Prescott wrote:

It only takes one person smoking to louse up a restaurant.

I am sorry you are so sensitive to SHS. I often sat in restaurants that had smoking and non-smoking sections and the smell of tobacco never reached my nostrils. Perhaps, these places had state of the art ventilation systems.

I am VERY sensitive to SHS, and that's why I am so vocal about it. I'll never forget the last time I was in a restaurant that allowed smoking. It was about four years ago at Bob Evans in Steubenville. My father took me there because that was his favorite spot. Dad smoked smelly cigars until he was 95 years old, so the smoke didn't bother him. His favorite table was in the smoking section, but I vetoed that real fast. The non-smoking section was not much better. I thought I was going to puke. By the time that meal was over, I had a terrible headache. I assure you that we did not go there again.

The good news is that the area where I now live is smoke-free. I can go anywhere without getting sick. As I have said before, there is no movement here in Washington to repeal the law. And I am very thankful for that!

The good news is that the area where I now live is smoke-free.

What is good news for some is bad news for others.

Prescott wrote:

The good news is that the area where I now live is smoke-free.

What is good news for some is bad news for others.

The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

Not everyone complains about bad news or circumstances.

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

Really?

I haven't weighted in on this, but if a bar is closing because they lose customers to the smoking ban, that is on them for not adapting.

Bars here in DC, MD and Va are doing just fine with the ban because they are adapting, more deals, more drink nights, more happy hours, more bands, etc.

Same goes for restaurants, better deals, more food, better quality food.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

Really?

I haven't weighted in on this, but if a bar is closing because they lose customers to the smoking ban, that is on them for not adapting.

Bars here in DC, MD and Va are doing just fine with the ban because they are adapting, more deals, more drink nights, more happy hours, more bands, etc.

Same goes for restaurants, better deals, more food, better quality food.

Bottom line, less profit due to a vote of people who for the most part don't patronize the establishments in question.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

Really?

I haven't weighted in on this, but if a bar is closing because they lose customers to the smoking ban, that is on them for not adapting.

Bars here in DC, MD and Va are doing just fine with the ban because they are adapting, more deals, more drink nights, more happy hours, more bands, etc.

Same goes for restaurants, better deals, more food, better quality food.

Bottom line, less profit due to a vote of people who for the most part don't patronize the establishments in question.

or less profit due to a down economy and less people going out in general.

Glory Days wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

Really?

I haven't weighted in on this, but if a bar is closing because they lose customers to the smoking ban, that is on them for not adapting.

Bars here in DC, MD and Va are doing just fine with the ban because they are adapting, more deals, more drink nights, more happy hours, more bands, etc.

Same goes for restaurants, better deals, more food, better quality food.

Bottom line, less profit due to a vote of people who for the most part don't patronize the establishments in question.

or less profit due to a down economy and less people going out in general.

Can't speak for DC, but the smoking ban in Ohio predated the economic downturn.

yeah but when did we start hear about bars losing business?

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

I have no compassion for smokers. They inflict their poison on me and I don't like it! The same applies to people who cater to smokers.

I haven't weighted in on this, but if a bar is closing because they lose customers to the smoking ban, that is on them for not adapting.

Please!!! This is not always true. There are small neighborhood bars that survive because of their regulars. If these regulars smoke, there isn't much the small bar owner can do to reclaim that lost business.

You point is well taken as it applies to downtown places that cater to the younger bar patrons, but not as it applies any number of neighborhood bars that are family owned and operated.

FairwoodKing wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

I have no compassion for smokers. They inflict their poison on me and I don't like it! The same applies to people who cater to smokers.

I smoke and enjoy going to the local watering hole and talking with the others that patronize. This is not an eating establishment(I agree with the smoking ban for these places)
If these bars are full of "addicts" then you would never patronize one. So why do you care if someone smokes in a bar?

Glory Days wrote: yeah but when did we start hear about bars losing business?

Almost immediately. I remember a sign outside a bar in Dayton when visiting my mother saying "Non-smokers - so where the hell are you?". She's been gone nearly three years.

FairwoodKing wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

I have no compassion for smokers. They inflict their poison on me and I don't like it! The same applies to people who cater to smokers.

We get it, you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. Thanks for sharing.

Darkon wrote: I smoke and enjoy going to the local watering hole and talking with the others that patronize. This is not an eating establishment(I agree with the smoking ban for these places)
If these bars are full of "addicts" then you miss priss would never patronize one. So why do you care if someone smokes in a bar?

technically bars are eating establishments, by law they have to be able to provide you with food one way or another.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The only ones complaining are the addicts and bar owners who cater to addicts.

You mean people who took their life savings to persue a dream, only to have it pulled out from under them? You're really long on compassion.

I have no compassion for smokers. They inflict their poison on me and I don't like it! The same applies to people who cater to smokers.

We get it, you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. Thanks for sharing.

WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.

FairwoodKing wrote:


I have no compassion for smokers. They inflict their poison on me and I don't like it! The same applies to people who cater to smokers.

