally don't understand the socio-economic and -political structure of the United States. In short, you're supposed to work for your money, and you're supposed to earn your profits as well as take personal responsibility for your losses and debts.
Well, purple-monkey-toaster, that's neither here nor there. The levy failed and the 1600-vote margin is highly unlikely to shrink enough on a recount (unless the LCBOE manages to "lose" or "double-count" more ballot boxes like it did in 2004). Aaaand ... it appears that according to the 11th-hour fear-tactic article in the TFP, COSI will now have to bankrupt. I welcome that outcome ... since idiots who cannot manage a business deserve to fail. Their assets will be sold off at pennies on the dollar to those who (hopefully) have the will to succeed.
(Note well that I actually don't believe COSI will bankrupt. 11th-hour statements in elections are done to push misinformation and promote fear in order to pass certain issues on certain "merits".)
P.S. Calling a voter "selfish" for keeping his own money is the height of the Toledoan mental illness I outlined above. The state is not our parent, our nanny, our employer or the steward of our wealth. The state is not our master and we do not owe it anything to the extent of being taxed so that one class can prosper while the rest of us work. The COSI levy was an abomination to those who value true American culture and the necessary economic liberty that supports it.
posted by GuestZero at 06:04 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
wow, gz, you and i agree on something. just think about the deals the city could offer new business.
"no risk business....if you blunder and slip, a levy can pick you up"
we could make toledo a true business haven.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 06:30 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
I agree with GZ and JeepMaker. Now I would have supported COSI and the ZOO if they would have announced a combined levy that would have moved COSI to the zoo. But instead it's too much for two places that don't get enough people in my book so I voted against both.
posted by MikeyA at 06:39 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
mom2 said ", I think we could sway enough voters to realize how important it is to the community"..............Since the voters took it upon themselves to decide how private business owners can run their business (smoking ban) - I'll be damned if I ever vote for something like Cosi, the zoo, etc. again. I will never donate to another charity (and I gave a lot each year). I am done. All this pity party shit over cosi - where's the pity for the private owners of restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, pool halls, etc.??? Some of them spent crazy high money on special rooms, ventilation systems to meet the demands of the old ban -and for what? What pisses me off, is if the smoking ban did not pass - nothing would have changed in restaurants - most were already non-smoking, and could only have changed to smoking IF they had the space & cash to put in a special room/ventilation system. I suggest that everybody who voted FOR this stupid smoking ban be required to actually GO to a bar, pool hall, bingo hall, bowling alley - at least once a week. Put your money where you put your vote. I always supported cosi, the zoo, school levies -even though my kids are grown. No more, I won't ever vote for another school levi, nada.
posted by starling02 at 06:57 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
I suggest that everybody who voted FOR this stupid smoking ban be required to actually GO to a bar, pool hall, bingo hall, bowling alley - at least once a week.
Did you know more people showed up to vote for or against issue 5 than any other issue or race in Lucas County? Pretty remarkable. Just like banning gay marriage! I love legislating morality!
posted by junta330 at 07:12 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Just a couple of thoughts-
1) There is an abundance of free parking downtown. During lunch-hour, during evenings, and on weekends or holidays parking on the streets is free. The parking consultant brought in made an interesting statement - Toledoans don't have a parking problem, they have a walking problem. Although you're right - special events do lead to a severe gouging, which should be discouraged.
2)GZ, I don't think you paint a realistic portrait of American culture at all. The state DOES support and provide crutches for private business all the time - what do you think all of the tax abatements and economic incentives we hand out are? And those aren't put up for a public vote - they're handed out by the government at their discretion. I apologize for not having the citation on hand, but a recent study by one of the big business schools found that government gives way more economic concessions to for-profit businesses than to not-for-profit enterprises, despite people complaining that non-profits are the big moochers. Saying that the levy is an abomination to American culture is a bold but essentially baseless statement.
3) Cultural attractions are a major attraction for attracting new businesses, after favorable economic policies. And the stakes of having a society literate in science and technology are just rising more and more - having a place to spark curiosity and wonder in children is more important than ever before.
4) COSI was a major player in trying to put together a combined levy package a couple of years back with other cultural institutions. Other areas such as Denver, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc. all do have mechanisms to spread funds (sales tax, levy monies, etc.) to the cultural organizations, why not here? Certain agencies balked at trying to combine and have to share monies...
5) With all the talk of a casino, why does that matter one fig in regards to COSI? It's not an either-or proposition (although a bit moot right now). Plenty of empty room on the waterfront, plenty of empty space in downtown to accomodate that. Plenty of room for all to play together.
posted by wombat at 07:13 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Great points wombat, especially with the free parking. The renewal of Toledo will NOT come in the form of free parking everywhere, because there has to be a REASON to go downtown. Most people don't see much of a reason to.
Learn to take the damn bus or something. Or you can park for free at International Park and take the water taxi, or just wander around after walking across the bridge like I do. There is a parking garage on Summit across Promenade Park where it costs $2 to park, and you can get a year round pass for cheap.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 07:49 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Toledo is the only downtown of a city that I've seen free parking in. Not even Ann Arbor has free parking.
posted by MikeyA at 08:09 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Most people that bitch about downtown cause the most damage. They are like cutters. "I want downtown revitalized" - "I voted against COSI", etc. It all takes baby steps - but if you ever pull the magic wand out of your asses, feel free to wave it freely in and around the downtown area. That is, if it has EXACTLY what you want at any given time. Dickheads. Move already - I love Toledo and you are doing nothing but bringing it down.
posted by Ampage at 08:54 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
ampage, take a breath. your apparent "common good, i love toledo" approach is touching, but it has proven ineffective. cosi is a private business that admits to a poor business model. why continue the charade?
posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:22 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Since the voters took it upon themselves to decide how private business owners can run their business (smoking ban) - I'll be damned if I ever vote for something like Cosi, the zoo, etc. again. I will never donate to another charity (and I gave a lot each year).
Of course, the smoking proposals were statewide issues, and you're talking about not supporting local causes. Toledoans certainly didn't make or break the statewide vote. And Ohio is not the first state to implement a statewide smoking ban - actually, there are 18 other states. (Number could be different now, as I don't know the results from the other states that had proposals on the ballot yesterday.)
But hey, if you think that stopping all of your charitable contributions will be a good outlet for your anger, then go for it. Not sure exactly what charities you personally were supporting before, but in general I don't see how a smoker refusing to give money to children's charities is at all relevant to the statewide smoking ban.
