The Observation Deck

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Kirt Tompkins wrote: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?

Actually Bryan, I'd like to know where you get your information. Almost every study (and there has NEVER been a study that just takes bars as a stand alone group, as they are always linked with places like Denny's and Applebees) That has been done on this subject has used state liquor tax figures to estimate economic impact. The problem with that is that while people do not stop drinking, they DO stop frequenting small, neighborhood bars to do so. And yes Bryan, there are those who DO go out to be in an atsmophere where they can smoke. Just because you are not one of them does not mean they do not exist. It is this self rightous attitude that bothers me more than any thing. Again, if I don't like it, you can't do it.

As to the "science" involved in SHS studies. When you actually take the time to learn how to do the small amount of science that you need to READ the studies, and not depend on the authors spoon feeding you the results, you learn that SHS has never been shown in any STATISTICLY SIGNIFICANT way to impact any illness. This has nothing to do with your snide reference to the holocaust or anything else. It is just the way it is.

I am including for both you and Charyn a link to the actual WHO study. To date the most comprehensive epidemiological study done on this subject. If you look at the figures, learn what a RR factor is and realize that for almost every other type of study EXCEPT those on SHS a figure of 3 - 4 is required before making any association, you will see that the figures arrived at are not STATISTICLY SIGNIFICANT. You will also see that the study shows that children raised in smoking households are approx. 20% LESS likely to develop lung cancer.

http://www.obscurious.co.uk/componants/smoking1440.pdf

I am in no way advocating smoking. I am just tired of people using suspect science and out and out lies to further their agenda.

I am also including a link to one of many studies done that show the actual economic impact these bans have I realize that since it is published by a pro smokers rights group you will most likely disreguard its conclusions. But hope springs eternal.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.html

Kirt Tompkins

Charyn -

See above.

Kirt Tompkins

Kirt,
Thank you for suggesting that I learn to read. I guess they didn't teach me how to read analyze data the entire time I was earning a 4.0 in undergrad or the 4.0 I've earned so far in grad school working on my MBA. Silly me.

If bars go out of business simply because people can't smoke there, then that's too bad. If you're entire business model is only able to attract patrons because of smoking, then it's a bad business model.

Get creative, attract people because you have substance. If you can't, you go out of business. Welcome to capitalism my friend.

Are you telling me that every local Lakewood bar is going to suffer and go out of business? Based on many posts here it seems like they're doing just fine.

Here are some links:
http://surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=210 (while this site is not impartial, the article does link to many, many impartial studies showing the positive business impact non-smoking laws have on the local economies)

Trust me Kirt, a majority of Ohioans voted for this law and I pretty much can guarantee you that Ohio isn't known for its latte-sipping, eco-loving, bleeding heart liberal leaning populace that you want to blame for passage of this law.

I dont post often here, but I when I saw the idea of "the people have spoken" i had to write. I think that Thomas Jefferson really knew the problem of letting too many decisions go straight to the people. My two favorite quotes from him are below.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.â€Â

Ryan Salo wrote:I love our country but we need to make sure we dont let the majority dictate too much.

I agree with you and I don't believe all laws are good laws and there are several I disagree with, but to willfully and maliciously ignore and circumvent an officially enacted statute is just sad.

As a country of laws, there are ways to go about changing things you don't like. To simply break a law because you don't agree with it is not a mature or viable option in my opinion.

If rule by majority isn't how you think things should be run, what would be the alternative?

Bryan -

I never suggested that you did not have the capacity to read. That would have been silly of me considering the fact that you could obviously read my posts. I do though think you may have a problem with comprehension. Considering that, I'm happy that you are doing so well in school. The real world is a different story though.

The fact that you state businesses that cater to smokers are "bad business models" just proves the point that I'm making. If I don't like it, you can't do it.

The fact that you state that if I "can't attract people of SUBSTANCE", I should go out of business, just shows your intollerence of people that don't fit into your cookie cutter mold.

I never said that EVERY Lakewood bar would go out of business. I actually stated that some would show an increase in business. Again showing your apparent problem with comprehension.