We get it, you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. Thanks for sharing.
[/quote]

WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.
[/quote]

Actually you are wrong, Fairwood. They are not good for those who had their investment and private property effectively confiscated, without recourse, by some snot-nosed liberals who did an end run on the state constitution. Those opposed to no-smoking laws did not impose their views on you; you imposed on them by forcing your will on them and their establishments despite the fact that breathing their air is YOUR choice. If you don't like smoke, don't go to their private enterprise --- stay home and watch msnbc.

Glory Days wrote:

Darkon wrote: I smoke and enjoy going to the local watering hole and talking with the others that patronize. This is not an eating establishment(I agree with the smoking ban for these places)
If these bars are full of "addicts" then you miss priss would never patronize one. So why do you care if someone smokes in a bar?

technically bars are eating establishments, by law they have to be able to provide you with food one way or another.

This is not true. I know of several bars in Toledo that have no kitchen and no food service what-so-ever. So either they are all in violation of this law you state or there is no such law.

QuakerOats wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:


I have no compassion for smokers. They inflict their poison on me and I don't like it! The same applies to people who cater to smokers.

We get it, you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself. Thanks for sharing.

WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.
[/quote]

Actually you are wrong, Fairwood. They are not good for those who had their investment and private property effectively confiscated, without recourse, by some snot-nosed liberals who did an end run on the state constitution. Those opposed to no-smoking laws did not impose their views on you; you imposed on them by forcing your will on them and their establishments despite the fact that breathing their air is YOUR choice. If you don't like smoke, don't go to their private enterprise --- stay home and watch msnbc.
[/quote]

I don't drink and I don't smoke and I haven't been to a bar in many, many years. The bars are merely the tip of the iceberg. If public smoking only took place in bars, I wouldn't care less what went on in there. The real issue is smoking in all sorts of public places, especially restaurants and office buildings. I refuse to be run off by a bunch of pathetic addicts who have no more regard for the rest of us than to pollute public air with their poison.

I don't take the position I take because I'm a "snot-nose liberal." I take it because tobacco smoke makes me sick and I know it bothers a lot of other people. If they ever try to repeal the laws in Washington, I will be the first one on the front line to oppose it.

dwccrew wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

Darkon wrote: I smoke and enjoy going to the local watering hole and talking with the others that patronize. This is not an eating establishment(I agree with the smoking ban for these places)
If these bars are full of "addicts" then you miss priss would never patronize one. So why do you care if someone smokes in a bar?

technically bars are eating establishments, by law they have to be able to provide you with food one way or another.

This is not true. I know of several bars in Toledo that have no kitchen and no food service what-so-ever. So either they are all in violation of this law you state or there is no such law.

i believe it is part of the liqour license. and i said one way or another, technically they can give you a menu you for the pizza place down the street you can order from. that satisfies the state.

there are all kinds of laws for bars, such as the number of neon signs they can have, to always having the outside door closed.

Glory Days wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

Darkon wrote: I smoke and enjoy going to the local watering hole and talking with the others that patronize. This is not an eating establishment(I agree with the smoking ban for these places)
If these bars are full of "addicts" then you miss priss would never patronize one. So why do you care if someone smokes in a bar?

technically bars are eating establishments, by law they have to be able to provide you with food one way or another.

This is not true. I know of several bars in Toledo that have no kitchen and no food service what-so-ever. So either they are all in violation of this law you state or there is no such law.

i believe it is part of the liqour license. and i said one way or another, technically they can give you a menu you for the pizza place down the street you can order from. that satisfies the state.

there are all kinds of laws for bars, such as the number of neon signs they can have, to always having the outside door closed.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have grown up in a family that has owned bars (father, grandfather, uncles, etc.) and none of these laws have ever come up. If you can't cite the law, I am going to assume that it is not true. I have worked in a family bar and family restaurants and have never heard of anything like these being associated with the liquor license.

Honestly what would be the point of giving them a menu for the pizza place down the street? Food vendor licenses and liquor licenses are 2 seperate things.

dwccrew wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

Darkon wrote: I smoke and enjoy going to the local watering hole and talking with the others that patronize. This is not an eating establishment(I agree with the smoking ban for these places)
If these bars are full of "addicts" then you miss priss would never patronize one. So why do you care if someone smokes in a bar?

technically bars are eating establishments, by law they have to be able to provide you with food one way or another.

This is not true. I know of several bars in Toledo that have no kitchen and no food service what-so-ever. So either they are all in violation of this law you state or there is no such law.

i believe it is part of the liqour license. and i said one way or another, technically they can give you a menu you for the pizza place down the street you can order from. that satisfies the state.

there are all kinds of laws for bars, such as the number of neon signs they can have, to always having the outside door closed.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have grown up in a family that has owned bars (father, grandfather, uncles, etc.) and none of these laws have ever come up. If you can't cite the law, I am going to assume that it is not true. I have worked in a family bar and family restaurants and have never heard of anything like these being associated with the liquor license.

Honestly what would be the point of giving them a menu for the pizza place down the street?

i was just looking for the laws, if i can find it will post it. this is all information i got from a state agent who investigates liqour licenses etc.

I was also looking for the laws. I haven't found anything yet.

Here is the Ohio revised code on liquor licenses. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4303

As you can see, there are many different types of liquor licenses in Ohio. So perhaps the agent you were talking with was investigating one that is associated with food sales as well. But you don't have to serve food or make it available with certain liquor licenses in Ohio.