I suggest that everybody who voted FOR this stupid smoking ban be required to actually GO to a bar, pool hall, bingo hall, bowling alley - at least once a week.
How do you know that they don't already do so?
What pisses me off, is if the smoking ban did not pass - nothing would have changed in restaurants - most were already non-smoking, and could only have changed to smoking IF they had the space & cash to put in a special room/ventilation system.
Once again, you seem to be forgetting that this was a statewide issue.
posted by mom2 at 10:59 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
Count me in with Starling and GZ-I voted no on COSI AND the zoo-way it goes. As to the charity angle, Star, you're somewhat late to the party-I haven't given to the ACS, the ALA, or the AHA for close to 12 years, since they're the ones who use donations to pay outrageous salaries AND get smoker bans passed. And, yes-this was a 'statewide issue'-BUT-who were the people behind it? Herr Kerr is a WELL-PAID lobbyist (and front man)for the AHA, the ACS and ALA were the other two behind it-under thew usual lying guise of 'citizen's groups'. Citizen's groups don't have,and can't raise, that kind of cash. ANY smoker who donates to any of those three charities is certifiably insane, IMO. And the same goes for any bingo hall, bar, restaurant, etc; as those 3 groups try to put small businesses OUT of business.
posted by Darkseid at 11:33 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 08, 2006 #
mom2 - I haven't forgotten a thing, yes, it was a statewide issue and vote. And yes, my refusal to give to any more charities (includes everything even girl scout cookies) - or vote for any more levies is just my small way of venting my anger - but hey, works for me. I USED to love Toledo - I still think it has lots of potential. But I am sick to death of the dirty politics, the wishy-washy 'lets hire another out of town consultant to tell us what they think we need to do because we're too stupid to figure it out ourselves' crap. This smoking ban was not just Toledo - I'm well aware of that. But it's the straw that broke my back so to speak. I'm lucky enough to live on the Michigan line so that is who will get my dining dollar - it's an inconvenience to me, but I'll survive. One of the small pleasures my husband and I have is dinner out each week, and I fully intend to enjoy it, with a cig.
My sympathy goes to the restaurant and bar owners who have invested their money, sweat and reputation only to have the govt. dictate how they may run it - after the fact. How do I know most of the people who voted the smoking ban in don't spend much time in these places?? Ask the owners. Ask the bar owners, bowling alley owners, etc. what percentage of their customers smoke. The majority of people I know of that voted for the smoking ban never go to bars, bingo halls, pool halls, etc. anyway. How many bars to you go to a week, mom2? Pool halls and bowling alleys? Bingo halls? VA halls? The majority are smokers, and the majority of their non-smoking friends will follow them to where they go next. And once people find a new bar, they rarely return.
And yes, most restaurants in Ohio were already smoke free - some had special rooms or sections to smoke, but everybody always had the option of not entering (it's called freedom of choise). As a smoker, I have found that it was difficult to find many places that did have a smoking section even before the ban - about 95 percent at least, so I fail to see what the smoking nazi's were whining about. Are they that mentally deficient that they are unable to decide for themselves whether to enter a restaurant or bar by themselves? They needed to vote in a ban so the govt. will protect them? Grow up. It is not the govt.s job to protect us. There are states with a smoking ban that are now trying to ban perfume and colognes, and determine custody based on parental smoking. And tell restaurants what oil they can use. A slippery slope. You give up rights - you'll keep giving them up.
I am curious how they intend to enforce it - I heard they expect people to use 911 to report smokers, which ties up 911 lines. If that is the case, I won't vote for 911 levies anymore either because it's a waste of resources. Who will reimburse these business owners who have invested huge money into special rooms and ventilation systems to meet the old ban requirements? Ohio is number 11 in the country as high in micro-pollutants - my gripe is they need to focus on that, put the money on THAT. You inhale more pollutants walking out your damned door than you do in a restaurant or bar with a ventilation system.
I've been researching a bit online - I hadnt realized how much crime has evolved over smoking bans. Women who go outside to smoke and cannot take their drink with them - lots of reports of date rape drugs in the drinks. Many, many reports of rape, assaults, robbery on those standing in the dark outside. All I'll say is wait for the fall out - it's coming. Lots of talk in the state as well about boycotts - of not buying cigs in Ohio, or going to bars, etc. in Ohio at all, rolling their own, starting speakeasys,etc. Ohio's unemployment and foreclosure rate was high by national standards before the ban - just wait to see what it will become with the ban. Smug, arrogant people presuming to tell private business owners how they can run their business. I hope the smoke nazi's are there helping them move out when they foreclose on them. Go shake their hand and wish them well. There's a woman with a 39 seat bar on the Ohio-Michigan line - it will bury her. I can count at least 8 bars within 5 minutes of my house near the Mich. line that probably wont' survive. But mom2 - my guess is you are one who voted for this ban, so pat yourself on the back. My guess is you havent been in a bar more than half dozen times this year.
I am sick to death of the hypocracy - if the surgeon general says tobacco is the poison he claims it is, then make it illegal to grow, sell, own, and use - like heroin. But that wont ever happen because there's too much money wrapped up in it. Who gets the tobacco tax money anyway? Anybody know?? It's a proven fact that obesity and alcohol cause more health and death problems than tobacco - second hand smoke is negligable, I probably suffer worse from household cleansers. Grill cooks are exposed to more carcinigens than any of us. Factory workers - ask them what they're exposed to. People are allowed to go to a bar, drink poison, have un protected sex maybe, and get in the car to drive home after having a few - but God forbid they may get a whif of second hand smoke. They can sit their fat asses down and gorge themselves and feel smug they don't smoke. My doctor told me that autopsy's done on teenagers showed about 20 percent had hardening of the arteries. By 30 about 40 percent had it. Not from smoking.
I am hoping that they will be able to turn this ban around at some point. I guess New York revised their ban if the business could show enough loss in business. Why am I taking my fury out on cosi - kids? Because the smoking nazi's used children to push this ban. Because I am sick to death that we have parents who coddle their kids to the point of absurdity - no tag at school, no red ink, God forbid the teacher has issues with a kids behaviour - mom's on the warpath, call the lawyer. But it was using kids to pass this ban that pushed me over the edge - God forbid Timmy gets a whif of smoke, or has to drink (gasp!) tap water. Ya know what? There's a whole generation of elders in their 80's and beyond who grew up eating lard, bacon every day, the kids played in dirt - got dirty, who drank well or (gasp!) tap water, the parents smoked, and are still going strong. There have been huge numbers of people who stopped smoking in the last 30 years - but kids have more repiratory ailments, and ADD than ever before - why is that? One possiblity is kids have no immunity because they were overprotected. Pollution is a biggie. But it's easy to blame Polly's cold on second hand smoke. I am sick to death of the freaking do-gooders dictating how everybody should live. And when I see one of these Stand-Up kids - I want to drive a nail through their skull. Yes, I am bitter and angry.
posted by starling02 at 12:35 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
MikeyA said: “I would have supported COSI and the ZOO if they would have announced a combined levy that would have moved COSI to the zoo.”
