The Observation Deck

I preparation for a series of articles on smoking in Lakewood I would like to know if you are for or against smoking in bars?

Why in America do we feel we can stamp out every health risk? Do we think it's possible to live forever? And if a person is greatly concerned about health, why go to a bar? Let's stop trying to control everything in the world and just live with the fact that it's better to enjoy life than to worry about extending it. Keep a non-smoking area that's ventilated as well as possible and forget banning smoking in bars.

i agree fully with Paul. Also, I don't really understand why anyone would vote for a measure that takes away the rights of a private business to establish their own rules about what goes on in their business. i have no problem with no smoking in publicly owned areas (lakewood park, for example) but if a bar allows smoking, that should be their prerogative. no one is forcing people to go to those bars, so no one should be forcing those bars to change their behavior.



~dan

As a cigar afficiando, I really miss "cigar friendly" establishments where you could enjoy a good single malt and a fine puros. But, what we have to remember is that those framing the argument for a ban tend to center on the establishment workers who are placed in the position of either quitting a job or being involuntarily subjected to second-hand smoke. I don't think that the real concern is for a patron who, as you correctly point out, can simply refuse to patronize a bar/restaurant/bowling-alley/whatever. As the argument goes, the workers are not free to eliminate the "danger" because they have to work.



Jeff

Jeff



You are in a very unique position for this next one.



Is there any proof from "dangers" associated with "line" cooking in restaurants outside of the normal burn every now and then?



Also wouldn't the person applying for the job, have known these potential dangers before applying? Which would make the argument moot?



When I did asbestos removal, I knew the dangers. When I cleaned up oil spills, I knew the danger. When I sold hot dogs, I never realized the dangers, but that was from customers not the business itself.



What is the legal/chef's opinion?





Jim O'Bryan

The law generally provides that one who "voluntarily" assumes a known risk cannot hold another responsible for damages that result. It's a really interesting catch 22. The more egregious and obvious the dangerous situation, the less likely the person responsible for it will be held accountable. There may be some argument that new hires fall into this category. But, as with all things, there are other considerations. With various "safe place to work" laws and regs, employers are expected to make reasonable efforts to abate known dangers. We have safety guards on punch presses, and asbestos workers set up negative pressure atmospheres while wearing respirators. So, maybe each new barmaid will be equipped with an oxygen tank! It does, however, beg the question of current workers who are only now becoming aware of the dangers of work-place smoke.

The line chef (or for that matter the household cook) is one of those situations "under construction". We're beginning to learn that various cooking smokes and fumes may have harmful effects, both commercially and residentially. There's also some research out there involving toxicity of various non-stick coatings. I would think that as more studies are done, and findings made, you could well see additional kitchen ventilation requirements.

Not all work place hazards can be eliminated and some jobs, no matter what you do, are just plain dangerous (bomb tester comes to mind). I guess the issue comes down to whether the dangers are an unavoidable consequence, or whether reasonable restrictions can avoid them. I am definitely not on the band wagon for a forced ban, but given the virtual impossibilty of eliminating the dangers (short of a ban) somewhere down the line our lawmakers, here, in Columbus or in DC will determine that the discomfort of refraining from smoking for a few hours is outweighed by the safety concerns, a la the elimination of smoking on airlines by federal fiat.



Jeff

Hi. First post.



I don't drink but I enjoy the community atmosphere of neighborhood bars that are filled with regular customers (especially those without TVs), and I like live music. If there is smoke I will not stay, so if a bar owner wants my business he or she needs to make the atmosphere pleasant. I realize that a lot of people still smoke in Ohio; it's too bad for their loved ones.



--Turo

We have approximately 150 bars in Lakewood. I would like to see a few of them voluntarily go smoke free. I think there is a real market for them from the people I talk to.



I hate to see the government get into this battle. If It was done statewide, it would be easier to swallow. But we have enough problems with the homeowners abuting bars, without having patrons go out for a smoke. I think that would be a nightmare.

While I agree that people make a very good point that businesses should be free to make their own choices, one thing to consider is that many people who work in smoking environments do so out of lack of opportunity to work elsewhere. Waiters, bartenders, service people etc... who work in bars and restaurants with smoking are at the mercy of their smoke-filled environments. So while I do think that it would be a shame to impose a smoking ban on private business owners, perhaps a better a solution would be some sort of incentive for smoke-free businesses? Some sort of tax break? Just an idea. I just sympathize for those non-smoking waiters who work late-night in diners filled with smoke. One can assume that they aren't working there because it's their dream job. Second-hand smoke disproportionately affects lower-income people. So while the rights of the business owners and patrons is important, let's not forget about workers too.

Bac,
You make an important point on the socio-economics of second hand smoking. I see the smoking ban idea as a class/identity issue. In light of your comments things become quite complex.

Previously, I was thinking of a smoking ban in terms of a 'forced gentification' of Lakewood's bar crowd. Along these lines my perception was that a more upwardly mobile/affluent class was working to ban your average 'working class Joe/Jane' from living their chosen lifestyle at the corner pub. The arguments based on health concern could be seen, in this light, as more of a defense strategy within language-game for securing class interests. Isn't 99% of the bar crowd poisoning their bodies with spirits? Yeah, but we need to keep the Marb/Miller/Ohio Lottery crowd out (or just reduce their ranks)........ so that our bar patronage matches the demographics of the new expensive housing we're gonna build on so many street corners.

Back to reality. I don't really believe that the above mentioned is truly a conscious interest for those working to legislate a smoking ban. However, this is certainly possible. We're dealing with an Urban Space in times of economic hardship. The tendency will be for 'preservation' efforts to 'treat blight' with an injection of capital via the relocation of markets. To the extent that this injection of wealthy residents is necessary, 'market forces' should allow for profitable conversions to smoke free atmospheres

If the issue is trying to reduce smoking within the city, then we're talking about something entirely different. Rather than 'treating' our smokey bar problem by marginalizing smokers, we may find grass-roots ways to help citizens break thier addictions (if they care to). This topic could constitute an entirely new thread.

The issue of the health of workers is a complicated one. Though I agree that it's a bit atrocious that many people work in smoking establishments because the have to, they're still serving a population that smokes because they choose to do so. It's the smokers $20 that filled the workers pocket. Workers in favor of smoke free establishments tshould innitiate,join and amplify community discussions on the subject. Let's get all parties involved. I advocate that the community/patrons first create the demand, through the Observer. There's no reason that community interest cannot petition businesses in a similar manner that governments are petitioned. Create the voice that DEMANDS a special service. Patron citizens should ramp up the dialogue concerning this issue to the point that we know:

1. Who the people advocating smoke-free are
2. Where do they reside within the city
3. What establishments are frequented by this 'group'

Thus, we learn what bars could BENEFIT from such a practice and also gain a good understanding of those that won't.

If a ban were instituted, there's no evidence to show that there's a great enough demand for such establishments... that x of them wouldn't go out of business or become less-profitable. Where's the market study? Demographic/consumer buying analyses of Lakewood are available on the library's website. Take a look at them, unless I missed something they don't support a smoking ban line of discourse as intelligible given lakewood's demographic makeup/buying habits.

I don't advocate for financial incentives from the Gov. to bar owners. Our city is facing unprecedented financial hard-times, if the initiative is not profitable by its own right, it's not the responsibility of government to make it profitable by carrying the burden of lost revenues or even throw token grants/rebates at bar owners.

We could however, place a ban on all bars owned by outsiders.....ticket their patrons, block-off parking spaces.. run them out of business and town. The city would take possession of the parcel and open municipalized bars..... smoking preference to be determined