pan6467

I'm a smoker. I believe owners should be able to have a say whether they allow smoking or not. FACT.

58% of Ohio voting disagreed with me and made Ohio a totally smoke free state inside businesses. FACT.

The people spoke, I didn't like it, but they had their say and I have found ways to live with it. FACT

Recently, the state of Ohio, came out saying it cost 2 million dollars more to enforce the laws than it took in on fines and even the fines aren't being paid, by all. The small bars and places getting fined are simply closing down, or changing ownerships. FACT

Critics of that law are saying that 2 million could go to better programs. I agree. FACT

There is a congressman from the Cincinnati area, now, who is fighting for legislation that will ALLOW bars, restaurants and casinos to purchase what is called smoking licenses to allow smoking in their establishments. FACT.

3 things come to mind:

1) 58% of voters said they do NOT want smoking ANYWHERE in public buildings. But, there are those saying that doesn't matter and working on changing that rule. So the votes don't matter.


2) No smoking in a casino is very bad for the casino. Could this have anything to do with the new casinos coming to Ohio?

3) I can see it as a good SHORT TERM revenue source and in some ways, think it is a very good idea.

3 however, goes against 1. While I may see the benefits of changing the law, the people did vote and who are the legislators to pass and change laws the people voted to put into place?

Should this not be put upon the people to vote?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Charlatan

This is why referendums are a waste of time.

Democracy is a messy device. Direct democracy by way of referendums is a even messier.

Elect officials to enact the platform you want. Let them represent your vote.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

people will always find ways around, under, over, or flat ignore rules and laws that infringe on their liberties. it's all a matter of the government caring enough if the penalty collections are worth the effort.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

rahl

where is the liberty infringement here?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Derwood

We're not a democracy. The word democracy isn't found anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We're a Republic, and I think these things should be voted on by our elected officials. As soon as you let the people vote, the shit hits the fan

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Rekna

If it is costing more to enforce the fines then you get from the fines then raise the fines. If the fines were much higher I bet less people would break the laws.

Stare At The Sun

Smoke smells like shit, second hand smoke kills, and its horrible for asthmatics like myself.

If you want to kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your own home, not in a public setting.

Owners of businesses do not have the right to enforce laws as they see fit, they are subject to the law just like anyone else.

Smoking in public should be illegal, and eventually it will be. Anything that occurs in the meantime is just delaying that.

Wes Mantooth

People are always going to look for a recourse against what they see as an unfair law. In this case business owners see this as a direct threat against their ability to make a living so they turn to the state govt to fix it. Our republic in action I suppose.

I don't know, referendums are fine I suppose and they have their place but I don't really care much for the overall practice and never will.

__________________

ASU2003

But the true state government (the voting public at large) said that we don't want smoking in bars and other public places. While I'm not a big fan of the fines (99% reduction is enough for me just by having businesses stop smoking in their indoor areas), and unless they are outright ignoring the law, then I think they are wasting their time going after one-off violations.

The court system just ruled in favor of the business today, so that is another example of the will of the people not being upheld.

Poppinjay

Interesting that most cities in North Carolina - the heart of tobacco country - banned smoking in public buildings long ago.

I wonder how much business fall off this causes? Here in DC, it's been banned from bars for a long time, that's why so many bars developed rooftop rooms that are thriving. I go out with my cow-orkers and the smokers just go to the rooftop. They don't even think about complaining. In a generation or so, nobody will think much about this, and it certainly won't go backwards. Once a toe hold has been established, it never lets go.

I avoided the bars and clubs where smoking was allowed. I'm allergic, and it just plain smells bad. Now I can go and have fun too.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Wes Mantooth

Personally I like the way they handled the issue here in Tennessee. You can have a smoking establishment but only if you cater to an over 21 clientele and have a sign stating the business is a smoking establishment. If a business owner wants to cater to smokers he can by simply selling beer and carding at the door and customers can decide weather or not they want to go inside. Winners all around! YAY!

I'd be curious also to see what kind of effect these laws have on business. I remeber when they passed the no smoking law in Maine in the late 90's there were a lot of small bars and diners that went under but I've never read any stats on the real numbers and overall effect one way or the other.

__________________

FoolThemAll

OR - stop being a child, and find a different place that suits your needs and desires.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Poppinjay

Thanks to the puritan way Charlotte treats alcohol, smoking IS allowed in bars, but they're not bars. They're clubs that you pay a dollar to join. This makes them private buildings. This also is a totally messed up way to do this because there's also a WHOLE lot of drug dealing in these private clubs because they're basically houses to the police. Not some place they might drop by just to make sure things are on the up and up.