I believe Konop spoke about such a combined levy. So: Oh, please, Mikey -- the politicians are WAAAAAY ahead of you on schemes to tax the hell out of you.
A combined levy is a perfect place to hide expenses, and it's similarly easy to incrementally increase the levy periodically. Look at the COSI levy as advertised: it was "only" 5 bucks a year for a taxpayer. All they'd have to do is market that increase each year, since after all, it's "only" so little.
There is great power in the accumulative force of small increments. From such a power, my grandparents are effectively renting their home(*) from the state for $200/month. This is abominable.
starling said: “Since the voters took it upon themselves to decide how private business owners can run their business (smoking ban) - I'll be damned if I ever vote for something like Cosi, the zoo, etc. again.”
Yeah! Hell, I didn't think of that. Kudos to starling's civil senses.
starling said: “Some of them spent crazy high money on special rooms, ventilation systems to meet the demands of the old ban -and for what?”
For a while, during the period the Anti-Smoking Nazis (i.e. the New Prohibitionists) were making their plans for progressive bans.
The real point here is that with Issue 5's passage, we now have the stepping-stone to banning smoking in private vehicles. I'm sure Stu "Herr" Kerr has a thick file folder with all this dross staged for petitions, legal challenges, and finally the ballot box. (Note that Stu leaves his enforcement actions up to the state, so his file folder isn't THAT thick.)
* Disclaimer: Due to special circumstances, I am not in line to inherit this house no matter who dies ... so don't go thinking that I'm complaining about property taxes out of purely selfish desires. It's wrong to tax a people (yes, even the wealthy and corporations!) so heavily that they are in effect paying life-rent to the state. Our civilization swallows 40% of the working man's income, which is far in excess of something else commonly seen as tyrannical: Medieval tithing. Even worse, our taxations are applied such that it's almost impossible for a person to retreat to their own resources in order to minimize their contribution to government coffers. Aaargh! {bitch bitch bitch}
posted by GuestZero at 01:05 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
wombat said: “GZ, I don't think you paint a realistic portrait of American culture at all. The state DOES support and provide crutches for private business all the time - what do you think all of the tax abatements and economic incentives we hand out are?”
No, you're blinded instead by recent and wrongful practices which clearly oppose American cultural mores. Tax abatements are a clear violation of the equality of treatment that government must apply to citizens and corporations. The courts simply haven't stricken these down yet, since the courts are run by the same elites who benefit from both those receiving the tax abatements and those who issue them. It's Communism cloaked in a business suit. Since this is called Capitalism, people stupidly accept it.
So: Their frequency is irrelevent. Murder is a pretty frequent practice, too, but it remains illegal. Their posed legitimacy is also irrelevent. The government is clearly doing something that it shouldn't EVER be doing.
I don't know about you, Wombat, but when I told my mother that my brother was doing the same (but wrong) thing that I was doing, I never received the relief I expected. During the process called "growing up", I learned WHY this was. So, get a clue. Two wrongs don't make a right, and in this case, a myriad of wrongs are still NOT CORRECT no matter how much PR spin you put on them.
wombat said: “Other areas such as Denver, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc. all do have mechanisms to spread funds (sales tax, levy monies, etc.) to the cultural organizations, why not here?”
Because if you'd stop living in denial and look around Toledo with an honest and industrially-educated eye, you'd see that Toledo is dying economically, that Toledo is not a major metropolitan area (with great stores of Human capital) like the ones you mentioned, and finally (and most importantly) that you should never try anyway to tax yourself into prosperity. When people say "build it and they will come", the assumption is that such construction is in the PRIVATE realm. The PUBLIC realm is only properly to keep law enforcement present, the streets cleaned and paved, the sewers running clear, the water mains supplying us all, and the schools open. Government has no business supporting retail outlets. Government keeps the lights on; it's up to YOU to figure out the number, style and placement of the lamps holding the lights.
posted by GuestZero at 01:17 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
So now COSI thinks it can get the city and the county to help pay its bills (Blade story) and it appears that the elected officials are willing "to help."
What part of NO did they not understand? The voters said no tax dollars. How hypocritical if elected officials turn around and give them tax dollars. Let each of the people who voted FOR the levy send them a check for the "only $5 per $100,000 value of their home."
posted by MaggieThurber at 07:40 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
And HERE'S what's bullshit.
"COSI Toledo's board of directors said yesterday they are hoping the city and Lucas County can provide $300,000 to $400,000 to help the downtown children's museum survive long enough to find a long-term solution to its financial crisis."
The city and the county???!!?? That's still OUR TAX MONEY!!! We voted NOT to spend those funds Dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The museum's proposed levy, which would have resulted in property tax of $5.11 a year for the owner of a $100,000 home, was approved by 49.42 percent of voters, but was rejected by 50.58 percent."
Tell you what - all of you in the 49.42% of the population who wanted to spend the bucks, why dont you step up and carry the rest of us who said no?? Take the value of your home and multiply it by .0000511, double it, and write out a check for that amount and send it in directly to COSI. Hell, just because the government isnt seizing it directly out of your paycheck doesnt mean you cant pay it yourselves - the rest of us dont want it!!
Hell, those of us who voted against it will do our part and NOT PATRONIZE the damn place!!!
posted by billy at 07:50 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
Looks like maggie and I posted the same thing, sorry for the redundancy - I was doing other things while I was posting and it took me about 15 min to finish - in the interim Maggie posted, and it wasnt on my screen.
posted by billy at 08:00 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
I didn't vote for the COSI issue because I've only been there twice and there were a good many years between my trips. The problem is I didn't really notice any difference between the two visits.
The science museum in Detroit hosted an awesome Titanic exhibit. Others get things like the Body Works exhibits. Maybe COSI needs to start showcasing cool things like that before they start asking for handouts.
I don't see any need myself to visit again anytime soon.
