Ohio smokers: get a fucking grip

The BBQ Pit
141

I’m going to try to explain this without resorting to insults, because given that I have said this whole thing multiple times, and given that you seem intelligent, it must be that I am not explaining myself very well - for that I apologize.

Bars, and other businesses, can chose what segment of the market at which to target themselves. Not every bar tries to be everything to every customer. There are bars that are more like dance clubs, karaoke bars, sports bars, etc. No one suggests a sports bar is trying to attract 100% of the population. And no one suggests establishing a sports bar (or a Red Sox bar, more specifically, to think of one example near me) is not a sound business practice. I hope that is clearer now.

You mean there are people out there who want to work in non-smoking bars and people who want to work in smoking bars? And also customers the same? I agree, they might not be the majority. Hence my repeated suggestion, which you don’t appear to have read, that, for example, 20% of the total number of bars be permitted by license to be smoking bars, and the rest are tobacco free. I did listen to what you said about economic realities. I even accept there is an element of market failure here. Hence my suggestion that there is a solution that increases choice for non-smokers, both customers and employees, and does not eliminate choice for smokiers, both customers and employees.

But why isn’t it realistic. Why is not allowing one out of every five bars to continue permitting smoking realistic? If you don’t think one out of five bartenders wants to work somewhere where people smoke, how about one out of ten? Under my proposed sustem, the majority of bars couldn’t allow smoking, as there would not be sufficient licenses. What is unrealiztic about that solution? I actually think it is better than yours. My way people walking past the bar who don’t like smoke are not subjected to it, while only those who chose to enter the premises are.

Wouldn’t my solution make non-smoking the default? I would absolutely oppose smoking in common rooms at work on a personal level.

I’m really sorry, but I don’t understand why you think 20% of bars allowing smoking and 80% not is a false choice. I appreciate this is voted for by a significant majority. I think Big Tobacco, and a very significant percentage of smokers have, through their behavior, brought this upon themselves. I accept that a government has the power to do this. Doesn’t mean I have to agree it is either the best, or even a good solution.

To be honest, I would absolutely support a business’ right to allow in people who did not bathe if they chose to do so. I’d also support the right of a business to operate a pool in which people could urinate, as long as they did not hide that fact. Spitting bars I would have no issue with on the same grounds, unless (and I am not a doctor) spitting plays a role in the transmission of serious disease - I seem to remember TB but that could be an old wives tale. If it does, I would oppose the spitting bar on public health grounds. Not, mind you, because people who entered that bar might catch TB - that’s their choice to take the risk. But because they would then spread it to people who had not made that choice outside the bar.

So, if you can show me smoking in a bar damages the health of people outside the bar, then I would be more likely to be on your side. But the difference between you and me on this is that you want the smokers outside the bar, blowing smoke into the faces of passers-by on their innocent way down the street, where as I want the smokers in the bar, in a limited number of venues, where everyone who enters knows and accepts that they will be exposed to smoke. You don’t think that is a reasonable solution, but you haven’t said why.

And I hope I have expressed this without any insults.

142

I haven’t studied this a lot, but our office does frequently handle cases that involve licensing and/or zoning. In my experience, in the case of liquor licenses, they are granted based on objective criteria, and legally cannot be denied on the whim of the government. I’m not aware of a cutoff number being used for any kind of licensing, although I can’t say for sure that it’s never done. I can see some problems with enforcement. First of all, businesses that are denied licenses can legally challenge the decision. An argument that is frequently used is that other businesses were granted licenses, therefore it is inequitable to arbitrarily tell a business that they can’t have a license. If there is a finite number being granted, then the counter-argument would basically be, “They asked first.” I don’t know if that’s valid. Maybe a lawyer can anwer that question.

Second, how do you decide how many licenses to give? Is it statewide, so that if Ohio grants 1,000 licenses, and Cleveland businesses apply for 900 licenses, then the rest of the state is SOL? Or is it by city, and who decides how many each city gets? By population? I don’t know. Could be a problem. Could be unenforceable.

I’m not really sure about this.

