• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Columbus Smoking Ban

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Some of this stuff, like the seatbelt law, can be argued to be paternalistic and violate natural law theory.

The main government argument I remember in response to such an allegation was that those who did not wear seatbelts sustained greater damage in accidents, with higher medical bills. This in turn raised the rates of all insured. One argument to this would be to say that if one is self-insured they should not have to wear a seatbelt.

Other fun paternalistic laws:

Suicide being illegal (what do they care if I whack myself?)
Dueling made illegal (if two grown men want to fire off until one dies, why not?)
 
Upvote 0
I'm not a smoker, and I think that this law is pure crap. Not only is this a property rights issue, but a cleanliness issue, a safety issue, and a issue of business moving from the City to the suburbs, as well.

Smoking in a bar or restaurant means that the butts, matches, packages, and wrappers that come with smoking will be disposed of properly. When people smoke outside, especially in large groups. Rarely do they go looking for the nearest ash tray. They just throw whatever trash they have, on the ground. Enforcing litter laws on top of smoking laws, would take a ridiculous amount of resources for any city to absorb. Cleaning up this crap would also result in the allocation of a large amount of city resources to keep the streets clean.

By moving smokers to the outsides of bars and restaurants, you also create a safety issue. Outdoor decks and patios aren't usually rated to hold the amount of people that would be using them. They simply aren't built to hold as many smokers as you can fit standing shoulder to shoulder. Building codes would have to be changed to make these safer, and businesses would have to either comply to the stricter codes, or close down their outdoor areas. If it's a case where the smokers are simply chased to the front of the bar/restaurant, then overcrowding of sidewalks could also be dangerous. People spilling over into the streets, and putiing themselves in harms way, of something other than a cigarette.

Another problem is that people will just stop going into the City, if they can't smoke anywhere. If things are still layed out the way they were a few years ago. Easton is considered to be in the City of Columbus. The North side of Morse Rd. is considered Westerville. If you're a smoker, and you have the choice between the Applebee's on the north side of Morse, where you can smoke, or the south side where Easton is, and you can't smoke. Where are you going to take your business?

Banning people for their annoyances has never been allowed either, but in this case. We'll just go ahead and let it slide.:shake:
 
Upvote 0
I have to join the group that says this law is not necessary. I think in certain public buildings (like elementary schools) it goes without saying that the public good is served by restricting smoking. However, at other establishments like bars and restaurants, it should be up to the proprietors. Heck, I would think that a non-smoking bar could make a competative killing, but maybe not. I don't want to breathe second hand smoke, so I have a beer on my couch...enough said.


I do have to agree it is bizzare for owners to say they will go out of business if it applies to everyone, though, unless they just think everyone will magically stop going to bars (er, not likely).
 
Upvote 0
btw...im a non-smoker....if you dont like smoke....dont go to a bar.

Fuck that. I don't want to forced out of an establishment because some assholes want to stink up the joint. Let's turn this around...if the smokers want to smoke, let 'em go outside. By the way, my brother smokes and I make his ass smoke outside...
 
Upvote 0
This will hurt businesses that are on the fringe of Columbus. Outside of that I don't see it hurting business.

IMO if you want to smoke at a bar, so be it... if these free air folks are that ticked, then they can open non-smoking bars and make a killing if that what folks really want.

I do think it is a good idea for food joints... nothing like eating and smelling smoke :(
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
The fact that everyone appears to love this law just goes to show you that the political test everyone took was completely biased. Almost everyone on here tested as a liberterian, yet no true libertarian would ever support this law.

I guess nobody cares about property rights anymore. :(
Click to expand...

I'm a non smoker and I agree with ya, grad.
 
Upvote 0
I'll throw my $.02 in here also.

I do not smoke and would prefer to be able to eat in a non smoking environment.
On the other hand many of my customers handle cigarette and tobacco products.
I believe there is a spoken intent and and unspoken one also with these laws.

The obvious one is to protect non smokers in indoor facilities.
The unspoken one is to reduce or eliminate smoking.

While there are thousands of legal and moral issues here I think you shoud check with your state tax coffers and see how much tax cigarette and tobacco products provide to the budget.

I am sure someone will mention the health care costs exceed this amount but in any case a tax shortfall will need to be made up as we know government is not about to cut spending.

As with every government initiative the true purpose and effects are diffuclt to quantify.
 
Upvote 0
Let me get this straight - this law is a reaction to the health threats posed by second-hand smoke - smoke that exists at establisments where the people complaining about it are going to stuff their gullets with booze and fried foods anyway. Health conscious, indeed.
 
Upvote 0
Bucknola points out an important goal of these laws - to eliminate smoking.

It is argued that if smoking is banned in places like restaurants, kids will see smoking as less accepted and bad, and be less likely to try it. This, of course, doesn't address the counter-culture/rebellion aspect of kids smoking. . .
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
Let me get this straight - this law is a reaction to the health threats posed by second-hand smoke - smoke that exists at establisments where the people complaining about it are going to stuff their gullets with booze and fried foods anyway. Health conscious, indeed.
Click to expand...
Gullet stuffing is my second favorite "stuffing" activity. :pimp:
 
Upvote 0
I think people should be arrested if they are caught smoking with their kids in their car. Hmm..a poor family gets their kids taken away if they leave them unattended b/c they can't afford a babysitter. but a stupid couple gets to give their kids asthma and nobody cares. Perfect!

I love how dipshit smokers talk about "rights". Hmm...let's see..do I have the right to spit in your face every time I walk by? it's just as annoying (and less toxic to your health).
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
I love how dipshit smokers talk about "rights". Hmm...let's see..do I have the right to spit in your face every time I walk by? it's just as annoying (and less toxic to your health).
Click to expand...
From a normal person, I would say that it's less toxic. The venom that you constantly spew. I would have to think that second hand smoke would be safer.
 
Upvote 0
mili i agree that smokers are annoying....but i also feel that it is the business owners right to decide what type of establishment he/she is going to run....

maybe us non-smokers should just go up to smokers and rip a gigantic fart right in their face as they munch on their dinner salad....maybe then the smokers will get an idea as to how annoying their smell is.....

heres an interesting link:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/eis/index.ssf?/base/empire-1/107080650069030.xml
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
The fact that everyone appears to love this law just goes to show you that the political test everyone took was completely biased. Almost everyone on here tested as a liberterian, yet no true libertarian would ever support this law.

I guess nobody cares about property rights anymore. :(
Click to expand...

If this is your arguement then I would ask where the frick are the anarchists! Almost every law violates someones rights. But, don't we elect officials to govern us?

Property owners are constantly bombarded with laws that effect their use of their property (environmental) or increased taxes to support schools, librarys, zoos, etc. based on votes by the general citizenry. This would be okay if all voters were property owners, because then it would be a will of the majority, however not all voters are.

I'm okay with smoking in bars or bowling alleys, but the movement to eliminate smoking in restaurants I think is a good thing. Non smoking sections are a joke and I really believe most smokers could go an hour or two without a smoke while eating.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top