As for Starling02's suggesting nonsmokers head out to the bars, you know now that people know that they can go to a bar or bowling alley and not come home smelling like they've been rolled in an ashtray, or be able to sit and enjoy a drink or a game without choking on the air they likely will start going out to them more often.
From the interviews they gave on the news the business owners don't see that upset about it, as one said at least it's a level playing field and you can't just pop over to Maumee or Perrysburg.
Personally I think had issue 4 took smoking out of resturants 100% it would have passed and left smoking in bars and bowling alleys.
The point is, they wanted it put to a statewide vote and it was.
You spin the wheel and take your chances.
posted by OhioKat at 08:21 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
I have many times said I don't believe the Zoo or Cosi are worth the money a family pays to get in. Plus neither gets a high enough attendance. I do support COSI moving to a location within the Zoo. I think this would A) give people more for their money (because $7 for a child under five is too much anyway) B) raise attendance because the COSI portion would be a year long draw. C) The portside location can easily be redeveloped into a bigger attraction by private enterprise and D) it all just makes more sense.
As for the smoking ban I now have no problem with it. A vote was put up in front of the people and the people spoke. Issue 4 could always come up on another ballot if it hurts businesses too much. But I was adamantly against the "backdoor shenanigans" that the Issue 5 people have done to wrongfully impose a smoking ban upon the city.
I think JR is right about Toledo's smoking ban. With a smoking ban that encompasses the state it's not putting Toledo at a disadvantage with it's competitors. (Unless their competitors are in Michigan).
posted by MikeyA at 08:32 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
I have many times said I don't believe the Zoo or Cosi are worth the money a family pays to get in. Plus neither gets a high enough attendance. I do support COSI moving to a location within the Zoo. I think this would A) give people more for their money (because $7 for a child under five is too much anyway) B) raise attendance because the COSI portion would be a year long draw. C) The portside location can easily be redeveloped into a bigger attraction by private enterprise and D) it all just makes more sense.
That would be a decent idea. To combine the Zoo and COSI. You hit the nail on the head about the price for small children at COSI, especially since there is only one small area set up in COSI for the smaller kids.
If you venture out into the other areas you're often times overrun by older kids.
I usually keep up a Zoo membership and take my son over there quite a few times when it's warm enough. Sometimes we don't even cross the trail but just hang out with the polar bears and ride the train, or we'll just check out oa few of the animals and then play in the play area.
The point is it's a bit different each time and we're spending time outside having fun together.
posted by OhioKat at 09:42 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
MikeyA, you may have misinterpreted a sarcastic statement I made in another thread. I'm opposed to all smoking bans: local, statewide, national. Outlaw tobacco if it's such a problem. Can't do that because government gets too much money from tobacco sin-taxes. Whenever the government needs some cash to help with budget problems or fund development projects, the boobs increase the tobacco sin-tax.
Since we have a statewide ban now, then the fair thing to do is to repeal all the tobacco sin-taxes. To fund government mismanagement and to fund new programs, government should increase the sales tax or increase our income or property taxes. Nobody has a problem with this idea, do they? I mean, it's more fair if "everyone" chips in, instead of slapping taxes on tobacco sales. Afterall, the goal is to get people to quit smoking, right? If people quit smoking, what replaces the tobacco sin-tax and tobacco settlement money? The answer is, the anti-smoking crowd doesn't want smokers to quit smoking.
From an April 2004 posting:
"States use tobacco settlement to cover budget ills. Ohio takes $280M to trim shortfall. [States] are using most of their funds from the 1998 tobacco settlement to reduce budget shortfalls rather than for smoking prevention programs or to pay for health care. Michigan earmarked 42 percent or $165.9 million of its $388.3 million in fiscal 2003 tobacco funds for its budget shortfall."
February 2004 posting that pointed to a Blade story about Michigan's plan to increase the cigarette tax to help "fill a $1.3 billion hole in the state’s budget."
"Gov. Granholm does not know how the state can replace the loss of federal funds for the state’s health-care program for low-income residents without the proposed cigarette tax increase, which would generate $295 million in new revenues. About half of the state’s current cigarette tax revenue of $860 million goes to public schools; most of the money from the proposed tax increase would go to fund $400 million in lost federal Medicaid funds and increase in state caseloads."
Tobacco settlement money, the revenue stream from tobacco sin-taxes, it all dries up if people quit smoking. Since fewer people smoke as time goes by, that's probably why the tobacco sin-taxes get increased every few years. So it defies logic that government wants people quit smoking if the states and communities need the money from tobacco sales. I guess the government wish is: Buy tobacco products, but don't use them.
So now that smoking is banned in public places, then the right thing to do is to abolish tobacco sin-taxes that provide money for public projects like schools, sports arenas, etc. Tobacco sin-tax money should only be used for smoking prevention programs.
Check out this week's criminal behavior in Cuyahoga County:
"Results were far from final by press time this morning, but backers of Issue 18 remained hopeful that an early lead indicated victory."
"The issue would raise the county tax on cigarettes by 1.5 cents per cigarette, generating $20 million per year for 20 years to support arts and culture."
"Arts and elected leaders decided to pursue public support this year through a cigarette-tax increase after other types of taxes, including property, real-estate conveyances, food-and-beverage and general sales, were rejected as inadequate or too politically risky."
Oh, Cuyahoga's legalized robbery passed: "Though provisional ballots have yet to be counted, Cuyahoga County's Issue 18 appears to have passed by a comfortable margin."
I support the arts, but the above is theft. See, this is why we really don't want smokers to quit. Health-freaks view smokers as indigents. Smokers are marginalized, but smokers are needed to fund programs. Since smokers are outnumbered, they don't have a chance.
So here's the answer for COSI. Voters rejected a property tax, but I bet voters would support a cigarette-tax increase to fund COSI. COSI can move on this idea after they are done stealing taxpayer money from the politicians.
posted by jr at 09:50 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
Outlaw tobacco if it's such a problem. <--jr
Absolutely. Companies put out a product that is HIGHLY addictive and spend millions of dollars in research to come as close as they can to a guarantee that smoking is addictive - some experts have said this behavior is more addictive than a heroin addiction.
So the bad guys here are the addicts. Right?
This is the same mentality that lead states to enact 'Mandatory Attendance' legislation when public schools started to decline.
Rather than fix the problem - just use a sledge hammer to force the people that are suffering from the problem to find a way to deal with it.
Go after the real bad guys? Hey - they have too much money, too many PAC's and too many friends in Washington.
