Smoking: For or Against?

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderators: Jim DeVito, Dan Alaimo

User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14102
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Smoking: For or Against?

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:56 pm

I preparation for a series of articles on smoking in Lakewood I would like to know if you are for or against smoking in bars?


Paul Nickels
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:30 am
Contact:

Smoking in Bars

Postby Paul Nickels » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:28 pm

Why in America do we feel we can stamp out every health risk? Do we think it's possible to live forever? And if a person is greatly concerned about health, why go to a bar? Let's stop trying to control everything in the world and just live with the fact that it's better to enjoy life than to worry about extending it. Keep a non-smoking area that's ventilated as well as possible and forget banning smoking in bars.


Paul J. Nickels
Third-Generation Lakewood Guy
Dan Ott
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: lakewood, oh
Contact:

also

Postby Dan Ott » Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:05 pm

i agree fully with Paul. Also, I don't really understand why anyone would vote for a measure that takes away the rights of a private business to establish their own rules about what goes on in their business. i have no problem with no smoking in publicly owned areas (lakewood park, for example) but if a bar allows smoking, that should be their prerogative. no one is forcing people to go to those bars, so no one should be forcing those bars to change their behavior.



~dan


Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

It's an employment issue?

Postby Jeff Endress » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:44 pm

As a cigar afficiando, I really miss "cigar friendly" establishments where you could enjoy a good single malt and a fine puros. But, what we have to remember is that those framing the argument for a ban tend to center on the establishment workers who are placed in the position of either quitting a job or being involuntarily subjected to second-hand smoke. I don't think that the real concern is for a patron who, as you correctly point out, can simply refuse to patronize a bar/restaurant/bowling-alley/whatever. As the argument goes, the workers are not free to eliminate the "danger" because they have to work.



Jeff


User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14102
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: It's an employment issue?

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:14 am

Jeff



You are in a very unique position for this next one.



Is there any proof from "dangers" associated with "line" cooking in restaurants outside of the normal burn every now and then?



Also wouldn't the person applying for the job, have known these potential dangers before applying? Which would make the argument moot?



When I did asbestos removal, I knew the dangers. When I cleaned up oil spills, I knew the danger. When I sold hot dogs, I never realized the dangers, but that was from customers not the business itself.



What is the legal/chef's opinion?





Jim O'Bryan


Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

Assumption of the risk

Postby Jeff Endress » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:14 am

The law generally provides that one who "voluntarily" assumes a known risk cannot hold another responsible for damages that result. It's a really interesting catch 22. The more egregious and obvious the dangerous situation, the less likely the person responsible for it will be held accountable. There may be some argument that new hires fall into this category. But, as with all things, there are other considerations. With various "safe place to work" laws and regs, employers are expected to make reasonable efforts to abate known dangers. We have safety guards on punch presses, and asbestos workers set up negative pressure atmospheres while wearing respirators. So, maybe each new barmaid will be equipped with an oxygen tank! It does, however, beg the question of current workers who are only now becoming aware of the dangers of work-place smoke.

The line chef (or for that matter the household cook) is one of those situations "under construction". We're beginning to learn that various cooking smokes and fumes may have harmful effects, both commercially and residentially. There's also some research out there involving toxicity of various non-stick coatings. I would think that as more studies are done, and findings made, you could well see additional kitchen ventilation requirements.

Not all work place hazards can be eliminated and some jobs, no matter what you do, are just plain dangerous (bomb tester comes to mind). I guess the issue comes down to whether the dangers are an unavoidable consequence, or whether reasonable restrictions can avoid them. I am definitely not on the band wagon for a forced ban, but given the virtual impossibilty of eliminating the dangers (short of a ban) somewhere down the line our lawmakers, here, in Columbus or in DC will determine that the discomfort of refraining from smoking for a few hours is outweighed by the safety concerns, a la the elimination of smoking on airlines by federal fiat.



Jeff


Turo Dexter
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:20 pm

Postby Turo Dexter » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:52 pm

Hi. First post.



I don't drink but I enjoy the community atmosphere of neighborhood bars that are filled with regular customers (especially those without TVs), and I like live music. If there is smoke I will not stay, so if a bar owner wants my business he or she needs to make the atmosphere pleasant. I realize that a lot of people still smoke in Ohio; it's too bad for their loved ones.



