Smoking Ban's Effect on Lakewood Eatery

[Charyn Compeau]

I think what should always be remembered is that the 'state' did not do this.

The majority of the citizens that voted did this.

And if these that really, REALLY, didn't want the ban didn't vote then shame on them. They get no sympathy for me. Just like those that did not vote generally get a harsh word from me when they decry the congress, or the president.

If you care - vote. If you dont vote, then you are clearly taking the stand that you will abide by what the voting majority wants.

In either case there was no legislative wrong doing or underhandedness. It was a clear case of majority wins democracy in action.

The majority spoke - let it die (of non-smoking related causes) already.

JMO
Charyn

[Suzanne Metelko]

For me this is an issue of worker health and safety. It has been my experience that the women who serve and bar tend are generally single or single moms, working for minimum wage, with no health care. They have limited options and choosing between a unhealthy work environment or a paycheck is a no brainer for them. Smoking workplaces are just this generation's coal mines.

[Kenneth Warren]

Ms Compeau:

The people voted, true, to provide the state with the means to repress the smokers and smoking sites, some for good reasons as Ms. Metelko suggests.

But the State Apparatus – from enforcement to courts – does not at this time appear ready, willing and able to execute the repression of smoking sites and smokers demanded by the people through the ballot box.

I believe people can vote to empower the state to overreach.

I stand by what I said.

I can also, in the words of Mr. Gross, “deal with it.â€Â￾

I want to clarify my point. I am not looking to fan flames of resentment over the vote, much less to spark a smokers’ revolution against emancipated restaurant workers.

An inquiry was made by Ms. Hazlett and Ms. Wing made some interesting points about freedom, and I wanted to express a measure of solidarity in a blue note with Ms. Wing’s perspective on freedom.

A simple gesture in the virtual neighborhood, not a huge grievance for me, with a dash of state theory ala Marx to reveal the blue note in the freedom train's passing whistle sounding through the fresh air of select restaurants and bars

Kenneth Warren

[Shawn Juris]

This is a rather interesting issue and I believe goes well beyond red and blue politics. While the votes were cast and the "right to smoke" went up in smoke I'm beginning to believe that little will change. That little is all I was hoping for. I think that the relatively small handful of our 57 bars that decide to uphold the ban prior to the threat of enforcement will find that there are benefits and that business isn't going to die because of it. For myself, I would be happy to support those places that are going smoke free. It's just taking some time to sort them out and this discussion is helpful. I noticed also that Pug Mahone's has a No Smoking ordinance posted on their door, which I assume means they are a Clean Air bar now?
Esther, I don't think that you're in any danger of being seen as the forum lush by posting some details of bar activity. Just think you could call it volunteer work or community service to report back on which bars are doing well and smoking or non.

[Phil Florian]

I noticed also that Pug Mahone's has a No Smoking ordinance posted on their door, which I assume means they are a Clean Air bar now?

Well, as of a couple weeks ago, some patrons weren't getting that message at Pugs. I don't think the bartender cared since the people smoking on the bar and I assume were using provided ash trays. I didn't look but I would assume having ashes all over would be more annoying to a bartender at this point then sending a currently paying customer out the door.

Phil

[Phil Florian]

Speaking personally I don't quite care for the New Puritanism joined to cost benefit analysis putting such social stigmas on choices people make to gratify themselves. Such stigmas seem to add needlessly to the antagonisms, divisions and pressures in the body politic.

Is a smoking ban "new puritanism" or is it more like Sue Metelko's point that it is merely a environmental hazard we are beginning to understand for what it is and are taking aims to fix it? I am all for people smoking where it hurts only them. But the evidence seems pretty clear to me that second hand smoke is dangerous. New Puritanism to me would be taking stabs at telling people who they can marry (always an issue, but changing from generation to generation...other races, colors, religions and now genders), who you can worship and where, what constitutes safe video games, what books your children can read or should read or more importantly SHOULDN'T read, etc.

I don't see public smoking any different than public defecation: health and sanitation hazard being recognized for what it is and dealt with.