Better to gut the Bill of Rights - it's a much easier way to respond.
posted by katie82640 at 10:53 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
JR I think you're onto something about the sin taxes. If I were a smoker I'd consider suing with sin taxes as an infringement of my civil rights. After all if abortion is an implied right of the constitution then isn't smoking as well?
Don't bother with the ACLU. They will be conveniently too busy to take your call.
posted by MikeyA at 11:00 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
Now, now GZ - no momma jokes here, please ;)
We just think fundamentally different about the role of government in the lives of people. I think that the government has more of a role to play than as the keeper of the streets. They need to play an overall role in the economic well-being of a city, which does include looking at issues of quality of life. I sure as heck think the people who work at GM Powertrain are happy that the government played a role in keeping the plant here, as did the Jeep workers years back. And as a community we are stronger for it. I'm not saying that government shouldn't offer incentives for businesses to come to town, but rather that the government SHOULD have an active role in the overall maintenance and well-being of the economic engine of the region, which includes private businesses of critical importance to a region.
And as for folks who think that people do not have a right to make issues concerning public health, whether they be for private businesses or not, that is absolutely false. The people put the issue of smoking up for a vote, and they responded with what they feel the standards of community health should be. We develop standards for how food should be prepared, for how buildings should be designed to keep people safe, how businesses should properly dispose of wastes, etc. Why should these be issues of government regulation, as opposed to private choice? Well, they do take change, change does cost money, and businesses looking for a competitive edge will ALWAYS use shortcuts to maximize profits. That is why people DO authorize the government to take certain measures that are in the best interest of the people as a whole. And we have that right. It's amusing to me that the businesses that decry the intrusion of government in their affairs are frequently the ones who cry foul when another business claims a competitive edge (I'm more referring to Big Business, as opposed to smaller, family-owned shops).
Using statements of "well this legislation will lead to banning of smoking in my own home" is an extremist view that doesn't bear on the issue at hand - if an issue comes to bear that disallows smoking in your own home, then I'll be the first (well, perhaps the tenth or eleventh, I do like to sleep in) to vote against it.
The next blow to businesses that do allow smoking will come in the for m of litigation, I think. We do produce standards of safety for many workers in this country meant to protect the health and livelihood of our workforce, and a factory worker would never be subject to the air quality issues found in bars. When the first lawsuit from a non-smoking bar employee comes through for millions of dollars, the floodgates will open.
And businesses that exist in states with statewide smoking bans do just fine. People always threaten that they won't go out, they won't spend money anymore, but they do. It was having just Toledo as a bubble of non-smoking that was the most unfair.
posted by wombat at 11:06 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
jr said: Since we have a statewide ban now, then the fair thing to do is to repeal all the tobacco sin-taxes. To fund government mismanagement and to fund new programs, government should increase the sales tax or increase our income or property taxes. Nobody has a problem with this idea, do they? I mean, it's more fair if "everyone" chips in, instead of slapping taxes on tobacco sales. Afterall, the goal is to get people to quit smoking, right? If people quit smoking, what replaces the tobacco sin-tax and tobacco settlement money? The answer is, the anti-smoking crowd doesn't want smokers to quit smoking.
We all know that if some politician steps up and wants to raise the sales tax that the public will scream like banshees. NO way you can do that!!!! Increase property taxes??? We are already on the border of being taxed into non-existence.
I just want the anti smokers to consider this: I am a mile from the Michigan border - it's nothing for me to drive to Temperance, Erie, Bedford, Monroe or even Detroit if I want to dine where I can enjoy a cigarette. Being a believer in supporting local business I have tried to frequent local places. Unfortunately, my recreational money will be largely spent somewhere else that doesn't want to impose unnecessary and unrealistic restrictions on me.
So are the anti smokers going to pick up the slack for lost revenue? Are they going to step up and agree that that $2.50 per meal increase is unimportant - all in the interest of doing away with a compromise on smoking? OK - so open your wallets. And before some anti pipes up and says "so what, take your money up there" they should realize that there are many folks who are feeling the same way. We count - and the money that we spend adds up.
I'm sure at some point the anti's will try to make tobacco an illegal product. If they are successful then we will all be lamenting the increase in costs of other products because the money to cover the lost sales tax, income tax, import tax, public assistance to families who have lost their businesses, and fund larger law enforcement efforts to combat black marketing will have to come from somewhere.
I don't drink - unless you call 2 7&7s a year drinking - but that doesn't mean I would lead an effort to ban alcohol sales in restaurants or bowling alleys. I just stay away from the ingredients for instant embecile. Just makes for a more level ground. And, from years of personal experience, thoseunder the influence of alcohol cause an increase in health care costs than those I've tended to with cancer. Everything from ascites, hepatic failure, physical/domestic abuse, vehicular homicide...the list is endless. I have yet to see a driver smoking a cigarette that has plowed into a family of five sending them all to the great beyond. And that's after 20 years of cleaning up other peoples messes.
Personally, I don't care if you don't smoke. And if I'm around non smokers I will either refrain for the duration of my visit, or I will leave that immediate area so as to enjoy my cigarette. But if you don't smoke, but want me to drive you somewhere, or you want to visit my home, then you better be prepared to deal with it. I won't blow it in your face, but I won't slink off to another room either. It's my car, my house. Please respect at least that much of my right to indulge.
A large portion of this state is in for a rude awakening within the next 10 years - and by then it will be too late. The 'do gooders' will have legislated themselves into a box they can't get out of.
posted by DoknowDocare at 11:21 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
Just a thought - any 'anti - antibanners' given this (just a couple of examples about the dialogue about another issue):
1. "Obesity is very expensive and results in higher medical costs" because of conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, she said.
The study's success will determine whether a weight-loss plan is offered on a national, even worldwide, scale, she said."
2. Promoting Dialogue About Health in Ohio: "Lesser known, however,
is that there is significant debate surrounding the prevalence,
measurement, costs, and health implications of overweight
and obesity. While experts at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) consider the issue to be a public health epidemic"
How will you react when you are required to weigh in as a matter of public law? To get into a theater? Your child at school? For insurance?
?? You'll be ok with not being able to get health insurance at the same rates, penalties - or even tickets for being obese in public?
Do you truly think now that this door is open that you ARE THE ONLY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP WHO HAS AN AGENDA THEY WISH TO LEGISLATE TO THE WHOLE POPULATION?!
Think people....
posted by katie82640 at 12:55 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
my guess is you are one who voted for this ban, so pat yourself on the back. My guess is you havent been in a bar more than half dozen times this year.
