Bar Wins Smoking Ban Case

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Bar Wins Smoking Ban Case
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Feb 25, 2010 6:51 PM
A Franklin County judge has ruled that the state went too far in punishing a Columbus tavern for violations of Ohio's smoking ban, saying it went after the bar without citing the individual smoker who broke the law.

Common Pleas Court Judge David Cain vacated 10 citations issued against Zeno's, but he stressed that he was not ruling on the constitutionality of the voter-passed law that generally prohibits smoking in indoor places frequented by the public.........


http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100225/NEWS24/100229772/-1/NEWS16

This could be a Pandora's Box for the smoking ban. Will bars that have paid fines get a refund? What good is a law without teeth?
Feb 25, 2010 6:51pm
2kool4skool's avatar

2kool4skool

Senior Member

1,804 posts
Feb 26, 2010 2:17 AM
How many times did you have to change your underwear while you were making this thread?
Feb 26, 2010 2:17am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Feb 26, 2010 9:23 AM
Will bars that suffered economic injustice ever gain recourse; will their private property rights ever be restored?
Feb 26, 2010 9:23am
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Feb 26, 2010 10:03 AM
How many times did you have to change your underwear while you were making this thread?
I'm not sure, but if you would like to do my laundry you could find out.

Will bars that suffered economic injustice ever gain recourse; will their private property rights ever be restored?
Unfortunately, that won't happen.

The irony is that, according to a few of the interviewed bar owners, the smoking ban has been embraced by some. While others interviewed despised the ban because of lost revenue, a few claimed they would stay smoke free even if the ban were repealed.

That is why this law is unnecessary and the money spent enforcing this law is wasted. Eventually, the free market would have got it right without involving legislation.
Feb 26, 2010 10:03am
2kool4skool's avatar

2kool4skool

Senior Member

1,804 posts
Feb 26, 2010 2:46 PM
Prescott wrote:I'm not sure, but if you would like to do my laundry you could find out.
Nah, can't stand being around clothes than smell like an ashtray.
Feb 26, 2010 2:46pm
MANAZE's avatar

MANAZE

Senior Member

1,055 posts
Feb 26, 2010 2:48 PM
If you have a business it should be smoke free. If you want to smoke in it make it private with a guard at the door and a have a pass word to get in.
Feb 26, 2010 2:48pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 26, 2010 2:51 PM
MANAZE wrote: If you have a business it should be smoke free. If you want to smoke in it make it private with a guard at the door and a have a pass word to get in.
Are you forced to go to a bar? So the common sense thing to do would be go to bars that don't allow smoking.
Feb 26, 2010 2:51pm
Apple's avatar

Apple

Prost!

2,620 posts
Feb 26, 2010 3:33 PM
My brother had a bar on Put-In-Bay prior to the ban and after. His business declined quite a bit due to the fact that a high number of his clientele were islanders who decided to stay home rather than go out to his bar.

I do not frequent bars and even restaurants all that much. When I do choose to patronize a bar or restaurant I like it that there is not the lingering smoke at the establishments.

I do not support the Ohio law that bans smoking in public businesses. If a business wants to allow smoking, they should be allowed to do so. It's not like I have to choose to patronize their business.
Feb 26, 2010 3:33pm
BCBulldog's avatar

BCBulldog

Senior Member

824 posts
Feb 26, 2010 3:36 PM
QuakerOats wrote: Will bars that suffered economic injustice ever gain recourse; will their private property rights ever be restored?
Not as a result of this ruling. It has nothing to do with the law itself, but with the unfair enforcement of it in these instances.
Prescott wrote:
Unfortunately, that won't happen.

The irony is that, according to a few of the interviewed bar owners, the smoking ban has been embraced by some. While others interviewed despised the ban because of lost revenue, a few claimed they would stay smoke free even if the ban were repealed.

That is why this law is unnecessary and the money spent enforcing this law is wasted. Eventually, the free market would have got it right without involving legislation.
While I absolutely agree that the law should not exist in a free market, I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.
Feb 26, 2010 3:36pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 26, 2010 3:58 PM
BCBulldog wrote:

While I absolutely agree that the law should not exist in a free market, I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.

Then it means the demand for a non-smoking bar does not exist. When the free market demands a bar free of smoking it will happen.

We have a bar here that is non-smoking and it is packed all the time.
Feb 26, 2010 3:58pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Feb 26, 2010 4:57 PM
I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.
I disagree. The market will do whatever the dollar tells it to do and I think there are many people who enjoy drinking in a smoke free environment.
Feb 26, 2010 4:57pm
G

Gobuckeyes1

Senior Member

497 posts
Feb 26, 2010 5:45 PM
The smoking ban is great. The people of Ohio have spoken.
Feb 26, 2010 5:45pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Feb 26, 2010 6:35 PM
Nah, can't stand being around clothes than smell like an ashtray.
You should be good to go. I don't smoke and I don't visit places where smoking is permitted. I hate the smell.
Feb 26, 2010 6:35pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Feb 26, 2010 6:37 PM
The smoking ban is great. The people of Ohio have spoken.
Yea, it's great. The state has spent 3 million dollars trying to enforce a law that now has no teeth. That is awesome!!
Feb 26, 2010 6:37pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 26, 2010 6:44 PM
Prescott wrote:
The smoking ban is great. The people of Ohio have spoken.
Yea, it's great. The state has spent 3 million dollars trying to enforce a law that now has no teeth. That is awesome!!
Its actually 3.2 million with a net loss of 2 million. And if they want to put teeth into the law it will cost a hell of a lot more.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/22/copy/state-smoking-ban-has-cost-2-million.html?sid=101
Feb 26, 2010 6:44pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Feb 26, 2010 7:01 PM
Its actually 3.2 million with a net loss of 2 million.