Phil

[Kenneth Warren]

Phil:

I don’t quite see things the way you do, especially when you say, “I don't see public smoking any different than public defecation: health and sanitation hazard being recognized for what it is and dealt with.â€Â￾

I do understand your point about “health and sanitation hazard,â€Â￾ though I can accept it only to a limited degree. Please allow me to suggest for the sake of LO comradeship and neighborly teasing: Your puritanical telescoping of “public smokingâ€Â￾ and “public defecationâ€Â￾ gives new meaning to what I will now associate with cigarette butts.

I do want to suggest that a larger cultural trend is at play here. There is a consumer recoil and regulatory crack-down on the old-time “indulgence marketâ€Â￾ – sweets, fats, smoke, meats, booze, etc. That, I think, was where Ms. Wing was headed in her post.

The regulatory trend clamping down on old-time pleasures understood now to be hazardous to health is not either/or; it’s both, a feature of behavioral and cultural weather.

This weather is post-modern, post-industrial. It is, for some, nanny state raining on the freedoms and pleasures many enjoyed in a more rough and tumble modern industrial times. Without the smokestacks of industrial pollution, people become, I believe, more sensitized to the quality of the air. But that’s not to say we are going after the few corporations still spewing forth industrial strength air pollution.

Anyway, the New Puritans/New New Puritanism is a consumer marketing label/trend that, I believe, certainly applies to the regulation of the smoking target of pleasure.

Here’s something with a continental view from Brand Strategy, July 2006, “The assault on pleasure: Why customers don't want to have fun with brands:â€Â￾

“Sectors such as fast food, spirits, tourism and automotive are now the focus of so much social and environmental concern that pressure groups and campaigners openly fret on citizens' behalf about what is and is not good for them. They campaign for behaviour that should be discouraged and, crucially, what should be banned.

The media might call this phenomenon the rise of the nanny state, but we name it the 'assault on pleasure'; the growing formal regulation of markets and the unmistakeable air of social discouragement surrounding many consumer choices. Those who support the assault on pleasure, we are calling the new puritans.

This regulatory culture - far from being disliked by the mass of consumer citizens - often enjoys significant public support…..

Beyond official policing, there is the feeling that certain activities within the indulgence markets are just not done any more. A third of consumers claim they are resistant to giving alcohol as a gift. A similar number feel the same way about confectionery. The new puritanism is characterised by a deep distrust of all treats.

Source:

http://www.brandstrategy.co.uk/issues/2 ... rowse.view

I supply this context. Of course, you are welcome to read the vote purely in terms of health. I think the decision-making and influence zeitgeist contains both our viewpoints and more.

Kenneth Warren

[Shawn Juris]

Isn't it interesting though when we drill down some of the reactions and the possible causes of these issues. From what I've found in talking to a number of friends from overseas, Americans are often viewed as overweight, unaware of the world beyond their block, and rather lazy when it comes to education. We're also seen as in the lead in the corporate world and the cause of the loss of their holiday time. An interesting perspective to consider.
How much of this "puritanism" is linked to becoming convinced by corporations (our strength) that it's our right as an American to consume more. An action which leads to poor health, puts our ideals on a pedestal, and permits us to disregard any research on the topic.
My views on it are rather Red, I suppose since it's really a personal decision. Yet when the personal decision is swayed by a corporate marketing department who spend loads on convincing not only the public but lobbying the lawmakers, there may be a need for some balance. It would be nice if it was education or grass roots but that's a David and Goliath story and the only other Goliath in town is governmental. My purple recommendation is that we pull the tobbacco and other lifestyle ills lobbyists from Washington and in return we'll not permit issues like 4 and 5 back on any ballots.

[Jennifer Desilets]

Politics of smoking ban aside...some bar/restaurant owners are actually happy about the ban.