----------------------------------------------
Bingo. Oh, they all SAY "now that those vile filthy smokers areen't allowed anywhere, I'll go out more." But they never do. They hardly went out to begin with, and they won't now. And smokers will not go out, or will go out far less. So business drops, for some places. Some will make it-but some won't. And there goes more taxes and jobs. That's another one of the greatest lies ever told. You know what? I seldom, if ever, have any alcohol any more. My drinking days are basically over, although I do have maybe several a YEAR. So if bars go out of business, I really don't give a shit, one would think. Right? Wrong. I voted for 4 and against 5 because I believe in freedom and private property rights. It's absolutely NONE of my business how somebody that's invested their money runs their place. That's the big difference-I know that some things I don't like or can't stand have to be tolerated in a truly free country.
As far as the ACLU, they'll only answer the phone if you're a Nazi , a communist,an abortionist,or an atheist.
posted by Darkseid at 12:55 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
Very true Darkseid. My wife is from Minnesota which too has a statewide smoking ban. A lot of the smaller bars and resteraunts in her hometown have closed due to a significant drop in business.
posted by MikeyA at 01:30 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
How many bars to you go to a week, mom2? Pool halls and bowling alleys? Bingo halls? VA halls?
But mom2 - my guess is you are one who voted for this ban, so pat yourself on the back. My guess is you havent been in a bar more than half dozen times this year.
Well then, you would be wrong. Yes, my husband and I both voted for the ban, and we couldn't be happier. We both bowl on regular leagues (he on a weekly men's league, and then both of us together on a ma & pa league). We always stop at a bar (or two) after bowling on Saturday evenings. Have I been to a bar a half a dozen times this year? Hmmn...well, at least once a week, occasionally more - you do the math. (Not counting our weekly trips to bowling alleys, etc.) He goes to the bar a little more than me - after his softball games in the summer, etc.
(I used to go to the bar easily 3-4 times a week, but am in a temporary slowdown due to having 2 toddlers. Currently don't have the time to play in the volleyball and softball leagues that I used to, which always meant trips to be bar after games. Would have been nice if this had been enacted then - there were plenty of times we left the bar much earlier than we would have liked, because the smoke was suffocating.)
Most of our friends are nonsmoking too - they bowl in regular leagues and go to the bar at least twice a week (their kids are older than ours, our childless friends go to the bar anywhere from 3-4 times a week).
posted by mom2 at 02:54 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
P.S. Part of the reason my husband and I are happy about the ban is because we're nonsmokers who do enjoy going to the bar, bowling alleys, etc. And we actually have decided against going out and/or left establishments early in the past because of the smokers. The ban will directly affect us and make us more likely to go out (and stay out longer, thus spending more money)...we wouldn't have voted for it otherwise. Should nonsmokers who never frequent those types of establishments have voted for the ban? Maybe not. Would the lack of those voters for the ban have changed the outcome? Perhaps. Only time will tell how this will play out. I think with the ban being statewide, it will have less of the disastrous results than you people are predicting. (Though, of course, the border areas like Toledo may feel it more than the more central areas of the state.)
(FWIW though, I was born and raised in Monroe County, and most of my family/friends still live there. I know a lot of people who come to Toledo to dine/go out specifically because they don't have to put up with the smoke here. So, for all you smokers who are going to be taking your business across the border, there are people who are heading in the reverse direction too.)
posted by mom2 at 03:47 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
Ok, Mom2 raises an excellent point. There *are* groups of people who go out and don't want to be around smoke.
But... as I addressed earlier to Ampage (and never got a response), where were all of those people during Toledo's initial ban? Obviously, you were somewhere. But you weren't in the places I was - unless you're being hypocritical and you were hanging out in the smoking rooms with everyone else.
Since I have no reason to believe that's the case, I have to assume it's the following scenario: You hang out at a bar with a clientele that consists of non-smokers. It would be GREAT if EVERY bar was like that. But it's not the case.
So, you voted for the ban. Instead of approaching the owner of your favorite establishment, who apparently has a large non-smoking clientele, and asking him or her to try going smoke free, you instead asked government to step in and do it for you.
What you didn't consider are all the other bars in the state of Ohio that you *don't* patronize. As I said to Ampage, I was in one place every weekend during Toledo's ban. NO ONE was on the non-smoking side.
So, where were you? If you and your friends weren't there then, my guess is that you and your friends won't be there now. They complied and it still didn't bring in the non-smokers. They already have the evidence that their business will fold.
posted by valbee at 06:26 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
I thought this thread was about the COSI issue, not the smoking one.
posted by OhioKat at 06:30 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
(FWIW though, I was born and raised in Monroe County, and most of my family/friends still live there. I know a lot of people who come to Toledo to dine/go out specifically because they don't have to put up with the smoke here. So, for all you smokers who are going to be taking your business across the border, there are people who are heading in the reverse direction too.)
Ouch!!! posted by mom2 at 03:47 P.M. EDT on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
----------------------------------------------
Ah, but ms. gloating smartass-you're forgetting one small thing....quite a few people from Michigan used to come DOWN HERE, too. Now, many of them won't. Balances out, you see. They'll just stay in their own state now. I wish there was a way to really find out just how many anti/non smokers were coming into Ohio due to the ban. I'd be willing to bet next to zero-maybe 1-2 %. This is another lie always told by the Kerrs of the world and their disciples. If it were true, no businesses would have closed back when Block...er...Ford & Council's ban was in effect. Newsflash-some did.
posted by Darkseid at 07:59 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006 #
wambat said "The next blow to businesses that do allow smoking will come in the for m of litigation, I think. We do produce standards of safety for many workers in this country meant to protect the health and livelihood of our workforce, and a factory worker would never be subject to the air quality issues found in bars. When the first lawsuit from a non-smoking bar employee comes through for millions of dollars, the floodgates will open"..