Virginia looked at the signage idea. I don't remember if they ever passed that though. It seems simple enough. I would worry that every bar would go with signage and allow smoking, but then I only go to the DC bars.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

ASU2003

I would worry about this as well. Or the employees working there would have to breathe in the second hand smoke for 8+ hours each day even though the voters put these laws in place.

Derwood

exactly. the smoking ban isn't just about the patrons, it's also about the employees.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

ratbastid

Back to the OP, though, about "your vote doesn't matter"...

Referenda are a convenient way for lawmakers to pass the buck and keep their hands clean on decisions where there's a powerful or vocal minority (in this case, bar owners). IMO there's really no place for them in a real Republic. They're a backdoor legislative loophole designed to provide the illusion of control to the public. So yeah, your vote doesn't matter, nor should it on issues like this. You elected representatives to represent you. THAT vote is the one that needs to matter.

As a former smoker, I'm entirely happy that my county just passed an indoor smoking ban. I've given quite a bit of business to my local service industry since that went into effect, as have all the non-smokers I know.

(I also note, pan, that it strikes me as very strange to describe your feelings and personal attitudes, and the follow that sentence with "FACT". Your opinions are opinions, not facts. You're entitled to them, and I guess it is a fact that you have them, but putting "FACT" behind them the same way you do the percentage outcome of the vote leads to strange logical consequences.)

pan6467

I understand the debate about referendums, but once used and the voters have spoken it should be done and over with.

I believe in the people's voice and believe that people should have more voice and politicians less. Giving politicians more voice allows more corruption, especially with the latest Supreme Court ruling. Money is everything in politics and the people mean nothing.

It is for that reason I find this appalling. Again, I am a smoker (soon to be using Chantix again to quit... it's really fucking with my Sarcoidosis) and I dislike having to go outside and freeze to smoke but I live with it, because the people have spoken.

Once government allows a referendum like this, they should put forth another choice for the people. Let the people decide if they want to allow licenses.

I think a major part of the problems in this country is that we do not allow people more power through voting. I find people who want to give government more control and the people less voice are those who either believe they are far more educated and well versed than the general populace and look down on average people as lazy, worthless, uneducated, not smart enough to vote for the laws. These are also people who believe that we should just keep electing the same corrupt parties over and over again because those people like being babysat and/or have agendas and like the control over people.

I believe the opposite. I believe the people should be given more of a voice and allowed to define their communities and states anyway (with the exception of civil rights) the majority sees fit. I don't believe you'd have as many problems financially or with corruption of politicians.

There is no doubt in my mind that all this smoking license bullshit comes Penn National and Dan Gilbert getting ready for their casinos. And it is disgusting to me, to think that we give our voices to these politicians.

The argument can be made that we elect these people and can vote in new people if we do not like what they say. However, that is not the way it truly is. The 2 party system tells us exactly who the candidates will be, those candidates MUST pretty much stand the party line and not what is best for their district. Our system also demands that you need money to be elected. Thus Joe Schmo won't ever see a chance because the people in power already have the money and know how to get more (sell their votes).

When you take the people's votes away, it all becomes about the money and the people, as shown clearly in this case don't matter.

The ONLY way to remedy that, give the people more say and the politicians less.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Stare At The Sun

?

No.

I have no problem if you want to smoke in your own home, but if you do it in a public setting, it affects me.

It makes my clothes stink, it makes it harder to breathe, and second hand smoke kills.

It has nothing to do with "being a child". Smoking, in public should be illegal. If you were smoking water vapor I wouldn't care, however, you are smoking a carcinogen, and I'd rather not have going to a bar be a health risk to my lungs and heart.

dksuddeth

so you're perfectly fine with telling private property owners what they can and cannot do/allow on their own property?

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------

it actually does have something to do with your childishness. You want to enforce a business practice or policy via law on a business that you don't even own. That is so wrong on an unbelievable number of levels.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

What about consumer and labour laws? They're enforced on private property.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

does the government force people to eat or drink in that restaurant or bar? Does the government force people to work in that restaurant or bar?

your patronization of any establishment is yours to choose, just as your employment status is your choice. If the property OWNER wishes to allow smoking and you don't like smoke, don't spend your money in there. It's really that damned simple.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

No, it's not that simple. That's why we're here.