I discussed the ban with Patrick Sullivan (owner of Sullivan's) who works long hours in his fine establishment and does not smoke. In addition to the reduction of the health risk to himself and his staff, he is anticipating a reduction in the cost and effort of upkeep of the restaurant. Specifically:stocking and cleaning ashtrays, repairing damage done to bar and bathrooms from carelessly placed cigarettes, cleaning and repainting surfaces stained by nicotine, not to mention the wear and tear on his ventilation system.

One may ask, why did he not ban smoking in his restaurant before now? I would have to let Patrick answer that for himself, but perhaps for bar owners it's easier to be the "no smoking bad guy" when all you are doing is enforcing the law.

As for my family - we eat at Sullivan 2-3 times a month. Love the food, music, and friendly service - won't miss the smoke!

[c. dawson]

Indeed; we were just at Sullivan's on saturday night, and it was nice not to have any cigarette smoke; and the place was PACKED.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Speaking for me personally, I've already gone out more to places I would never have gone before. I don't smoke and I hated going to places and coming out smelling like an ashtray.

Now, I also made the choice before not to go and I understand how some might feel the law is treading on personal freedoms. I'm just glad I have more choices that I'm comfortable with now.

I know I'm not alone so those places that have great service and offer something unique definitely won't lose business.

[Phil Florian]

[Kirt Tompkins]

If anyone thinks that there will be no economic effect from this ill concieved law, you are quite mistaken. One just has to look at Toledo to see the effects a law such as this has on small, neighborhood bars. In the year before their law was finally overturned, 20 bars went out of business.

Do you really think that if this were a good move for some businesses that they would not have already done this on their own? Do you really think Lakewood needs MORE empty store fronts that it already has?

The larger establishments who do a large food business will end up not being badly hurt by this. Some will enjoy a upswing in business. BUT, the small neighborhood bar, that caters almost exclusivly to smokers will be devistated. People will not stop smoking or drinking, they will just stop doing it at these bars. And as well intentioned as the "I'll go out more often and support these bars now" people may be, their presence once or twice a month will not take the place of the 10 - 20 DAILY customers that will be lost.

Who will this ban really help? It won't help my employees, as they all smoke. It won't help my customers, as 95% of them are also smokers. It will help the coffee drinking, latte sipping, bagel munching, moral majority, politicly correct, neo-yuppie if I don't like it, you can't do it people that would never be a customer of mine to start with.

And as to the horrible health effects of SHS that I continuelly see thrown around. The EPA came out and stated that SHS kills 3000 people a year (a number which has been steadily growing with each new "study").
Name three.

Kirt Tompkins
Owner - Sloane Pub
Member LHA

[Bryan Schwegler]

If anyone thinks that there will be no economic effect from this ill concieved law, you are quite mistaken. One just has to look at Toledo to see the effects a law such as this has on small, neighborhood bars. In the year before their law was finally overturned, 20 bars went out of business.

That's a bad comparison. There's a huge difference between between a local ban and a state-wide ban. I was against the Lakewood-only ban for that very reason, it's too easy to go elsewhere. However a state ban doesn't have nearly that same problem.

In other states that have had smoking bans for much longer than Ohio, they have not had any negative net affect on the economy. If your place of business is truly worth it, then people will still go there. If people only go there because they could smoke, then you need to examine your business plan.

And as to the horrible health effects of SHS that I continuelly see thrown around. The EPA came out and stated that SHS kills 3000 people a year (a number which has been steadily growing with each new "study").
Name three.

You have to be kidding me. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. There are still people out there who swear the holocaust didn't happen and that asbestos is good for everyone too! Let me guess, global warming is made up also right?

[Charyn Compeau]

Read the information for yourself.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/s ... apter1.pdf

There are also references to other documentation that evaluates the dangers of second hand smoke.

The largest danger is not death - it is asthma, lung infections, lung cancer, and poor lung development in children.

Those would be verifiable facts - we wouldn't want to look at those, would we? Much easier to stick to anecdotal rumors that have little or not basis in science.

Charyn (who still thinks the sore losers need to get over themselves and do what they recommended to all of us who voted smoke free: "If you dont like it - LEAVE")