143

FYI, we’ve been to two local bars since the passage of the law. Both times I was assailed by cigarette smoke as smokers puffed away with impunity. Seems that the law has no teeth as there’s no prescription as to who is in charge of enforcing the ban (the Board of Health? the local police? the National Guard?) and so a lot of bar owners are simply ignoring the law. Proponents of the issue will have to wait until the legislators meet again so that they can hammer out the details.

We Ohioans are the modern day Tea Partiers.

144

Yes, but if the cops have to chase the lawbreakers down the street the smokers’ won’t be able to outrun them due to the smokers’ hacking and wheezing. :smiley:

145

Tazer 'em - according to many, that’s now considered an appropriate response to people who break rules.

146

…and refuse to comply with orders.

147

Except most of our cops don’t look like they’d survive a mile on a treadmill their own selves…

148

I’m pretty sure I said it earlier, but the reason partial bans are not realistic is because businesses usually won’t do anything to affect their bottom line. When I looked up how many people actually voted for this ban in Ohio, I also found information that Cleveland had imposed some ordinances before the issue went state-wide. Business very definitely dropped off in Cleveland as some customers chose to go outside the metropolitan area to where the smoking ban was not in effect.

Given the choice, the bar owners would probably opt to allow smoking, knowing that they would be alienating a certain amount of non-smokers and damaging the health of their workers, but also knowing that they would be keeping the level of patronage that they are used to having. With full bans, it’s been shown that business for bars and restaurants is basically unaffected. Sometimes, custom even increases a bit. Partial smoking bans, on the other hand, seem to be bad for business. It might only be a short-term downturn, since I’m not aware of any area that banned smoking without being followed by other municipalities around them, but short-term loss is enough for a business to not want to take the risk. In some cases, short-term loss might be enough to drive restaurants and bars out of business.

What would probably happen with a partial ban is that a majority of bars and restaurants would go for the smoking option, few would take the non-smoking one, and smokers would be lighting up practically wherever they wanted despite the wishes of the majority of the public. Halfway measures don’t seem to be good for either businesses or non-smokers. Like I said, I don’t see why it’s such a big deal to use designated smoking areas. You don’t piss wherever you want; you use the bathroom. Smoker? Addicted? Gotta get your fix when you’re out? Use the smoking area. If a bar really wants your business, they’ll make the effort to set up an appropriate area.

If someone wanted to start a smoking bar, where all the employees and customers were smokers and there by choice, I guess they would have to ask for an exemption to the law. That might be a legitimate grievance. As written, the Ohio law looks like it pretty well blocks the loopholes of having any kind of wait staff—compensated or not—in a smoking-only club, and of having a combined tobacco-alcohol bar since you have to make a majority of your revenue from tobacco only. That may have been to block end runs around the law; where, for example, an alcohol bar could claim to be a “tobacco bar” by also selling some cigarettes, or claiming that you run a smoking club with “uncompensated” wait staff who miraculously are “tipped” at a rate that looks remarkably like the average wage-plus-tips. I don’t know what the intention there was for sure. Since I don’t live in Ohio, don’t plan to visit, and don’t smoke in any event, I don’t care enough to do the background research on that.

Oh, something I let slide before: we do have problems with paying people a higher wage for hazardous jobs if a dangerous condition is avoidable. Some jobs are unavoidably hazardous, but you can’t ignore safety rules and equipment by simply paying employees extra. The risk of falls in doing high-rise construction is part of the job, but you can’t offer bonuses if the workers forego the use of safety lines. The safety rules are uniform so that businesses can’t claim that their workers are voluntarily working without the necessary safety equipment. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, and maybe they’re just saying they don’t mind so that they don’t get fired for ratting on the boss.

149

What was your source of information, and was it derived from actual reported income?

150

The same thing happened in California. The original fine was something like $100 so the bar owners didn’t care that much. Eventually the culture changed and smoking in bars is now considered to be totally unacceptable.

151

And yet, you can’t be bothered to explain why: just to scream and shake your fist at the heavens.