Does the government force people to work in specific environments? Does the government force consumers to shop in the marketplace?

There are reasons why a property owner isn't allowed to do certain things to employees and consumers. There are sets of laws outlining what these are. And in this case, there are laws that bar owners from permitting smoking in their establishments. It's based on public health, not dissimilar to many labour and consumer laws.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

Can I interject here and point out that telling people what they can and can't do on their private property is nothing new, and actually has a pretty solid foundation in protecting liberty? For instance: murder is illegal, even if you do it on your own property. Fraud is illegal, even if you do it on your own property. etc. You can't steal from me just because I'm at your house.

The people, via the government, have a very just and compelling interest in regulating the behavior of private businesses and private property owners. I would wager that there are some of us who wouldn't be here to argue if workplace safety and environmental regulations weren't in place.

"You can't tell a private business person what to do on their own property" is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Even if it weren't demonstrably false on many completely established and constitutionally acceptable ways, when taken as an absolute it's a completely misguided and naive personal philosophy to hold. Really. Have you ever thought about what would occur if all property owners were entitled to do whatever they wanted provided they were on their own property? This seems to be what you're advocating.

Childishness is thinking that because someone owns land or a business they can do whatever the fuck they want regardless of how it may affect the people around them.

dksuddeth

total strawman. murder and fraud can't even come close to the comparison of making smoking in the establishment illegal.

using this argument, public health and safety, you'd better be hiring 5 million more cops and outlawing every single thing that's dangerous, including toothpicks.

i'm actually getting real sick and tired of advocating every regulation for public health and safety. It's just another progressive method of controlling the populace. It's absolute insanity to push for this kind of totalitarianism.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

His following examples are the important ones, as I hinted at above.

Slippery slope much?

Okay, slippery cliff.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

Okay, so you admit that there are some things that private property owners shouldn't be able to do even if they're on their own property. So stop resorting to simplistic platitudes that you don't even believe in to make your point. Either the government can tell private property owners what to do on their own property or they can't. Which is it?

That's has nothing to do with anything I've said. All I'm saying is that it's foolish to embrace the notion that private property owners should be able to do whatever the hell they want, just because they're on their own property. I'm not arguing the absolutist position, you are.

It's not insanity and it's not totalitarianism. A lot of it is actually pretty well supported by scientific data. Which is often more convincing than vague platitudes lamenting rights you don't really even believe actually exist.

Pearl Trade

The vote indirectly matters, as YOU vote for who YOU want in office that represents what YOU want.

Like Baraka said, those laws are put in place to protect the customers and anyone who chooses to do business with them. Of course, you can choose who you do business with, but they can't just let the owners have free will to do whatever they want. Private business to provide a service to the public. Protect the public.

I have no say in the matter about smoking/non smoking, I just look at this as a business/law type topic. I do, however, agree with the theory of letting an owner choose whether to allow smoking or not. At least give him the opportunity to designate an area.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Stare At The Sun

Where to even begin.

I suppose you're opposed to all sorts of laws on businesses that I don't own. Like child labor laws, safety regulations, food and environmental regulations, and all those sort of other bad "progressive" reforms.

It's a law, who owns it is irrelevant. Laws are to be followed.

The government does have a say in what business owners can do. Smoking is a PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN.

It is not just a matter of preference, its a matter of public health. Smoking in public places should be illegal, and thankfully, in most places it is.

Derwood

we get it, pan prefers to do everything that 50.1% of the voters decide, even if the number of voters is far less than the population, so really, the "majority" vote represents, what, 15-20% of the population? THAT'S who we want deciding things?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Wes Mantooth

That's one of the main reasons I HATE referendum voting, it rarely represents the majority of the population. Couple that with badly worded black and white questions, little to any proper deliberation or debate, no rewrites or compromises and very little thought to the aftermath and consequences it looks even worse. Honestly if what the "majority" wants is supposed to trump all other branches of govt why don't we simply switch to a pure democracy and let the people vote on everything? I'm sure that would turn out just wonderful.

I vote very carefully when it comes to my representatives because I want somebody that properly represents me and would lean the way I would on most issues and I would prefer letting them do their jobs. I simply don't have the time to properly read, educate myself, debate and vote on every issue that comes up and neither do most people.

