Smoking on Island

General information, views and opinions on activities at Put-in-Bay.

Moderator: admin1

Post Reply
captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:25 pm

Bullette wrote:I'm glad it happened here. Technically, smoking isn't a right, it's a privelege.. and those can be taken away

Sorry Nan. A privelage implies that sombody else decides if I can or can't do a thing. Smoking is a right. Deciding what can or can't be done on my own land is a right. I suppose you think drinking is a privelage too and can be taken away at will. What else do you consider a "privelage"? Land ownership? Free speach? Religion choice? Voting?
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

User avatar
CabinGirl
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:41 pm
Location: C-bus

Post by CabinGirl » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:31 pm

So people have a right to kill as long as it's on private property? I don't think so. You do have SOME rights.

Secondhand smoke can kill. Ohio is not the only state to put the ban into effect and won't be the last. I wouldn't be surprised if MI followed one of these days. Sorry smokers.

If not smoking in PIB bars is enough to keep you away from PIB you aren't as big of a fan to begin with. You should just stop smoking! Then all this wouldn't matter and you would save your health!

User avatar
Bullette
Posts: 2291
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:22 pm
Location: Willoughby, OH
Contact:

Post by Bullette » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:34 pm

Thanks Cabin Girl!
Hey! Who took the cork off my lunch??!

captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:38 pm

CabinGirl wrote:So people have a right to kill as long as it's on private property? I don't think so. You do have SOME rights.

Secondhand smoke can kill. Ohio is not the only state to put the ban into effect and won't be the last. I wouldn't be surprised if MI followed one of these days. Sorry smokers.

If not smoking in PIB bars is enough to keep you away from PIB you aren't as big of a fan to begin with. You should just stop smoking! Then all this wouldn't matter and you would save your health!

Obviously you can't murder somebody just because your on private land. That's a foolish argument and isn't even what the issue here is. The big picture is gov't medeling in the affairs of honest buisness owners. None of you seem to understand the slippery slope princepal.
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:40 pm

CabinGirl wrote:Secondhand smoke can kill.

That is not a fact. It's a theroy.
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:44 pm

I don't understand the sense of entitlement. What right do you have to tell business owners what to do? If a non-smoking bar would be profitable why don't they exist?
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

User avatar
Bullette
Posts: 2291
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:22 pm
Location: Willoughby, OH
Contact:

Post by Bullette » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:48 pm

Ohio is the 15th state to pass a strong smoke-free law which protects all workers, including those in bars and restaurants. The list includes: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Montana, Utah, Vermont, and Washington State. Several countries have smoke-free laws, including Italy, Ireland, and Scotland.

Looks like we aren't alone in this...
Hey! Who took the cork off my lunch??!

Katrinka
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Post by Katrinka » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:54 pm

I know of several bars in the Cleveland area that have always been non-smoking. And they are always crowded - before and after the ban.

captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:59 pm

Bullette wrote:Ohio is the 15th state to pass a strong smoke-free law which protects all workers, including those in bars and restaurants. The list includes: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Montana, Utah, Vermont, and Washington State. Several countries have smoke-free laws, including Italy, Ireland, and Scotland.

Looks like we aren't alone in this...

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right or fair. I can name dozens upon dozens of laws stricken from the books because of thier unconstitutionality. And the excuse of "everybody else is doing it, it must be a good thing" doesn't hold water either. Do some critical thinking and consider the ramifications of the president being set here. Once the door is open to dictate policy to business owners any number of other laws designed to protect us from ourselves can be ushered in. The gov't thinking for us is a bad thing. That's historically how police states and dictatorships are formed. You may think it's no big deal. The smokers have to go outside, so what? But try to think of what's coming next.
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

User avatar
Bullette
Posts: 2291
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:22 pm
Location: Willoughby, OH
Contact:

Post by Bullette » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:02 pm

I'm not going to argue my point any further. It's done and over with in Ohio, and that's all I care about!
Hey! Who took the cork off my lunch??!

captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:04 pm

Bullette wrote:I'm not going to argue my point any further. It's done and over with in Ohio, and that's all I care about!

I'm truely sorry Nan, but your point is very short sighted in my opinion.
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

User avatar
CabinGirl
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:41 pm
Location: C-bus

Post by CabinGirl » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:13 pm

Yeah there are a lot of other states out there. And those bars in those states are profitable I would think (just a guess). Columbus bars are as busy as they were without the smoking ban. People still go and they still have fun.

Matt I was just pointing out that people do still have rights on private property. Yes, murder was an extreme example. But it's more than just a theory that second hand smoke causes cancer according to the EPA.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

You have good points that this takes away rights of business owners. But there are a lot of good reasons to ban smoking. Here’s one way I think about it…for patrons, it’s like you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t start adversely affecting the other patrons around you…that’s when laws/rules come into play. That’s all this ban is saying…you can smoke somewhere that it’s not going to affect the people around you. I don’t see the problem with that.

Please don’t attack me…it’s just my little opinion (and Bullettes too). This country is democratic and we voted to do this...majority rules.

I'm done with my point too.

captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:22 pm

CabinGirl wrote:Here’s one way I think about it…for patrons, it’s like you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t start adversely affecting the other patrons around you…

You just made my point for me. Smoking is already banned in public buildings where people are required to be such as gov't offices.
However (this is where it gets tricky) nobody is required to be in bars nor do you have the right to go to said bar. I you don't like smoke go to a non-smoking bar if you can find one that's profitable and still in business.
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

Mister Kay
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: St. Clair Shores - Home of the Nautical Mile!!!!!
Contact:

Post by Mister Kay » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:31 pm

The Race to Ban What's Bad For Us
Trans fat, smoking, foie gras--what's next?


