Smoking Ban/County Wide

[Sister Golden Hair]

I live in Akron Ohio, in the county of Summit, which covers multiple communities. A "smoking ban" has been put into effect for the entire county with exemptions to bowling alleys and bars that are considered private clubs. Under the terms of the ban, you may not smoke in any public establishment or 10 feet from its entrance. In a smaller clause attached, you may not smoke outside of your residence if you are 10 feet from another residence that may choose to object. If you are found in violation of the new ordinace, you will be fined $150.00, your first offense.

It is my opinion that the government, be it federal, state or local, has no place in making this mandatory. Businesses should have the right to make that choice and not be required to conform to a decision that they believe will effect their revenues. Many owners that are non-smokers were against this, and find it to be unconstitutional.

I also find it to be quite a political play on the part of Akron. Akron is the largest community in the county, and they are discussing making the downtown area exempt from the law. In that case, Akron has everything to gain. All surrounding communities will flock here on Friday and Saturday night for a funfilled weekend of eating, smoking, and drinking.

There are smoking bans in effect in certian cities nationwide. This will be the first county wide ban in the U.S.

Thoughts?

[Nurvingiel]

I fully support bans on smoking. I don't think people who work in restaurants (primarily the servers) should be exposed to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke has been proven to be harmful. People shouldn't be forced to seek other employment just because they want to avoid the health costs of second-hand smoke.

Customers of restaurants and other establishments should also not be forced to take their business elsewhere to avoid second-hand smoke.

In BC, you aren't even allowed to smoke in bars. There is no smoking in any public places. Though there was some bumpiness in adjusting to the new bylaws (mainly, bar and pub owners worried they'd lose business), this bylaw works flawlessly now.
Plus, since the rule applies to all bars and pubs, they have not lost business AFAIK. I don't see that people would stop going out altogether just because they can't smoke. This may occur, but I doubt in significant numbers.

Great thread SGH.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

It is my opinion that the government, be it federal, state or local, has no place in making this mandatory. Thoughts?

I agree 100%. I've always supported the rights of smokers to smoke if they wish. It seems they are being discriminated against unfairly.
Workplace smoking and certain public locations, I can accept, but this harassment of every single place is just too much. NYC has really made it difficult for smokers too. Yet the governments want smokers to pay $34 for a carton of cigaretts and not let them be smoked.

[Nurvingiel]

I have no problem with people smoking in their own homes, or outside (unless it's in a confined place like the patio of a restaurant, but often you're still allowed to smoke there).

The issue for me is not smoking, which people have the right to do, but second-hand smoke. People do not have the right to get other people sick with their second-hand smoke.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I have no problem with people smoking in their own homes, .

Do you actually read and understand what you post? How arrogant to allow people to do what they wish in their own home.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay, that did come across a bit wrong.

But I assert people do not have the right to put second-hand smoke in a public space*. Logically that leaves their own personal space, and outside.

*where other people are quite likely to breathe it (since technically outside is private too).

[Sister Golden Hair]

Here's the issue with me: the government only benefits from smokers. The government has everything to gain by charging outragious taxes on smoking products, and at the same time making it hard to smoke it. So, I have to agree with Spock in that aspect. Privately owned businesses should have a choice on making their establishments smoke free or not. If you are a non smoker then go patronize a non smoking establishment. Not every establishment should have to become smoke free because non smokers want catered to. Bottom line, it should be a choice by the owner of the establishment, not government controlled.

[Nurvingiel]

Spock and SGH, you guys bring up a good point about government control.

However, is it still fair to the people that work in those environments? Do you think someone with asthma or another respitory problem, or someone who wants to avoid the effects of second-hand smoke, should have to find a different job?

The government does already regulate what ill effects employees can be exposed too.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Spock and SGH, you guys bring up a good point about government control.

However, is it still fair to the people that work in those environments? Do you think someone with asthma or another respitory problem, or someone who wants to avoid the effects of second-hand smoke, should have to find a different job?

The government does already regulate what ill effects employees can be exposed too.

Nurv, this is not something that was just found out to be hazardous to your health. We are not talking asbestos.This is a legal and frankly unhealthy thing that the government has allowed to exist and prosper from for years, and frankly, if you have a job in a smoking enviroment then go to an enviroment that is smoke free. If the government would allow establishments to decide for themselves, then there should be no problem in finding a job in a smoke free establishment. But to allow smoking, outragiously tax it, profit from it, and then make mandatory laws to punish those who do it or allow it in their establishment is wrong to me. To me, that is government at its worst. It is controlling and IMO violates the very freedoms this country is founded on. It frustrates me to know that this entire ordinance is based on political gain. The city of Akron could care less about non smokers. They care about a county wide ban that exempts their downtown area and will drive smokers into their community for a buck. That's all this is about. I find it hard to take the government's concerns for our health seriously when I see there is an ulterior motive or political agenda outside of what is being said.

[Tessar]

I think smoking bans are fine, and I support them 100%. I wish they were more widely used and enforced.

I don't think it's right at all for people to be allowed to indulge a habit in public that's actually worse for the people around them than it is for them. That's like saying that it should be legal to fire a gun at random in public--oh yeah, it might not hurt the shooter, but it just might nail someone walking by.

As a singer, I can't stand it when people smoke because second hand smoke can do a lot of damage to the vocal cords.