I have also read through most of the posts concerning this subject. Would you please point out the MANY post saying business is "just fine". Are these posts by business owners, or just assumptions made by observers?

While a "MAJORITY" of Ohioans may have indeed voted for this law, there is still a LARGE minority that feels they should be allowed to think for themselves and decide how, where, and in what atmosphere they should be allowed to recreate.

The point is, even if I capitulate to all of your views, what do you think gives you the right to tell me how to live? If you really feel so strongly about the evils of tobacco then petition the government to outlaw it. But as long as it is a legal substance, and my license to sell it is signed by the Director of Lakewood's Health Department, you are just engageing in social engineering. Something I have always found quite distasteful.

Kirt Tompkins

[quote="Bryan Schwegler To simply break a law because you don't agree with it is not a mature or viable option in my opinion.

Bryan -

You obviousley weren't around in the 70's. Good luck with the "maturity" thing.

Kirt Tompkins

Kirt Tompkins wrote:The fact that you state businesses that cater to smokers are "bad business models" just proves the point that I'm making. If I don't like it, you can't do it.

The fact that you state that if I "can't attract people of SUBSTANCE", I should go out of business, just shows your intollerence of people that don't fit into your cookie cutter mold.

You're twisting my intent. I'm not saying it's a bad model. What I'm saying is that if you're unable to function as a business because that model is no longer legal, then you will go out of business.

The business environment is constantly changing, in this case it's because of a smoking ban. If a business is not able to adapt, then it won't survive. This is true of any paradigm shift in business, it just happens to be in this thread we're discussing the smoking ban.

The point is, even if I capitulate to all of your views, what do you think gives you the right to tell me how to live?

As a gay male, you don't even want to go there with me. I've been told how I should live and where I'll be going when I die by the majority for my entire life. In my opinion, the smoking ban pales in comparison to that.

Just out of curiosity, since we're on the whole "you should be able to live your life how you want to" idea, how did you vote for the marriage ban amendment?

If you really feel so strongly about the evils of tobacco then petition the government to outlaw it.

I did just that, I voted for the law, as did a majority of Ohioans.

I never said that EVERY Lakewood bar would go out of business. I actually stated that some would show an increase in business. Again showing your apparent problem with comprehension.

Well what are those who will gain business be doing differently than those who won't? That's what should be concentrated on more than willfully breaking a law you'll end up being fined for in the end.

Thomas Jefferson was never involved in a multi-level marketing scheme, but he did file several patents for headache cures. His principle vocation was inheriting a lot of land and slaves from his in-laws, then dying bankrupt anyhow.

The 51 percent of the population he warned us against were the Women.

Not paying taxes was pretty cool back then, but Jefferson was committed the U.S. being an isolationist agrarian backwater. No world leader, No hundreds of ultra-advanced military bases around the world.

We made enough economic juice exporting tabacco(addictive drug) and salted Cod in trade for manufactured goods, slaves, and rum. Those were innocent days, before we had cigarette rolling machines, and the technology to massively increase the nicotine content of tobacco and fortify cigarettes with chemicals gluing it straight to the brain. Leave it to overbearing liberal feminazis to take issue with any pub goers right to a smoke. Personally I prefer automobile exhaust, hot coffee, and donuts.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:If rule by majority isn't how you think things should be run, what would be the alternative?

Bryan,

First, I do not believe anyone should be breaking the law with this smoking issue. It is law, so obey it. As far as the form of government comment, thankfully we still live in a Republic, where we elect representatives to decide what is best for us. The problem that I see is that these representatives are now running on platforms of freebies. Individuals set out to "win voted" any way possible, and based on the shear number of voters it is best to offer "those without" something for free.

The whole idea of professional politicians is very scary. If I have been a senator for 12yrs and have no other career options I will be tempted to offer anything as long as it gets me the votes!

I am glad we still have checks and balances, but as this liberal mindset continues to spread into all areas of government we slowly lose our ability to have checks and balances and start to look more like a true democracy and then a socialistic society.