**********************************************
You are deluded. Ask factory workers what they were and are exposed to. What was it somebody said about how they can't rebuild on the old Jeep site because of ground contamination? My husband worked at the old Jeep plant - had to stand in a pit while cars rolled over his head, sealant dripping on him daily. His hands and face were practically burnt looking, blisters, red, for years - and he wore gloves. You need to do your homework before spouting off shit like that. Check out how many factory workers end up with horrific things going wrong physically due to their 'exposure'. A chef or line cook in a restaurant ingests more carcinagens (sp) daily than a non-smoker does in a lifetime probably. Burnt bacon will do it, One xray can cause cancer. Don't spout shit you know nothing about.
ok, all the goodie-two-shoes, pansy asses who needed the govt. to 'help' them know how to choose where to eat or play - tell me this. Almost all restaurants (oh geez, here we go again) were ALREADY non-smoking. Some had smoking sections, enclosed rooms that you could choose to enter or not. The key word here is "choose" - something you seem to not grasp. Why couldn't the bowling alley, etc. install a smoking room for those who DID smoke - and the zillions of non-smokers wouldn't have been bothered? I'm not sure if bowling alleys had special smoking rooms after the last ban or not - I can't go to bowling alleys because they give me a horrible headache from the noise (thus, I "chose" to NOT enter them. Oh, wow, can we BAN noise from bowling alleys so I can bowl and not get a headache?). I assume if restaurants had to have special rooms, then bowling alleys maybe also did as well. Enlighten me. Anyway, instead of a flat ban, why couldn't you smoke nazi's just have requested special rooms in bars as well? Would that have worked for ya? I somehow doubt it, because no matter how many went smoke free, you werent going to be happy till all of them were.
And you know what mom2? I don't give a rat's ass if you had smoke issues in bowling alleys and bars. You never had the RIGHT to presume to tell a bar or restaurant owner - a PRIVATE business owner - how to run their business. You did not OWN that right, since you did not invest YOUR money, time, sweat into it. A bar and restaurant owner has every right to NOT serve somebody. Just because they open their doors for business does not mean the customer can dictate policy. That would kind of be like me walking into Mcdonalds and demand they remove fries from the menu because I thought fried food was unhealthy. For the record - (and repeating myself, I apologise) - My internist told me that autopsys done on teenagers (regardless of cause of death) showed that 20 percent had hardening of the arteries. By age 30, forty percent did - so ya see, I have good reason to DEMAND that fries be removed). You are clueless and smug - and you are probably one of these prissy assed parents who won't let their kids drink tap water - I hope their teeth rot out for lack of floride.
Yes, this thread was about cosi - and it still is, I think. MY refusal to ever vote for another school levy or cosi, the zoo, etc.again is because they are geared to children. And smokefree used children to promote their cause. And schools make huge money off of tobacco sin taxes. And I don't even care if it connects the dots right or not anymore - I am done supporting anything to do with children, levys, charities. I'm not alone I know - there are a lot of people all over Ohio ready to boycott all bars & restaurants in Ohio, and refuse to buy Ohio cigs (other places to do that). You shove your wishes onto a private business owner with no regard if he can survive. The last ban was writing on the wall - so many went belly up, so fast. It will happen again. I hope mom2 you will be there to help them move out when they foreclose. God, you are somebody I don't even want to know.
posted by starling02 at 12:32 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
wombat said: “Using statements of "well this legislation will lead to banning of smoking in my own home" is an extremist view that doesn't bear on the issue at hand[.]”
Where do you learn such stupidity? You are ignorant of national trends. Smoking bans in the workplace were used to justify retail smoking bans, as well as smoking bans within certain distances from workplaces. Retail smoking bans are being used to justify bans in cars (as well as other bans for similar exudations like perfume and smoke from cooking grills). The rational man expects that the end product of all THAT will be justification to ban smoking in private homes -- effectively making it illegal to smoke.
Once you use "public safety" as your justification for banning something, there is literally no end to the reach of such bans. Nothing is safe, and vices are certainly less safe than most things. Everything is a threat, since our world is interconnected to any degree that you'd care to specify.
The extremism here is NOT in my viewpoint, but in the actions of the planners of these issues and the electorate that votes for them.
So ... tell me, is smoking legal, or not? If smoking is legal then one can only assume that you can puff away in purposed venues (bars, bowling alleys, sections of restaurants, etc. -- i.e. whatever the proprietors arrange), as well as your own property and of course the great outdoors. But these bans deny that rational connection.
Lacking the courage or honesty to simply make smoking absolutely illegal, these ban issues are simply making smoking practically illegal -- by denying more venues where smoking is, was, and could be.
You ban-crazy fools all need to take a civics course, or something. You lack fundamental understanding of the structure of American law and culture, and you're just reverting the nation to a certain state of mob rule. Liberty is based upon tolerance and you fools are highly intolerant ... so there goes all of our fucking liberty!
posted by GuestZero at 04:36 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
Yes, this thread was about cosi - and it still is, I think.
No this thread was about COSI now it's just been hijacked by posters having tantrums because the smoking issue they wanted to win, didn't.
A fair vote is called mob rule because your side didn't win.
Do you think had 4 beaten 5 the nonsmokers would be screaming and calling people names? Threatening to smack the smirks off of the smokers?
GZ says Liberty is based upon tolerance and you fools are highly intolerant
How many of you voted down the rights for gays to marry?
Tolerance is a dream that hasn't come true yet.
Ever stop to think that you militant smokers are just as intolerant about the rights of the non smokers?
I doubt it, because I haven't seen the least bit of tolerance coming from the group most upset by this issue towards anyone on this forum who had the audacity to disagree.
Issue 4 lost because the majority of Ohioans obviously didn't like what it said. I still think that had it not been making a change to the constitution and has removed smoking from resturants it would have stood a better chance.
Who knows, maybe if it was put to a vote we would outlaw tobacco & smoking, but imagine the tantrum you'd throw then.
posted by OhioKat at 07:48 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
posted by Darkseid at 12:19 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
once again: The majority of THE CITIZENS WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE decided it-roughly about 15-20% of the state. Consisting of people like you & Herr Kerr-rabid smoker-haters.
posted by Darkseid at 12:23 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
I hope mom2 you will be there to help them move out when they foreclose. God, you are somebody I don't even want to know.
Ouch!!! posted by starling02 at 12:32 A.M. EDT on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a LOT of people on here I never want to meet or know. Which is another reason I've been reluctant to go to any of those blogger gettogethers.
posted by Darkseid at 12:25 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
The majority of THE CITIZENS WHO BOTHERED TO VOTE decided it-roughly about 15-20% of the state. Consisting of people like you & Herr Kerr-rabid smoker-haters.
Not my fault the people you think might have agreed with you didn't bother to vote.
If thats whats gotten your tighty whiteys in a bunch maybe you should go have a chat with the slackers who stayed home.
posted by OhioKat at 04:41 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
The health dept does inspections on bars, restaurants to ensure they meet health standards - so as to not spread disease. As the osha study showed, there is NO evidence that SHS causes disease (read the damned OSHA study).
Pull out your Black's Law Dictionary and look up 'public space' and 'private space' - hm,an eye opener.
This country was built on freedoms - and choise. We all had the freedom to choose to enter, or not a business that had a smoking section. Our forefathers must be rolling over in their graves.
posted by starling02 at 06:54 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006 #
Starling, way to resort to namecalling to make a point. That's a great American trend, especially this election cycle. And way to assume that someone who thinks differently could not POSSIBLY have any experience or knowledge in a topic - that's a common thread on this posting list. Having lived in Toledo my whole life, I am quite aware of the factory conditions in many of the plants, as many of my friends are working in them now, and have for years and years. The point is that the conditions today are much better than they were 20 years ago, many cases due to threat of litigation and oversight by the government, no matter how contentious and crooked some of that has been. Think private businesses should have the right to determine what constitutes safe conditions for their workers - that's a dream world. My point is that private businesses will screw their employees 8 out of 10 times to maximize profits. Ban aside, I was saying that there is a good chance that some litigation will be put in place in the next few years by EMPLOYEES of a place that allows smoking that will have a cascading effect on allowing smoking in restaurants anywhere, based on work safety issues of people who work there.
posted by wombat at 11:40 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006 #
"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."- Adolf Hitler
"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."- Adolf Hitler
“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’
- Adolf Hitler
“The greater the lie, the greater the chance that it will be believed.”
- Adolf Hitler
posted by Darkseid at 09:06 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006 #
That is eerie,darkside. I'm sorry if I stepped on toes - but I am furious, that it seems so many people voted without even reading the ban law, and that so many assumed 'no way will it pass' and didnt get off their asses to vote. I am sick of the arrogance, hypocracy.
Again - IF the surgeon general believes that tobacco is the evil he claims it is - then ban it entirely, nationwide. But they won't do that - they'd have to ban fat people too, and banish HIV people to their own segment of the country (for our own security). Yes, conditions are better in factories now than they were 20 years ago - but not all. FACT - a grill cook, chef, line cook ingests more carcinigens daily than a cig smoker does . Why not just ban all grilled, fried, smoked foods? For the safety of the employees that work as chefs, line cooks, fry cooks, etc. It's in THEIR best interest ya know - they can find other work to do, maybe in pastry - nope, that has butter, sugar, etc.
Those who claim that restaurant & bar workers can't find places to work without smoke - that's bullshit. They are the most transient workers there are - most are already non-smoking, or have smoking rooms (enclosed). Most are smokers themselves. (don't believe me? Take your own damned survey).
From what I understand with this ban - IF you have an xmas party in your home, and invite some employees - you cannot smoke in your own home. If you watch another person's child, you cannot smoke in your own home or car. A woman (dont recall the state) was fined $500 for smoking in her car with a minor present. They are deciding custody based on smoking parents. There are some states trying to ban perfume and colognes. Pick anything that may trigger a cough or sneeze out of anybody - they'll find a way to ban it. This country is banning Vegimite (Some icky stuff Australians spread on bread). Someday, our children will have chips implanted at birth that will keep track of fat, alcohol, etc. consumed - and you'll be denied your Whopper whey they 'swipe' your wrist if you already had one this month. A stretch, sure. Possible? Absolutely.
This ban is too overbroad. If people really felt we needed more of a ban - then get one on the ballot that requires all hospitality businesses to have an enclosed smoking section. If a business doesnt have the cash or space? I guess he's out of luck. NOBODY owned the right to tell private business owners how they could run THEIR businesses - as long as it's legal. If non-smokers wanted non-smoking bars, etc. then put your money where your big talk is and OPEN one with YOUR cash. As long as a restaurant, bar, etc. had signs explaining that it did have a smoking section - you all had the right to NOT enter. Given that at least 98 percent of restaurants were already NON-smoking since the last ban (would not have changed if Issue 4 passed) - YOU tell ME - name 3 restaurants you wanted to eat at and could not because they (gasp) had an enclosed smoking section you were too delicate to expose yourself to as you scarfed down your grilled & fried food, and drank your martinis.
As for crime reports smoking ban related - crazy high, all over this and other countries. You cannot take your drink outside with you when you step out for a cig, so date rape drugs are being dropped more than ever. Rape, assaults, robberys - on people who stepped out for a cig (often in the dark). People are getting killed - shot by angry non-smokers, or over a pack of cigs (Canada). In Ireland - they cannot give their pubs away - worthless. People bitch that Ohio has a high foreclosure & unemployment rate? Just wait.
Yes, I got snitty and in some of your faces - but READ the damned OSHA reports on SHS. This ban was based on junk science, paid for by pharmacutical companies who'll make millions on products that don't work (and if you weaken and smoke wearing a patch, you can die of a stroke). Insurance wont pay for these products - unlike diet pills, rehab, etc. for other 'diseases'.
I can only speak for myself here - but it's more than just sucking in smoke to me. It's my valium, it calms me. I can sit for an hour, no problem - but when service is slow, or whatever reason - I get edgy, and will go to restaurants where I can light up. These smoking aides do NOT address the hand habit, the stress calming benefits.
posted by starling02 at 07:31 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006 #
I don't know why, exactly, that I thought of it, but starling's talk about bans reminded me of a cheese that has been banned in Italy called casu marzu.
Casu marzu is also known as "marching cheese". This name denotes that the cheese is in motion -- since the fly larvae (i.e. maggots) whose action in the cheese had made it soft can literally jump out of the cheese for some distance. The Wiki article claims up to 6 inches.
Well, this old delicacy has been banned from being sold. We banned absinthe in the US, too. More's the pity.
posted by GuestZero at 02:38 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006 #
All true, Star, but, you see-the lies must continue to be told about SHS, so that people will still believe them a few years from now, when the government comes to take smoker's children.
posted by Darkseid at 04:52 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006 #
So now that there's a smoking ban in Ohio no one will die of lung cancer. Right?
posted by MikeyA at 11:06 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 16, 2006 #
No, Mikey, people can still sneak as many cigs as they want in their own homes, their cars, and along the sidewalk when no one's watchin'. Stu and the rest of the Whiteshirts are workin' to make all THAT behavior illegal, too. The Blade's own news articles contain more than enough quotes by the Whiteshirts to show their goal is to stop smoking by all means.
posted by GuestZero at 11:56 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 16, 2006 #
GZ - my understanding is that it's only it's illegal to sell absinthe in the US, not to have it or consume it.
http://www.originalabsinthe.com/absinthe-c-21.html
Makes a nice Christmas present . . .
As for the maggot cheeese, I'd prefer a nice cheddar.
posted by jimavolt at 06:06 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 16, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
