Bars in complience

[Bryan Schwegler]

Bryan -

Sorry to offend you, but when ones right to decide their own future is denied them with little or no recourse, one might tend to feel a little childish/like.

It after all was only two lines of my post

Kirt Tompkins

Actually it was your entire post, the last few lines just summed it up.

Overall it was a very disappointing post and not at all professional from someone who is a business owner.

[Charyn Compeau]

The land of the free does not equate to the land of the 'do whatever you wish'

There was a drive to bring this before a popular vote of the people and the people have (freely) spoken.

You (and others) had the right to vote. Had the right to lobby. Had the right to organize. And have the right to leave if you do not like what the people of Ohio have freely chosen.

If this were a move that happened without a popular vote, I would stand beside you in protest; however, when it has been voted on in a proper democratic fashion, I will endorse the will of the people.

It is the foundation of our democracy. And it is through that democracy that you should seek change - not be simply breaking the law.

For that you get no respect from me and and many others who believe that the rule of law is one the aspects of our country that keeps us a country that -despite our flaws - the best in the world.

Just my (unpopular) opinion.

Charyn

[dl meckes]

The land of the free does not equate to the land of the 'do whatever you wish'

There was a drive to bring this before a popular vote of the people and the people have (freely) spoken.

You (and others) had the right to vote. Had the right to lobby. Had the right to organize. And have the right to leave if you do not like what the people of Ohio have freely chosen.

If this were a move that happened without a popular vote, I would stand beside you in protest; however, when it has been voted on in a proper democratic fashion, I will endorse the will of the people.

It is the foundation of our democracy. And it is through that democracy that you should seek change - not be simply breaking the law.

For that you get no respect from me and and many others who believe that the rule of law is one the aspects of our country that keeps us a country that -despite our flaws - the best in the world.

Just my (unpopular) opinion.

Charyn

Are all of the laws that are passed by popular vote good and worthy? Is the majority never wrong?

If I don't like the ban on gay marriage - which was passed by a popular vote - should I just leave?

I find that you are making some sweeping generalizations with which I disagree.

That being said, I have entirely complied with the smoking ban even in non-compliant bars.

[Charyn Compeau]

DL -

My point is that we should seek change through the same process.

In your gay marriage example - I would suggest that those that are against the laws that have been inacted mobilize, lobby, and educate to bring a bout a repeal. The same as I beleive here.

I have no issue with people that disagree pulling together in protest... Actually I would encourage it and feel it is for the communities greater good that these conflicts arise and both sides are given a platform to present information.

I would NOT, however, endorse them breaking the law - which is, IMO, what this is about

Always,
Charyn

[DougHuntingdon]

Isn't there a way for Sloane Pub and others to get around the smoking ban? I heard some bars are considering converting their ownership structure to 100% employee-owned to avert the smoking ban.

Doug

[Bryan Schwegler]

Isn't there a way for Sloane Pub and others to get around the smoking ban? I heard some bars are considering converting their ownership structure to 100% employee-owned to avert the smoking ban.

Doug

I don't think employee owned would get around the law. It's "family owned" businesses that only allow family to work there.

[David Anderson]

I agree with Charyn's argument. There is, indeed, a process for those who wish to exact a change or reversal in public policy.

As far as Mr. Tompkins' concern about advancing government intrusion, since when has the U.S. economy been free and open to the forces of the marketplace. Heck, we have the Federal Reserve system conspiring with government to regulate our monetary policy and the NYSE shuts itself down if trading becomes too volatile.

As far as a local business goes, it's not like Mr. Tompkins could do what he wanted before the smoking ban. It can't sell alcohol without a state issued liquor license. It must be given a government issued license to sell food - I assume it has a grill. Aren't there also building permits. So, the all too real issue of government intrusion is not unfamiliar to Mr. Tompkins and I don't believe he even subscribes to his own argument.

There is no free, open economic market either on the national or local scale. All levels of government regulate. The smoking ban is just another in a long line of regulations.

Sloan Pub - not in compliance.