Your point is well taken. I am assuming the other bars who payed fines will get a refund.
Feb 26, 2010 7:01pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Feb 26, 2010 7:08 PM
Prescott wrote:
I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.
I disagree. The market will do whatever the dollar tells it to do and I think there are many people who enjoy drinking in a smoke free environment.
the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.
Feb 26, 2010 7:08pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 26, 2010 7:17 PM
eersandbeers wrote:
BCBulldog wrote:

While I absolutely agree that the law should not exist in a free market, I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.

Then it means the demand for a non-smoking bar does not exist. When the free market demands a bar free of smoking it will happen.

We have a bar here that is non-smoking and it is packed all the time.
The free market is not perfect. Why does no one understand that? It's ideal but not a reality.

Also, the smoking ban is stupid.
Feb 26, 2010 7:17pm
G

Gobuckeyes1

Senior Member

497 posts
Feb 26, 2010 8:03 PM
majorspark wrote:
Prescott wrote:
The smoking ban is great. The people of Ohio have spoken.
Yea, it's great. The state has spent 3 million dollars trying to enforce a law that now has no teeth. That is awesome!!
Its actually 3.2 million with a net loss of 2 million. And if they want to put teeth into the law it will cost a hell of a lot more.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/22/copy/state-smoking-ban-has-cost-2-million.html?sid=101
Three million dollars. About 25 cents per person in the state to try to create healthier workplaces and businesses. Money well spent. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the medical costs of people who end up with cancer later in life because they were exposed to second hand smoke for most of their lives.

It needs to be enforced, even if it costs twice that. Find a way to enforce it that is fair to business owners and patrons. The will of the people has been realized, now it needs to be enforced fairly.
Feb 26, 2010 8:03pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Feb 26, 2010 8:13 PM
Yeah, if you want to do the dollars and cents thing it does make sense. We probably make up by far the amount paid to enforce the law in decreased medical costs down the line.
Feb 26, 2010 8:13pm
BCBulldog's avatar

BCBulldog

Senior Member

824 posts
Feb 26, 2010 9:26 PM
Prescott wrote:
I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.
I disagree. The market will do whatever the dollar tells it to do and I think there are many people who enjoy drinking in a smoke free environment.
While I agree that there is a market for smoke free bars/restaurants, I just don't see owners sticking their necks out and choosing to ban smoking without some outside incentive/disincentive. Conventional wisdom and fear would win out.
Feb 26, 2010 9:26pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Feb 26, 2010 10:39 PM
Glory Days wrote:

the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.
The people infringing on the rights of a private business is not the free market. That's like saying if people decided blacks could no longer go to bars then it is the free market deciding it.
I Wear Pants wrote:
eersandbeers wrote:
BCBulldog wrote:

While I absolutely agree that the law should not exist in a free market, I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.

Then it means the demand for a non-smoking bar does not exist. When the free market demands a bar free of smoking it will happen.

We have a bar here that is non-smoking and it is packed all the time.
The free market is not perfect. Why does no one understand that? It's ideal but not a reality.

Also, the smoking ban is stupid.

Who said the free market was perfect? But the market responds to the desires of consumers. Meaning if consumers felt strongly enough about smoke in bars they would stop going to them. Since people kept going to bars I'm assuming they don't really care.
Feb 26, 2010 10:39pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Feb 26, 2010 11:31 PM
I Wear Pants wrote: Yeah, if you want to do the dollars and cents thing it does make sense. We probably make up by far the amount paid to enforce the law in decreased medical costs down the line.
It makes sense if you can prove that the expense of enforcement is less than any perceived medical cost associated with second hand smoke. Couple that with the fact that no one is exposed to second hand smoke against their will other than children.
Feb 26, 2010 11:31pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Feb 27, 2010 12:40 AM
eersandbeers wrote: The people infringing on the rights of a private business is not the free market. That's like saying if people decided blacks could no longer go to bars then it is the free market deciding it.

Who said the free market was perfect? But the market responds to the desires of consumers. Meaning if consumers felt strongly enough about smoke in bars they would stop going to them. Since people kept going to bars I'm assuming they don't really care.
what right did the people infringe on? bars are public place. this law does not apply to private clubs. and obviously they did feel strongly enough or they wouldnt have voted for the ban. people kept going to the bars because there werent any other options.
Feb 27, 2010 12:40am
G

Ghmothwdwhso

Senior Member

534 posts
Feb 27, 2010 1:50 AM
I Wear Pants wrote: Yeah, if you want to do the dollars and cents thing it does make sense. We probably make up by far the amount paid to enforce the law in decreased medical costs down the line.
Funny point about the decreased medical costs, BHO has that under control already. So smoke away, BHO will cover you regardless.
Feb 27, 2010 1:50am