Is there any doubt that the infantilization of adults is one of the defining characteristics of contemporary politics?

Last week alone, New York City banned the use of trans fats in restaurant meals, and an Ohio law passed in November that bans smoking in virtually all business establishments (even in company-owned vehicles such as trailer-truck cabs) went into effect. However different the actions may seem on the surface, they share something all too common in today's America: They rob us of the right to make decisions--however stupid, unwise or repugnant to refined sensibilities--about how we want to live, work and eat.

Although "give me partially hydrogenated vegetable oil or give me death!" is not likely to become a rallying cry anytime soon, it's worth pausing a minute to consider the country's headlong rush to prohibit just about anything that bureaucrats--or simple majorities of voters--find offensive.

New York used to pride itself on being the toughest city in the world. After passing the first municipal ban on trans fat in the United States, it has just become one of the most annoying.

Trans fats, which are made by adding hydrogen to vegetable oils, are the flavor-enhancing substances that make many commercially prepared baked goods and fast foods so predictably yummy--and, alas, so predictably artery clogging. They are reviled by physicians, nutritionists and exercise gurus--everyone, in short, except for cooks and their customers.

So now New York City restaurants face a fine of at least $200 per infraction come next July. For good measure, the Board of Health also dictated that restaurants already posting nutritional information must post calorie counts for their meals.

"We are just trying to make food safer," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who in 2002 pushed through one of the toughest smoking bans in the country.

It's not as tough, though, as the statewide ban that 58 percent of Ohio voters approved and that now is in effect.

When Buckeye State residents gather in bars, restaurants, private clubs and even bowling alleys on Jan. 8 to watch Ohio State University take on the University of Florida for a national football championship, they'll have to do it without lighting up.

When Ohio--a bellwether state that once billed itself as "The Heart of It All" on its license plates--mimics policies found in New York and California (which passed the first statewide smoking ban in 1995), it's a given that no unwise, unhealthy or just unseemly choice is safe from regulation.

Indeed, how else to explain, say, Chicago's decision in April to ban the sale of foie gras out of concern for the geese who give their lives--and their livers--for diners' pleasure? Observers say it's likely that Illinois and Minnesota will be the 19th and 20th states to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, even as cities in California and elsewhere mull the idea of banning all smoking outside of private, single-family dwellings.

Similarly, New York's trans fat ban will almost certainly be emulated. As Ald. Ed Burke (14th), who sponsored a similar measure earlier this year, told The New York Times, "I'm disappointed we're losing bragging rights to be the first city in the nation to do this." With attitudes such as that, expect to see the equivalent of an arms race among jurisdictions bidding up restrictions on all sorts of activities deemed unacceptable.

Such bans often are, by turns, mendacious, redundant and likely to be ineffective. The trans fat ban, averred Bloomberg, is "not going to take away anybody's ability to go out and have the kind of food they want," even as it limits what ingredients can be used.

Fast food chains such as Wendy's and KFC had already committed to ridding their menus of trans fats, as had various high-end eateries in New York and elsewhere. And in a country in which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 65 percent of adults are overweight, it's ridiculous to expect the ban to have any serious impact on the supersizing of American waistlines or cholesterol levels.

It's probable that smoking bans in the workplace encourage employees to quit or cut back. The CDC, for instance, notes that "a 2002 review of 26 studies concluded that a complete smoking ban in the workplace reduces smoking prevalence among employees by 3.8 percent and daily cigarette consumption by 3.1 cigarettes among employees who continue to smoke." And there's no doubt that not smoking clears the air.

But even when bans do have an impact that most of us would agree is positive, one-size-fits-all actions leave no place for individuals to make some intensely personal choices.

They ignore the evolving social arrangements--such as non-smoking sections, not to mention smoke-free businesses--that give people, especially the 20 percent of adults who still light up regularly, more options rather than fewer. By the time Washington state passed its ultra-restrictive smoking ban last year--a law that outlaws lighting up even in cigar bars!--80 percent of restaurants there were already tobacco free.

Most important, these bans reduce all of us to the status of children, incapable of making informed choices. Is it quaint to suggest that there's something wrong with that in a country founded on the idea of the individual's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

captain matt
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Motown

Post by captain matt » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:32 pm

CabinGirl wrote:Yeah there are a lot of other states out there. And those bars in those states are profitable I would think (just a guess). Columbus bars are as busy as they were without the smoking ban. People still go and they still have fun.

Matt I was just pointing out that people do still have rights on private property. Yes, murder was an extreme example. But it's more than just a theory that second hand smoke causes cancer according to the EPA.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

You have good points that this takes away rights of business owners. But there are a lot of good reasons to ban smoking. Here’s one way I think about it…for patrons, it’s like you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t start adversely affecting the other patrons around you…that’s when laws/rules come into play. That’s all this ban is saying…you can smoke somewhere that it’s not going to affect the people around you. I don’t see the problem with that.

Please don’t attack me…it’s just my little opinion (and Bullettes too). This country is democratic and we voted to do this...majority rules.

I'm done with my point too.

Sorry if my arguements were construed as attackes. They weren't intended to be. I just want everybody to understand the only reason you're even in the bar in the first place is at the pleasure of the owner. You have no right to be on his premisis whatsoever.
Commanding officer, "Our 3 Sons"
Vodka drinking specialist and
the Ambassodor of pun-tang

Post Reply