[Jeff Endress]

Perhaps this is a bit off track, but, it is relevant.

I spent the weekend in NYC. A few years ago, New York passed a statewide ban on smoking, similar to what Ohio has done. Every restaurant, bar or club that we visited in NYC was fully compliant. No smoking anywhere. And most were crowded. But, it was an even playing field......everyone was obeying the ban. Now, maybe NYC is different......maybe it isn't an option to simply stay at home and eat/drink where you can still smoke, but from my observations, with all the owners in the same boat, it didn't appear that anyone's business was being hurt.

Jeff

[Grace O'Malley]

That was the point of a statewide ban versus a ban ONLY in Lakewood.

I could not support a ban that only affected Lakewood businesses because then, indeed, they could claim that Rocky River or Cleveland establishments would get their smoker's busineess.

However, all these arguments about losing business are specious because the business is not going elsewhere - every establishment must be smokefree. It is a level playing field.

California, Massachusetts, many states have smoking bans and they have all survived. In fact, you cannot smoke in a pub in Dublin anymore yet they manage to stay open.

If you really feel your business is in danger, I submit that it is not the smoking ban but some other reason that you are ignoring.

[Shawn Juris]

Isn't there a way for Sloane Pub and others to get around the smoking ban? I heard some bars are considering converting their ownership structure to 100% employee-owned to avert the smoking ban.

Doug

I don't think employee owned would get around the law. It's "family owned" businesses that only allow family to work there.

To go one further, I thought that I read that it was a family run business in which they live on the premises. It sounds ridiculous but then again the law was written without a plan for enforcement in place so what do you expect?
While this may have been better left to the market place, it sounds as if it's enforcement will be. Sure there are other regulations imposed by the government but unlike those that are enforced with routine health inspector visits, surprise visits from the ATF to crackdown on underage drinking and so on, this law's enforcement appears to be built on complaints from patrons. If Sloane Pub really has 90% smokers then I'm sure that the 10% that are not know what they're going to get when they walk in. There was plenty of arguments against the effects of the ban on bars in general and "shot and a beer" bars in particular. With the ban being statewide and not local (as Toledo's ban was or the first attempt at the Lakewood ban) and the procedures in place to warn, fine then ultimately revoke a license, it sounds as if this law will just be a cop out for struggling bars.
In Lakewood in particular I see two divergent choices. We have 57 bars in this city. That's more than 1/1000 residents, closer to half of that when you take out those under 21 and more likely 1/300 when you factor out those unlikely to "frequent" bars. Maybe a statistician can check my numbers on that. There may be a vast number of degrees to which could work but here are the extremes; 1) "Bar darwinism", only the strong survive- true capitalism I suppose 2) "strength in numbers", the largest industry in our city pulls together to help make one another successful and spread the costs of advertising- boy that sounds like business "socialism" but doesn't it seem to make sense.
Since there seems to be a trend here lately to misunderstand tone and distort messages of one another, allow me to clarify my position. The first step to improvement is assessing your resources and maximizing them. The smoking ban was not decided here alone. Fighting each other and creating a divisive atmosphere amongst ourselves will not make the ban go away.

[John LePlae]

Several people I know, myself included, have added the following number to our cell phones and used it frequently, 866-559-6446. This is the number that is supposed to be posted in bars and restaurants to report non-compliance (although I've noticed they've been dissappearing lately). We've taken to calling this number only after asking the bartenders or owners why they aren't enforcing the ban. Most of the time the response is "because we don't have to". Wrong answer.

BTW, the number is to an answering machine that asks you to leave detailed information of the infraction. Other than checking this forum to see who's in compliance, we've felt that this is our only alternative.

[DougHuntingdon]

pier w - in compliance

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

madison lanes bowling alley

definitely not in complience.

I'll bring my camera if we go there again sometime...

[Annie Stahlheber]

Smoke Free Ohio has a myspace page. Each city has a space, which people can report restaurants, bars and bowling lanes in compliance with the ban. Check it out

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... 95106bbe3b