It’s a perfectly good argument to the incredibly asinine claim that you don’t have a choice. It’s like arguing that since I got a job, worked as a wage slave, and bought a house with the money, you don’t have a choice of where to live because while I’ll let you stay over, I won’t change the drapes to the shade of purple you demand. Well, fuck you. Buy your own house if you want to be king of the drapes.

I quoted the statement several times. You whined about not having a choice if no PRIVATELY OWNED bars didn’t cater to YOUR WISHES. Clear enough now, tits?

[quote[-A law regulating smoking has been passed.

-YOU and other smokers are bitching about it.[/quote]

I’m not a smoker, not that it really matters. And I was responding to YOUR LOGIC, not any particular situation. You keep trying to change the subject.

The difference is that now, even if I want to build one and bartend it myself, I can’t. Because you and people like you are pricks.

The same sorts of pricks who decide that if I want to be gay, I can’t do that either.

152

Kind of a moral hazard problem then. Or a prisoners’ dilemma - if all bars prevent smoking, all bars are better off. However, that creates an incentive to cheart. It’s an interesting argument. I’m not sure I believe it, though. I think the market is big enough, especially in cities, to support smoking and non-smoking bars.

That’s why the proposal I suggest would limit the number of smoking bars, at a minority of establishments. If you have a cap based on available licenses, doesn’t that get around this problem? Or is the worry that the smoking bars would be too popular (something I think is unlikley, personally) and the policy might be shown up?

I agree with pretty much everything you have said in this last paragraph. However, it isn’t true that all avoidable dangers have to be removed. As I said, I am not an employment lawyer, but the NFL isn’t required to be touch football. I think the issue is going to be how a job is defined. The job of bartender, for example, can be seen as one that does not necessarily involve exposure to tobacco smoke. The job of cigar-bar bartender, on the other hand, clearly does by its nature involve that exposure, just as the job of firefighter involves exposure to danger.

Tobacco smoke is also different to other occupational hazards, in that it is one to which many workers voluntarily expose themselves at home. That makes it a little different I think to, say, benzene. It certainly makes the idea that people would voluntarily remain in a workplace with tobacco smoke more plausible, wouldn’t you agree?

153

It makes it perfectly analogous to noise, with the exception that noise won’t kill you.

Our factory is quieter than a lawn mower. Our employees don’t want to wear hearing protection. It doesn’t matter. We must provide it. They must wear it.

154

No, I don’t agree that tobacco smoke is somehow safer because workers have put up with it for so long.

You cite benzene as though it represents some bad toxin radically different from what’s found in cigarettes. But benzene is a component of tobacco smoke, as are radioactive substances like polonium-210.

The number of workers “voluntarily” willing to remain exposed to such a readily controlled health hazard is shrinking rapidly.

155

So if all this is for the health of the worker, Why stop there? Let’s pass laws that protect all workers from being overweight, lonely, underpaid, bad money managers, selfish or boring.

Makes about as much sense.

156

Seriously, you are totally missing what I am saying. I am saying tobacco smoke is a little different because people do it for fun at home. I also support a system that would have a limited number of smoking bars, which would presumably be staffed by those who would work there voluntarily. This is a total guess based on too much time spent in bars, but I am betting the percentage of bartenders who smoke is greater than the percentage of the overall population who smokes. I think if you had 20% (or 10% or whatever) of bars allowed to hold smoking licences, you would find sufficient staff to work there voluntarily.

If you don’t think that is the case, well we will have to agree to disagree. If you do think there would be enough volunteers (and enough customers), you can still think it is a bad idea, but do it on other grounds.

157

The defenders of this smoking ban are all about the bullshit and petty. This isn’t about protecting people’s health from second hand smoke. This is about an agenda. And they have twisted science and second hand smoke studies to support their agenda.

The real second hand smoke that kills is outside and all around you and it comes from combustion engines, and other industrial processes. I can’t tell you how much diesel smoke and smog I ingest on a daily basis. I am much more worried about the health effects from cars, trucks, the power plant, the oil refinery, and the berylium plant all within ten miles of me than someone burning a negligible amount of an organic substance in my vicinity. If the anti-smoking crusaders arguments have any internal logic and real integrity then their goal would be the cessation of the real killer that is truly affecting our health and wellbeing and ultimately destroying our environment: Industrial and Combustion Engine Emissions.