I wish the government would just outlaw smoking period. End of story. You can't smoke in the United States.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

But to allow smoking, outragiously tax it, profit from it, and then make mandatory laws to punish those who do it or allow it in their establishment is wrong to me.

I have mixed feelings towards a smoking ban. I agree with you SGH that people should be able to smoke in at least some public places and that it's questionnable if a government is right to target a group like this. Smokers should be left alone.

However, I can't possibly image the government can make a profit from smoking, no matter the tax on smokes. Smoking-related diseases cost society huge sums of money and from a non-smoking taxpayer's point of view, a smoking ban would definitely be good. Same thing with alcohol. If alcohol was banned, society would save incredibly large sums of money.

[Nurvingiel]

SGH, there's a ban on smoking in the whole county except Akron? I don't get it.

Asbestos is harmful. You're not allowed to use it anymore, in brake pads or insulation and AFAIK industry. There are old buildings that still have asbestos in them though.

Without the smoking ban, establishments choose to allow smoking. But with a ban for all establishments, it's still fair.

[Cirdan]

Wow. The government benefits from smoking? Does that that into account the Medicare and Medicaid expenses for the smoking related illnessess? Does it include the billions in tobacco subsidies? If tobacco where a new product it would never make it to market. Anything that restricts smoking is a pure benefit to the general welfare.

[brownjenkins]

massachusetts has effectively passed a statewide smoking ban... there are no towns i know of that allow it anymore, anywhere

i do not have a problem with the concept in general, i do have a problem with the fact that, in massachusetts, there are no exceptions whatsoever... even bars are completely banned from smoking

in practice, what this means is that you get a situation like the prohabition on alcohol... smaller bars keep ashtrays under the counter, let their regulars smoke, and work out deals with the local police so that they turn their heads

i think smoking licenses should be allowed, much like liquor licenses... this way at least there will be places where people who wish to smoke can go... from the workers pov, there are thousands of restaurants to be employed at, and if a handful allowed smoking, those who object to it could very easily find employment elsewhere

remember, smoking is really no different from drinking... while one can die from second hand smoke, one can also die by getting hit by a drunk driver on his way home from a bar... yet we allow one and do not allow the other

[Cirdan]

I agree with the statement regarding drinking. If we are to be consistent in the application of the law then we must decide if personal freedom outweighs public safety and the general welfare. Either legalize all controlled substances or control them with a single philosophy that the public welfare supercedes the personal freedom. We regulate all sorts of behaviors and prohibit some all together on this legal basis. The fact that it is not consistently applied is the true source of irritation for me. Pot smokers are imprisoned and cigarette smokers expect to be able to smoke anywhere. Where is the logic?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

SGH, there's a ban on smoking in the whole county except Akron? I don't get it.

No Nurv, Akron is included in the ban. The thing is though, they plan on making downtown Akron exempt from the ban because that area is booming with bars and restaurantes, but the rest of the city would be banned the same as others in the county. That is my point: If smoking is banned throughout the county, then all the people of the surrounding communities will come to downtown Akron to smoke and drink. So, who benefits here?

Asbestos is harmful. You're not allowed to use it anymore, in brake pads or insulation and AFAIK industry. There are old buildings that still have asbestos in them though.

I realize this. I was just useing it as an example. They allowed asbestos for ages. Once they found out how unhealthy it was, they banned it. What I'm saying is: they have known forever how hazardous smoking is to both smokers and non smokers and let it go til now instead of doing something a long time ago. Why do you think? I'd say:$$$$$

Without the smoking ban, establishments choose to allow smoking. But with a ban for all establishments, it's still fair.

No it is not. There is no reason for the government to be involved. We have places that have banned smoking way before this, by choice. For instance: I can't even remember when the last time was that you could light up in a McDonalds here, but Burger King still allowed it with the exception of some franchises. To me, that is the way it should be, by choice, not force.

[Insidious Rex]

So far, in community after community, the effects of banning smoking has proven to be neutral at worst. Every new community that goes through it always kicks and screams about the end of business but after the fact they tend to lose a few smokers and gain a few non-smokers and not a lot changes. And then all the fussing and kicking and screaming dies down. I would imagine Akron would not benefit nearly as as you think they will. I would think you will get an influx of smokers but youll get a lot of non-smokers and families leaving the downtown area (now choked with thousands of smokers) for non-smoking places elsewhere. In the end you probably wont see a huge swing one way or the other.

[brownjenkins]

another problem is litter... brookline mass was one of the first places to ban smoking entirely... it is a suburb very close to boston and somewhat upscale... always kept very clean

when they passed the no-smoking laws they also instituted a "no-smoking with x-feet of an establishment"... as a result, they removed all the ashtrays that had been set up on almost every corner

i worked in that area during that time, and within weeks the sidewalks and streets were constantly choked with cigarette butts

when you make these kind of laws, you have to account for the human tendency to do what one wants to do no matter what the law says

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

To me, that is the way it should be, by choice, not force.

Yes indeed! ..and the beat goes on, and the beat goes on
SGH can take it for a bit. All this lack of ___ (fill in the blank) has gotten to me.


----------------------------------
Have you ever noticed how some days you just get washed over by the sense of cosmic emptiness and lack of meaning?

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

massachusetts has effectively passed a statewide smoking ban

So has Delaware.