--Turo


Lynn Farris
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Contact:

Postby Lynn Farris » Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:11 pm

We have approximately 150 bars in Lakewood. I would like to see a few of them voluntarily go smoke free. I think there is a real market for them from the people I talk to.



I hate to see the government get into this battle. If It was done statewide, it would be easier to swallow. But we have enough problems with the homeowners abuting bars, without having patrons go out for a smoke. I think that would be a nightmare.


bac nguyen
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 9:11 am
Location: Lakewood

Bad for workers

Postby bac nguyen » Thu May 19, 2005 7:31 am

While I agree that people make a very good point that businesses should be free to make their own choices, one thing to consider is that many people who work in smoking environments do so out of lack of opportunity to work elsewhere. Waiters, bartenders, service people etc... who work in bars and restaurants with smoking are at the mercy of their smoke-filled environments. So while I do think that it would be a shame to impose a smoking ban on private business owners, perhaps a better a solution would be some sort of incentive for smoke-free businesses? Some sort of tax break? Just an idea. I just sympathize for those non-smoking waiters who work late-night in diners filled with smoke. One can assume that they aren't working there because it's their dream job. Second-hand smoke disproportionately affects lower-income people. So while the rights of the business owners and patrons is important, let's not forget about workers too.


bac
Dan Slife
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:58 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Postby Dan Slife » Sat May 21, 2005 3:39 pm

Bac,
You make an important point on the socio-economics of second hand smoking. I see the smoking ban idea as a class/identity issue. In light of your comments things become quite complex.

Previously, I was thinking of a smoking ban in terms of a 'forced gentification' of Lakewood's bar crowd. Along these lines my perception was that a more upwardly mobile/affluent class was working to ban your average 'working class Joe/Jane' from living their chosen lifestyle at the corner pub. The arguments based on health concern could be seen, in this light, as more of a defense strategy within language-game for securing class interests. Isn't 99% of the bar crowd poisoning their bodies with spirits? Yeah, but we need to keep the Marb/Miller/Ohio Lottery crowd out (or just reduce their ranks)........ so that our bar patronage matches the demographics of the new expensive housing we're gonna build on so many street corners.

Back to reality. I don't really believe that the above mentioned is truly a conscious interest for those working to legislate a smoking ban. However, this is certainly possible. We're dealing with an Urban Space in times of economic hardship. The tendency will be for 'preservation' efforts to 'treat blight' with an injection of capital via the relocation of markets. To the extent that this injection of wealthy residents is necessary, 'market forces' should allow for profitable conversions to smoke free atmospheres :lol:

If the issue is trying to reduce smoking within the city, then we're talking about something entirely different. Rather than 'treating' our smokey bar problem by marginalizing smokers, we may find grass-roots ways to help citizens break thier addictions (if they care to). This topic could constitute an entirely new thread.

The issue of the health of workers is a complicated one. Though I agree that it's a bit atrocious that many people work in smoking establishments because the have to, they're still serving a population that smokes because they choose to do so. It's the smokers $20 that filled the workers pocket. Workers in favor of smoke free establishments tshould innitiate,join and amplify community discussions on the subject. Let's get all parties involved. I advocate that the community/patrons first create the demand, through the Observer. There's no reason that community interest cannot petition businesses in a similar manner that governments are petitioned. Create the voice that DEMANDS a special service. Patron citizens should ramp up the dialogue concerning this issue to the point that we know:

1. Who the people advocating smoke-free are
2. Where do they reside within the city
3. What establishments are frequented by this 'group'

Thus, we learn what bars could BENEFIT from such a practice and also gain a good understanding of those that won't.

If a ban were instituted, there's no evidence to show that there's a great enough demand for such establishments... that x of them wouldn't go out of business or become less-profitable. Where's the market study? Demographic/consumer buying analyses of Lakewood are available on the library's website. Take a look at them, unless I missed something they don't support a smoking ban line of discourse as intelligible given lakewood's demographic makeup/buying habits.

I don't advocate for financial incentives from the Gov. to bar owners. Our city is facing unprecedented financial hard-times, if the initiative is not profitable by its own right, it's not the responsibility of government to make it profitable by carrying the burden of lost revenues or even throw token grants/rebates at bar owners.

We could however, place a ban on all bars owned by outsiders.....ticket their patrons, block-off parking spaces.. run them out of business and town. The city would take possession of the parcel and open municipalized bars..... smoking preference to be determined
:lol:


Dean Boland
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:40 pm

Postby Dean Boland » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:42 am

Dan Slife wrote:If the issue is trying to reduce smoking within the city, then we're talking about something entirely different. Rather than 'treating' our smokey bar problem by marginalizing smokers, we may find grass-roots ways to help citizens break thier addictions (if they care to). This topic could constitute an entirely new thread.


I completely agree with this sentiment. The point of a smoking ban should not be to be a second parent to adults in encouraging them not to smoke.

The contradiction here in those who argue against a smoking ban is that many companies, for years, have accepted that they must provide a safe work environment for their workers. For example, steel mills are not entitled to say to workers, if you don't like the unfiltered, unscrubbed dirty air you have to breathe, don't work here. The execs at such companies accept that they must provide some level of clean air, protective equipment, etc. to shield workers from harmful effects of their employment. If it were the case that "you don't have to work there" was a viable argument, many companies would not be required to do what they accept now as required with regard to workplace safety and air quality. I am not necessarily an advocate of a smoking ban, but merely pointing out that the "you don't have to work there" argument is weak and has been defeated in many other industries.

As a model, most office buildings are now smoke free and you don't see droves of employees quitting in search of smoking available office buildings. Why? Because at some point, we all do a cost-benefit analysis of these things. And, I suspect, bar patrons, used to the familiar bar, bartender and patrons they come to see every week, will not uproot their pattern, find a bar in another city, just to smoke with strangers. After all, I don't assume people go to a bar to smoke. They can smoke at home, in their car, walking down the street, etc. People go to bars to socialize, enjoy an adult beverage, etc. If they were not permitted to smoke inside, they would still, in very large numbers, continue to frequent their favorite watering hole. And, any falloff in patronage due to the smoking ban, would certainly be made up by non-smokers. I, for one, would love to play pool or darts or even pinball with my wife, on occasion, in an adult only atmosphere, but we won't go to bars because of the smoke. Not so much the breathing of it, after all, you sort of get used to that after an hour or so, but because of the after effects. (sore throat, horse voice, clothes wreaking of smoke.)


DMB
Dan Slife
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:58 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Postby Dan Slife » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:45 pm

Dean,

Concerning the "family interest" in bar patronage as a means of swapping customers:

1. The largest portion of patrons are under the age of 35.
a. Lakewood boasts the largest portion of 20-35 year olds living in any non-college town/ suburb in Ohio.
b. Statistically, this age group also makes up the greatest portion of smokers.
2. Advocacy of a particular political interest that is tailored to a group not representative of the majority of bar patrons is not only non-democratic, paternalistic ideological subscription, but defies logical discourse in light of the above mentioned points on age and smoking habits.

Lakewood is infamous throughout Ohio's colleges and universities as being the "college town without a college". I checked I.D.'s at a West End bar for one summer. Though the family turnout was nill, I did learn that young people come from all over the region and state to visit, live and bar-hop here. They are young,unattached and willing to drop bills for liquid poison. Whether we like it or not, this smokey scene is infusing our city with outside dollars. If one is to postulate that enough families and non-smokers can fill this huge, specialized niche of self-pollution sufficiently and consitantly, let's see the logic.

If the intention is truly the health of workers, it is up to the workers to take responisbility for their health, when they are agitated and POLITICALLY MOTIVATED to do so. Because we still live in a demogracy, at least at the municipal level, it is not up to top-down policy to dictate citizen activity. Rather, it is up to citizens; patrons,workers,community members in general and THEN politicians to decide COLLECTIVELY what is proper discourse.

So the bars are unhealthy. They must be purified. And this purification must be legislated, because the people are too stupid to demand otherwise, or likewise for that matter. Perhaps people are okay with thier 'impurity'. God bless them.


Dan Slife
Stephen Calhoun
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: NEO
Contact:

Postby Stephen Calhoun » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:05 pm

Dean writes,
After all, I don't assume people go to a bar to smoke. They can smoke at home, in their car, walking down the street, etc. People go to bars to socialize, enjoy an adult beverage, etc. If they were not permitted to smoke inside, they would still, in very large numbers, continue to frequent their favorite watering hole. And, any falloff in patronage due to the smoking ban, would certainly be made up by non-smokers. I, for one, would love to play pool or darts or even pinball with my wife, on occasion, in an adult only atmosphere, but we won't go to bars because of the smoke.


The issue is a sticky wicket. Clearly, smoking is a habit who's ill effects moves beyond the end of one's own nose. At the same time, entrepreneurs aren't falling over each other to offer non-smokers smoke-free drinking establishments. In this sense, the market has spoken, nobody is forced to go into an establishment where your right to not be afflicted by the choice of another, with respect to smoke, does not exist.

"I don't assume people go to a bar to smoke." People don't go to hospitals to get a good night's sleep. Smoking is a concommitted adjunct to a social space where it is allowed.

"falloff in patronage due to the smoking ban, would certainly be made up by non-smokers." 'Certainly' because you wish it so, or, because you have scientific research you can supply?

When office buildings become smoke free, workers move outdoors during breaks and smoke up a storm. When my office was at Ohio Savings Plaza, we called the congregate of just-outside-the-entrance smokers, 'the smoking olympics'. Why didn't they leave their jobs?

But a bar is leavable. There's little incentive to not smoke if an alternative social space is available.

Cost/Benefit favors smoke-free; obviously health does too; the market does not on the other hand. Paternalism deployed to reformulate the market is standard neolib SOP.


john crino
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:26 pm

smoking ban

Postby john crino » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:10 am

Dan Slife wrote:
1.Who the people advocating smoke-free are
2. Where do they reside within the city
3. What establishments are frequented by this 'group'
:lol:



As an owner of a non-smoking drinking establishment in Lakewood I ask, Why are the people who advocate this ban on smoking not in my establishment enjoying a smoke-free environment? Are these folks going to come out to the happy hours in Lakewood if this passes?
For the record,I do not agree with the smoking ban. I feel it is bad for Lakewood businesses and also the ban itself is a lifestyle ban. If bar workers themselves organized the proposal for their own benefit that would seem more supportable. My establishment is non-smoking for the sake of the art on the walls and the fact that I am allergic to cig. smoke,otherwise people smoking is none of my concern. For the sake of Lakewood economy I hope this ban done not pass.


Dean Boland
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:40 pm

Postby Dean Boland » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:16 pm

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Dean writes,

The issue is a sticky wicket. Clearly, smoking is a habit who's ill effects moves beyond the end of one's own nose. At the same time, entrepreneurs aren't falling over each other to offer non-smokers smoke-free drinking establishments. In this sense, the market has spoken, nobody is forced to go into an establishment where your right to not be afflicted by the choice of another, with respect to smoke, does not exist.


I am a big fan of capitalism and the market speaking. And, I agree that if the market was demanding, in enough numbers, smoke free bars, they would exist.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:"falloff in patronage due to the smoking ban, would certainly be made up by non-smokers." 'Certainly' because you wish it so, or, because you have scientific research you can supply?


No science here. Just my assumption that if all bars in Lakewood were smoke free, few, if any smokers would actually quit going to bars or find a new one out of the city to frequent. But, then again, I am not a bar patron (because of the smoke) so this is just my uneducated assumption.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:But a bar is leavable. There's little incentive to not smoke if an alternative social space is available.


My focus was on the employees. True, if you don't want the danger of being an iron worker, don't do the job. But, there is a continuum here. Working in a steel mill is arguably more dangerous than a desk job in an office. However, that doesn't entitle the steel mill to forego all safety equipment, air cleaners, etc. How much should they have to do, it's debatable. However, bar employees must, currently, work in a smoke filled environment that is unarguably detrimental to their health. Two responses, get a different job or cutoff the pollution. I see the points on both sides here. So, putting it to a vote seems democratic to me.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Cost/Benefit favors smoke-free; obviously health does too; the market does not on the other hand. Paternalism deployed to reformulate the market is standard neolib SOP.


Well, being a Bush voter, twice, certainly removes me from the neolib column. I don't want the market being dictated by feelgood public policies of the minority. But, putting the smoking ban to a vote seems appropriate to me.


DMB

Return to “Lakewood General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 42 guests