The Observation Deck

john crino wrote: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.

This is clearly one of the problems of this issue as well. I am a lifelong resident of Lakewood and I had no idea such a non-smoking adult beverage establishment existed in the city. I am a person who would frequent such a place, but I wrongly assumed no such place existed in Lakewood.

Bella Dubby is at 13321 Madison Ave.

I don't agree with legally forcing bar owners to make their establishment "no smoking". I equate it with the adult channels on Cox cable. If you do not want to view them, you don't. If you don't want to be in a smoke filled environment, then don't stay in a smoke filled bar. I've been a non-smoker for many years. I occasionally go in bars, and if the level of smoke is not over what I'm comfortable with, I stay. If not, I leave. It's not that complicated.

I enjoy a wood burning fireplace. I have observed that when a restaurant has a fireplace, it is most often a benefit for those that choose the "non-smoking" area. I may enjoy a cigarette after a meal, so I opt for the "smoking" area.

And then I wonder why, if a fireplace can smoke in the "other" area, why can't I?? ..

Have you ever noticed the smoke coming from the kitchen of bars that serve food? Greasy and thick. For the safety of the worker, I say we should adopt a "microwave only" policy.

And how about that exhaust that rushes in an establishment that is close to the street (which all of Lakewood's are) whenever the door comes open? Perhaps for the safety of all, there should be a regulation requiring the building be moved further from the street. That stuff smells and is not good for you.

Plastic bubble, anyone? The day is just around the corner, and we could be "required" to wear one for our own government controlled personal, private protection.

Because we (Americans) are all too stupid to make our own decisions about where and where not we may choose to relax, or eat, or work.

We (Americans) are such morons that we need more than Big Brother. We need Big Daddy, to protect, guide and control us from birth to death.

Did anyone hear our government say "personal responsibility"?
Can everyone say "forked tongue"?

For a very liberal Democrat, I'm taking the shockingly Republicanesque view that the government should allow businesses to make their own decisions on this issue. Rationale:

1. If there is demand for smoke-free bars, then there will be a supply.

2. Bars represent one of the few categories of storefront businesses that are successful in Lakewood. Why ruin that? For citizens who live near them? Well, we all knew what we were getting into when we moved in...

3. I question whether the majority of those who are in favor of the ban even patronize bars on a regular basis.

Shelly:

While I would agree that if there were a market for a smoke free bar, we would have many, the difficulty here is that the real purpose behind smoke free envirornments (wherever) has nothing whatever to do with the patrons. The REAL underpinning for any push for smoke free environments is the (purported) concern for persons who must either work in hazordous conditions, or find another job. While most people have been viewing this as a smoking vs. non-smoking PATRON issue, it's really an issue fueled by proponents of a safe place to work. While certainly non-smoking advocates bring in non-smoking patrons, I tend to believe that the personal freedom issue is a red herring. When, and if, Ohio follows other states in banning smoking in eating and drinking establishments, it won't be because Columbus has decided that a non-smoker's rights are greater then a smoker's. It will occur, as a safe place to work justification, thereby avoiding the personal freedom issues of Patrons.

And when that happens (as it most certainly will) you'll find me, with my cigar, on my front porch sipping a bourbon.

Jeff

“The difference between a liberal and a conservative is a conservative prays in public and drinks in private and a liberal prays in private and drinks in publicâ€Â￾

Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Yes, I get that. However, many (not all) of the bars in Lakewood (and I know this firsthand ) are staffed with twenty-somethings who are either working their ways through school or are sorting out what they want to do for a career later on. Those folks do have the choice to work someplace else. I understand, though, that bartending and waiting tables is a career, as well, and if we have OSHA rules to protect us from all sorts of crazy contingencies in our places of employ, then, of course, bartenders and waiters/waitresses should have similar considerations regarding safe air.

BTW, isn't it considered having an open container in public if you're on your front porch having a bevvy? Is that a suburban legend?

Shelly

I think the open container thing is urban legend....but as I sit on the stoop, with Guinness, my 150+ lb Newfie, no one has ever approached to ask "what's in the glass"

Jeff

Jeff Endress wrote:Shelly

I think the open container thing is urban legend....but as I sit on the stoop, with Guinness, my 150+ lb Newfie, no one has ever approached to ask "what's in the glass"

Jeff

The drool quotient is enough to keep most people away!

Here are my two cents. I am not a smoker and I have never been. My husband is a former smoker. I hate the smell of smoke. With that being said I am torn on this issue. I would love to be able to go out to eat with my family and not have to walk out stinking, but its something I've been handling for years, so I guess its not that big of a deal. I have no problem with smoking in bars because I am not a drinker and I don't go to them. I think it would greatly damage the profits of our local bars if they were forced to be smoke free. I do like the idea of making restaurants smoke free during the dinner hours, but I don't think it will make much of a difference. I just don't know if I can agree with the government barring people who are doing a legal activity from doing that where they please.

Danielle:

Iam four square (if you'll excuse the term) with you....

I just don't know if I can agree with the government barring people who are doing a legal activity from doing that where they please.

Problem is, the Government can (and does) regulate otherwise legal activities as to time, place, etc. With ordinances or state legislation focusing on Worker safety, and thus avoiding the trap of discussing individual freedoms, the smoking issue can be made to appear akin to various OSHA type regulations. While you and I may care about the vitality of the business, or an individual's freedom to pursue a legal activity, the Government's interest in promoting a safe place to work trumps that discussion and renders it moot. This was the basis of New York bar/restaurant smoking regulations (notwithstanding, as Shelly pointed out, that a good many bar workers are smokers). It has also been the underlying basis of non-smoking in Public buildings, etc.
Its much easier to package the restriction as a safe place to work issue. When framed as such, the much more difficult question of individual freedom becomes irrelevent.
BUT, Query: I wonder what they would do with a fully automated bar (think of vending machines) where there were NO WORKERS!

Jeff (adjourning to the stoop for a cigar and a bourbon with my drooling Newf)

(Stan, making note to borrow bib from friend's Newfy, Patti, for Jeff's pup)