I am not saying these bar owners should forget the laws, lets just keep it straight for the future that these business owners, whether small or large, keep the country moving. If we take too much away from them they will have no incentive to take risks and work harder just to feed other, fully capable but just lazy, families.

-Ryan

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Kirt Tompkins wrote:The fact that you state businesses that cater to smokers are "bad business models" just proves the point that I'm making. If I don't like it, you can't do it.

The fact that you state that if I "can't attract people of SUBSTANCE", I should go out of business, just shows your intollerence of people that don't fit into your cookie cutter mold.

You're twisting my intent. I'm not saying it's a bad model. What I'm saying is that if you're unable to function as a business because that model is no longer legal, then you will go out of business.

The business environment is constantly changing, in this case it's because of a smoking ban. If a business is not able to adapt, then it won't survive. This is true of any paradigm shift in business, it just happens to be in this thread we're discussing the smoking ban.

The point is, even if I capitulate to all of your views, what do you think gives you the right to tell me how to live?

As a gay male, you don't even want to go there with me my friend. I've been told how I should live and where I'll be going when I die by the majority for my entire life. In my opinion, the smoking ban pales in comparison to that.

If you really feel so strongly about the evils of tobacco then petition the government to outlaw it.

I did just that, I voted for the law, as did a majority of Ohioans.

Bryan -

I'm not "twisting your intent". I'm just quoting you.

If adapting means losing 90% of your customer base, I'd say that is one hell of an adaptation, wouldn't you.

And please don't pull the "gay" card with me. I'll go there anytime you want. Many of my friends and customers are gay. They wouldn't sink to that level.

And no my friend, you did not vote to declare tobacco illegal, you just voted to curtail the rights of those with whom you differ. Quite an odd stance for a "gay male" don't you think?

Kirt Tompkins

these business owners, whether small or large, keep the country moving. If we take too much away from them they will have no incentive to take risks and work harder just to feed other, fully capable but just lazy, families.

Oh please, cut the neocon crap. How many "lazy" families do you know?

Ryan Salo wrote:I am glad we still have checks and balances, but as this liberal mindset continues to spread into all areas of government we slowly lose our ability to have checks and balances and start to look more like a true democracy and then a socialistic society.

Or we could end up going the other way with the power more and more concentrated in the few and live, as some would argue we have been for 6 years now, in a virtual dictatorship with no checks and balances.

Either way I think we lose. Rule by a tyrant or rule by the mob, pick your poison.

Grace,

I thought like you until I got into a business that got me in contact with dozens of new people per day. I don't know how many people you meet and talk to everyday, but I talk to a ton in my business. I am amazed at how many lazy "rights" minded folks are out there.

As an example, I am in the mortgage business, and I get more inquiries from people on government income that have under the table jobs so they don't lose there benefits than I thought I would ever get. These same people think they have a RIGHT to own a home. It is amazing. So to answer your question I have talked to probably hundreds in the last couple years alone. You need to get out and meet new people out of your social circle if you don't know they exist.

It is a sad day when people that have ability have no desire.

-Ryan

Kirt Tompkins wrote:Bryan -

If adapting means losing 90% of your customer base, I'd say that is one hell of an adaptation, wouldn't you.

Yes, it is. And it's not the first nor last time in business history where something like that has happened. Business that adapt and change survive, those that don't disappear.

I love Lakewood and want it to thrive. I'd prefer that no one go out of business, but it's inevitable if they can't adapt. If it's not the smoking ban it will be something else. Businesses need to be nimble and adapt to change.

And please don't pull the "gay" card with me. I'll go there anytime you want. Many of my friends and customers are gay. They wouldn't sink to that level.

I'm not pulling any "card" nor am I sure why it bothers you so much that I dared challenge your assumption that I don't get the concept of letting people live their lives how they want. If I'm pulling the "gay" card, you're pulling the "smoking" card. Last time I checked, I didn't see a deck of cards here.

This is actually the last response I'm going to bother with to you. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. I've made my point, you've made yours now we can let the "cards" fall as they may.

One last question I would have is whether your opinion on this matter and your decision to ignore of the will of the majority of Ohioans is the view of the LHA as a whole or just a personal one?