In reality they see only the hated tree of their personal agenda and miss the forest. The smoke and toxins from cigarettes is a miniscule one one hundreth of a percent of the sea of toxins and smoke, literally the tons that surround us of the majority coming from gasoline engines and industrial processes, yet I don’t see them pressing for laws to outlaw these frumious fumiers. Personal agenda and revenge is what it’s all about, they don’t care about your health, that’s just the trojan horse they use to take away freedoms in their vendetta and absent logic.

158

Do you honestly not grasp the idea of a safe workplace? A safe workplace isn’t about making your life perfect. It isn’t about giving you whiter whites or shiny hair. It’s about keeping you safe while you are at work.

Most of us have little choice about going to work. We have to work to survive. Back in the day, employers had the option of letting us get killed without any penalties. Today, employers are required to make the job as safe as they reasonably can. It has nothing to do with whether you live a long, satisfying life. It has to do with whether you get killed or injured or sick on the job.

Get injured off the job? Not your employer’s problem. Get injured on the job? Your employer’s problem. Just as getting sexually molested off the job isn’t your employer’s problem. Getting sexually molested on the job is your employer’s problem. Someone pays you $5 to drink lye? Not your employer’s problem. Your job requires you $5 to drink lye? Definitely your employer’s problem. “Keeping you safe” and “keeping you safe on the job” are not the same thing.

I can’t believe I just wasted a few minutes of my life typing that.

159

Yes, whatever you say, Apos. :rolleyes:

Yes, Apos - it’s exactly like that. :rolleyes:

  1. That is not a quote.

  2. Even in your fake characterization of what, in your delusional mind, you think I said, there still isn’t anything in there where I say something is “owed” to me.

But hey, you called me another dirty name, so I guess you must be really smart. Is this the best you can do? Seriously.

Get with the program. I was responding to another poster’s logic. Do you think you might trouble yourself to actually READ the fucking thread? I know you’d rather just hurl insults, but it’d be nice if you figured out what the fuck you think you’re talking about.

Look, I’ll run this by you one more time, although I’m sure you’re never gonna get it.

  1. Another poster stated his/her opinion that the law in Ohio shouldn’t exist, and that the choice of whether a business should be smoking or non-smoking should be left to the business owner, because then people would have a choice.

  2. IN RESPONSE TO THIS ASSERTION, I pointed out that it’s not a choice if all the proprietors choose smoking. That’s all. Notice the conspicous absence of the words “demand” “owed” and “right”.

  3. In your warped mind, you imagined all sorts of things that you thought I said. You built a gargantuan strawman, which you proceeded to try to knock down with asinine, illogical arguments peppered with childish insults.

So, as you would say, “Is that clear, tits?”

Waaaah! Waaaaah! It’s just SO unfair. There, there. :rolleyes:

Yes, Apos, it’s the exact same people. Voting for a law that provides non-smoking public places for people to enjoy is exactly the same as being an anti-gay bigot. :rolleyes:

160

I understood you fine. Your attempt to classify toxin exposure from smoking in bars as somehow being radically different from other occupational toxins backfired when you used the benzene example, and in any case does not make sense on a scientific basis.

There never seem to be any figures to back claims like yours, but in any case it’s a moot point. Voters, health agencies and (as an ominous looming threat) personal injury lawyers are not going to go for the idea of an unprotected class of workers who will “voluntarily” accept occupational hazards (which in your scenario would include not only bartenders but servers, cleaning staff, delivery people etc.).

I can just see your model applied in other lines of work:

“Hey there, all you smokers, heavy drinkers and dudes who love to ride motorcycles without a helmet! You live the freewheeling high-risk lifestyle, so why not come to work at the Ajax Not-Quite-Up-To-OSHA-Standards Coal Mine? We offer high pay and exciting jobs without all that cumbersome safety equipment. Apply now!!!”

Nah, somehow I don’t see that happening. :dubious: