(11-30-2010 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-30-2010 10:16 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  It sounds crazy to think we could once smoke at our desks or at our place of employment, but times and attitudes change. I think the same is happening with regards to smoking in restaurants and even bars.

The business revenue doesn't support your theory.

At the end of the day the anti-smoking people who claimed they would go to bars if people didn't smoke turned out to be liars. The total number of people going to bars precipitously dropped in the months following the smoking ban. Many bars closed, many others have just resorted to ignoring the smoking ban and paying any fines that comes their way (pay a few thousand dollars in fines or go out of business all together... easy decision). My local bar chose the route to allow smokers... something that I applaud them for doing. As I stated above, I'm not a smoker, but I know what I'm going in to when I walk into the bar.

I have less of an issue with restaurants than bars... but at the end of the day I still believe in a private property owner's rights. He owns the bar, if the substance isn't illegal then the owner should be able to allow people to do it. If there is a market for non-smoking bars, let them go non-smoking on their own instead of forcing it upon them. That simple.

Bars come and go all the time, before the smoking ban, after the smoking ban. I heard bars complain about the ban, but I also saw a lot of them thrive.

I personally don't venture into Northern Kentucky due to the smoke. I stay away from restaurants and bars on a regular basis and know others who do the same. As a matter of fact, my group ate at First Watch Downtown this past Sunday and specifically ruled out NKY restaurants because of the smoke.

So I guess my anecdotal evidence is just as good as yours.

My take on the smoking complaint is that the ones who failed were generally a bad business venture anyway.

I can come up with my own exceptions to my statement above (Havana Martini Club comes to mind - a cigar bar), but in general I believe my statement to be accurate.

Having worked as a bartender in a couple barsI have my own ideas why people come to bars and have observed crowd behavior. Smoking may be one of those reasons people go to bars, but given only about 1/5 of people smoke, I'm inclined to believe there are many other reasons.

(11-30-2010 09:28 AM)mlb Wrote:  Correllation does not equal causation... I'd also argue that banning of smoking should be up to the business owner, not a legislator. Put a sign on the door saying it is a smoking establishment and let it go.

I'd like to expound on what you said about the studies I provided.

All the studies do is tell us admissions for cardiac events declined subsequent to the implementation of smoking bans. This of course doesn't mean second hand smoke causes heart attacks.

First, the ban treats smokers and nonsmokers equally, so it may just be that smokers are smoking less, or it may discourage smoking altogether. I believe the first article mentions that smoking is at record lows. This may be a reason for fewer cardiac admissions.

Secondly, I've read that smoking actually enables people to drink more. This is just my two cents, but if that's the case then less smoking causes less drinking - which may plausibly be a reason for fewer cardiac admissions.

Of course this doesn't mean that second hand smoke doesn't adversely affect people who are exposed. My anecdotal evidence from working in bars (scratchy throat, persistent cough, sinus infections) leads me to believe the effects of second hand smoke are rather significant.

(11-30-2010 01:43 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Having worked as a bartender in a couple barsI have my own ideas why people come to bars and have observed crowd behavior. Smoking may be one of those reasons people go to bars, but given only about 1/5 of people smoke, I'm inclined to believe there are many other reasons.

Have you ever worked in a small, hole in the wall neighborhood bar or just larger sports bars/night club/restaurant type places? They are two totally different animals... I am referring to small family owned neighborhood bars, not large chains or places that serve food.

I can only tell you my anecdotal evidence, as you said, but at the end of the day I know 3 different bar owners who lost money after the ban went into effect. 2 of the 3 eventually allowed smoking back in... the 3rd has not but did cut an extra bartender they used to have on their busy evenings because they do less business than they did before.

(11-30-2010 01:59 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  First, the ban treats smokers and nonsmokers equally, so it may just be that smokers are smoking less, or it may discourage smoking altogether. I believe the first article mentions that smoking is at record lows. This may be a reason for fewer cardiac admissions.

Secondly, I've read that smoking actually enables people to drink more. This is just my two cents, but if that's the case then less smoking causes less drinking - which may plausibly be a reason for fewer cardiac admissions.

Of course this doesn't mean that second hand smoke doesn't adversely affect people who are exposed. My anecdotal evidence from working in bars (scratchy throat, persistent cough, sinus infections) leads me to believe the effects of second hand smoke are rather significant.

Smoking is a stimulent... just as caffeine, therefore it only makes sense that it allows someone to drink more. That being said, it is a person's choice to drink or smoke, and as long as they aren't getting behind the wheel of a car or starting fights, who cares?

I am a regular in a smoky bar, I do not have any more colds, sinus infections, etc., etc., than I've ever had before.

What you are proposing is changing laws just because what you do may not be healthy. Are you going to propose getting rid of fatty foods (trans fats, anyone?)? Are you going to propose getting rid of motorcycles? How about football, it is obviously not condusive to ones health?

We need to stop being a nanny state. Stop protecting me from myself. Put up a warning to allow me to make my own informed decision, then get the hell out of my life. If I want to get drunk, as long as I'm not getting behind the wheel of a car or getting into a fight, who cares? If a bar owner puts a sign on the door stating that it is a smoking establishment, then it is my own risk. If I want to eat a deep fried twinkie, as long as the nutritional information then it is my own risk.

(11-30-2010 01:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-30-2010 01:43 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Having worked as a bartender in a couple barsI have my own ideas why people come to bars and have observed crowd behavior. Smoking may be one of those reasons people go to bars, but given only about 1/5 of people smoke, I'm inclined to believe there are many other reasons.

Have you ever worked in a small, hole in the wall neighborhood bar or just larger sports bars/night club/restaurant type places? They are two totally different animals... I am referring to small family owned neighborhood bars, not large chains or places that serve food.

One of the bars I worked at was Inn The Wood in Clifton (it no longer exists). The upstairs was large and well-ventilated. When I worked downstairs in the smaller bar I usually lost my voice by the end of the night.

(11-30-2010 10:39 AM)mlb Wrote:  I have less of an issue with restaurants than bars... but at the end of the day I still believe in a private property owner's rights. He owns the bar, if the substance isn't illegal then the owner should be able to allow people to do it.

This never made sense to me. Why does the law have to make a binary decision? They can tell a private property owner he can't do it at all but they can't tell him he can do it but only in certain places or under certain conditions?

(11-26-2010 08:19 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  And as far as I know, not one coroner in history has ever certified a death on account of the effects of second hand smoke. To me the findings are smoking gun evidence of more taxes on the way.

(11-26-2010 08:44 AM)mlb Wrote:  I've yet to see definitive proof of second hand smoke causing these deaths. Sure, it could be a contributing factor, but probably not to the level this article suggests. I'm a non-smoker, btw.

Penn and Teller do a fine episode of bull**** detailing how no one has ever proved a death to have been caused by second-smoke, or even demonstrably proved it to be harmful.

Smoking should be the decision of the property owner. Property rights! What a concept!!!

(11-30-2010 02:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-26-2010 08:19 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  And as far as I know, not one coroner in history has ever certified a death on account of the effects of second hand smoke. To me the findings are smoking gun evidence of more taxes on the way.

(11-26-2010 08:44 AM)mlb Wrote:  I've yet to see definitive proof of second hand smoke causing these deaths. Sure, it could be a contributing factor, but probably not to the level this article suggests. I'm a non-smoker, btw.

Penn and Teller do a fine episode of bull**** detailing how no one has ever proved a death to have been caused by second-smoke, or even demonstrably proved it to be harmful.

Smoking should be the decision of the property owner. Property rights! What a concept!!!

Businesses are regulated in all sorts of ways and I see smoking regulation as no different than fire safety codes, electrical codes, food preparation codes, zoning, alcohol laws, etc.

I'm sure we can all go through the various laws and find a number of them that are disagreeable, and obviously smoking is one of them.

My point is that there is ample precedent for this. We live with bars closing at 2:30, capacity limited to a certain number of people, etc, yet nary a whimper about property rights. Clean air is such a basic thing, kind of like food preparation standards.

(11-30-2010 04:51 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Clean air is such a basic thing

There are plenty of options out there to clean the air without banning smoking in the establishment all together.

(11-30-2010 08:20 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Converrl, please refer to the topic of this thread and the accompanying article provided by ctipton. The topic is second hand smoke. The bans/restrictions implemented by voters in Ohio and in cities across the country address second hand smoke.

I was directly addressing your post..since you consider my reply to be off-topic, your initial reply to my comment must be off-topic as well...

Incidentally....how can you ban second-hand smoke without banning the implements of smoking?

So my comment wasn't off-topic to begin with...

(12-02-2010 07:40 AM)converrl Wrote:  

(11-30-2010 08:20 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Converrl, please refer to the topic of this thread and the accompanying article provided by ctipton. The topic is second hand smoke. The bans/restrictions implemented by voters in Ohio and in cities across the country address second hand smoke.

I was directly addressing your post..since you consider my reply to be off-topic, your initial reply to my comment must be off-topic as well...

Incidentally....how can you ban second-hand smoke without banning the implements of smoking?

So my comment wasn't off-topic to begin with...

(11-30-2010 04:57 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-30-2010 04:51 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Clean air is such a basic thing

There are plenty of options out there to clean the air without banning smoking in the establishment all together.

I think you make a good point. I've never heard of studies of air quality in the establishments where smoking has not been banned. There are various codes for different things, but I don't believe there are any for air quality.