__________________

FoolThemAll

Different places carry different risks. If you don't want the danger of falling off a cliff, you avoid Mt. Rainier rather than insisting upon special accommodations. If you don't want to be mildly injured by out-of-work rebels listening to bad music, you avoid the punk concert's mosh pit rather than insisting upon special accomodations. If you don't want to hear dumb Down's Syndrome jokes on a mediocre show, for Christ's sake Palin just change the channel.

Every time you find a place that doesn't quite serve your desires for comfort and safety, you can take the adult route of finding an alternate place that does.

Or you can be a child.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Wes Mantooth

I'm still baffled as to why people just don't leave a bar or restaurant if they don't like the way its run.

The other day I went out to lunch at a new place I wanted to try but when I got inside they were playing incredibly loud music. Now I personally don't like being around ear splittingly loud music without ear plugs, it can damage hearing and as a musician I just don't like taking that risk. So I decided to leave, I went across the street and ate at a restaurant with a better atmosphere. If the business owner wants to cater to people that like that kind of setting then more power to him and his customers, its none of my business. Honestly why would I care how he chooses to run his business?

I get the argument for a healthy work environment for employees and I support it. However I'll never understand the argument from the customers perspective and I don't think I ever will.

__________________

ASU2003

It's because before the ban there were 0 non-smoking bars. Customers were not given a choice. And getting a liquor license here isn't easy to take a risk starting a smoke-free bar.

pan6467

Quoted for truth!!!!!

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Yours makes the most sense and I'm extremely in agreement with you.

The arguments of child labor, safety, etc are all bullshit. This is about SMOKING. It is a LEGAL substance that communities, states and even the Feds tax the Hell out of to support their programs, stadiums, etc. Local and state government COULD NOT SPEND nearly what they do without "the sin taxes". In fact some areas are crying because smoking is actually going down and thus that tax revenue is shrinking and they don't know where to find the money for programs.

My feeling is if you don't like smoking vote to make it illegal and before such vote... don't use ANYTHING supported with tobacco tax money, see how easy it is and how much YOU NEED smokers.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

That's not true. I have known several bars that tried to go non smoking but financially could not make it.

Here in Canton where every restaurant and bar had to have separate ventilation, paid for by THEM. A bar owner tried to follow the law, spent a lot of money making it happen and when the ban passed business plummeted and they could not afford the payments on the "separate" ventilation systems and were forced to close down. There are several other bars and private clubs that are also hurting financially because of this reason.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

filtherton

It's only true if you haven't been following the conversation.

pan6467

First, in this case don't let people vote and then change the rules because that vote didn't work the way you wanted it to. Go back to the people and show them what is going on.

Secondly, far more of the population votes than 15-20% so that is just a bullshit number you pulled out. Maybe in an odd year, turnout is low but statewide/nationwide.... I want to see proof of your number.

And if you are trying to make a case as to why this should mean we should just give more power to the Legislature, you're shooting yourself in the foot because ANY AND ALL politicians in the end care ONLY about those voting. And according to you that would be the 15-20% you are crying about.

So, to me that argument makes no sense... UNLESS you like having freedom and the choice of how government should work taken from the people all together.

Thirdly, if people were given the chance to have a say, more than just voting for 1 of 2 corrupt agenda ridden party candidates, we may actually see 80-90% voting.

It seems no matter who we vote for ("Change" comes to mind)... we see agendas that are NOT in the best interest of ALL people not even the majority and we see corruption and scandals and just total disregard for the people, voters or not. This disenfranchises people. How many times do you think someone is going to vote for "Change" or believing this candidate will be different only to have him be a partisan puppet and owned by corporations, before they decide their vote just doesn't matter?

How many times does it take for someone to vote for something like "no smoking" only to see politicians take that away and change it before they believe their vote doesn't matter and so they stop voting????

The lack of voters is not because they don't care, IMHO, it 's because they did care but were burnt too many times and decided their vote didn't matter.

IF we make their vote matter, by giving them the decision and not changing those laws, then we may see more people voting.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

....or if you like to make a mockery of the idea of truth.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

I didn't say only 15-20% of the population voted. I said that 15-20% of the population would represent a majority win in a vote, as local elections only garner about 30-40% of the eligible voters.
so in your ideal world, do you think the citizens should get to vote on absolutely everything? should the elected officials have no power?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dksuddeth

its even more true when you refuse to follow the actual logic. when you can't differentiate between labor laws and laws of commerce vs. private property rights and private business practices, it's quite simple to just let majority rule.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

I guess that means you are not a fan of public accommodation laws?

You dont think in some communities, the populace would vote to return to "whites only" establishments?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire