News: The hard part: Making it stick

http://www.pointbuzz.com/news.htm?id=1044

It doesn't seem like this would affect CP all that much since they were basically smoke free anyways. Could you smoke at Fridays?

Yes, as well as in the hotel rotunda.

You could smoke in the lobby of the hotel??? WTF??

Not the lobby, the big open area that went up about 6 floors in the old section. (go straight through the lobby and towards the back of the hotel).

And, if I remember correctly, you could only smoke at the bar in Fridays.

I'm not a smoker, and I normally don't care about smoke around me, so I voted no for both of those issues. I think it should be up to the businesses to decide.

Those of you who are complaining about secondhand smoke, quit your whining, and do your research. The instances of actual second hand smoke related deaths and diseases are only a fraction of a percent higher than from breathing in everyday air.

Unless you spend every waking moment of every day sitting in a room filled with second hand smoke, you're not breathing in anything worse than normal when you go to a restaurant. If you don't like the smell, fine, I can accept that, because a lot of [cheap] cigarettes smell absolutely horrible, but don't use this "second hand smoke is killing me" crap, just because you don't like the way something smells.

-Josh

You raise an interesting point, Josh. Perhaps we should begin a petition to ban baby poop. I mean, that stuff smells terrible, and when you consider that dangerous methane is released as a by-product, it only makes sense that we do something about it.

Even though I don't live in Ohio anymore, I'm glad that it passed. Cigarette smoke is probably the one thing that bothers me the most. I can't stand the smell, it makes my eyes dry out, gives me headaches, and makes my clothes smell awful. From an architect/builder perspective, smoke destroys the interiors of buildings quicker than pretty much anything except fire or some other disaster.

If I'm not mistaken, this law was based on workplaces. So, like exit said, its there to protect the employees who work around the smoke all day, every day. I doubt many people on here remember (because I know I don't), but you used to be able to smoke in offices and stuff. Its the same thing - its your workplace.

Right, but if you're someone who has a strong dislike for smoke, you're not very likely to work in a bar or restaurant where smoking is commonplace. And if you do work there, then that's your choice.

Besides, I've noticed that a lot of people who work in bars are smokers.

And the nonsense about smoke destroying buildings has no relevance to anything. If a bar owner allows smoking in his building, so be it.

dj, I say we ban certain ACE members from amusement parks, or at least queue lines, because the smell of body odor makes me vomit (seriously) and that would be hell on my esophagus. :)

That's another great idea.

Y'know, vomit, baby poop... kinda gives the thread title a whole different meaning.

e x i t english said:
Those of you who are complaining about secondhand smoke, quit your whining, and do your research. The instances of actual second hand smoke related deaths and diseases are only a fraction of a percent higher than from breathing in everyday air.

I guess those crazy people at the American Cancer Society must have a secret agenda and are thus spreading misinformation.

I only added the building part because its a good reason not to have smoke in buildings. It not only affects the materials of buildings, but its VERY unhealthy to the air handling equipment which affects the people IN that building. Its a public health issue.

I also don't buy your "just don't work at a restaurant if you don't like smoke" argument. I'm sure there are a LOT of people out that that desire to work in a restaurant or bar (or don't have many other choices) that don't like smoke. But, they dealt with it because its how they made money.

I dunno, I'd be pretty happy if Cedar Point went completely smoke free. Midways and all. Just walking past someone with a cigarette and inhaling the smoke is nasty.

Don't other Cedar Fair parks already have a smoke free enviornment?

Disney does. They have like five or six (maybe more) areas of the park that you can smoke. Its like the "fishbowls" at the airport. LOL!! It really must suck being addicted to something like that. I can't imagine any other reason to put yourself in a little tiny room for a minute or so to suck down paper, plants and chemicals on fire in your mouth.

halltd said:
...its a good reason not to have smoke in buildings... Its a public health issue.

So, we should be concerned about the health of buildings?

I'm sure there are a LOT of people out that that desire to work in a restaurant or bar... But, they dealt with it because its how they made money.

No offense, but then who cares? If they desire to work there, then they obviously aren't bothered by the prospect of second hand smoke. Thus, your argument makes no sense.

Walt said:
I guess those crazy people at the American Cancer Society must have a secret agenda and are thus spreading misinformation.

See what I said following that statement. It's negligible for someone who goes to a restaurant every once in a while, and is around it for an hour an a half versus someone who spends a majority of their time around it. A majority of the complainers aren't even exposed to it in restaurant scenarios, so much as standing outside and catching a whiff of smoke.

I guess I should have made it clear that a lot of people's definition of "secondhand smoke" is that they can see or smell it. Everyone's so quick to start coughing and choking when they smell one whiff for less than 15 seconds, and it's just out of hand.

There's no "secret agendas" or "misinformation" going on here. In fact, there's plenty of information, people just choose not to study it.
*** Edited 11/10/2006 4:32:47 PM UTC by e x i t english***

Gotta agree with exit. Just spending a couple hours in a smoke-filled restaurant isn't going to seriously impact most people. Well, except for asthmatics, of course. And people with allergies. Oh, and those with emphysema. And people with chronic bronchitis or pneumonia. Or... never mind.

Josh,

Not to sound like a nerd, but i conduct research at the Ohio State University medical center. I can assure you that, while the media makes this sound "controversial", among actual researchers (that is, those NOT funded by tobacco companies), there is simply no debate on whether or not second-hand smoke is extremely dangerous.

Now, you are correct in assuming that in an open environment like CP, there will be no effect. Banning "open air" smoking in a place like CP on the basis of the secondhand smoke argument is ridculous, because you would never be exposed to enough SH-smoke unless you walked behind someone smoking and tried to inhale as much as possible.

BUT, in an enclosed area (i.e., a restaraunt), SH-smoke is extraodinarily dangerous, and empirical study after empirical study all show the same thing; that secondhand smoke deserves its designation as a Group A carcinogen, meaning that the substance causes cancer in humans. What does this mean? It's in the same category as asbestos. (there are only a handful of "Class A" carcinogens on our planet).

The funniest part to me from the bar owner was when he said this:

I don't smoke, but it's another step for the government to tell us what to do," said Gerold

Um....no....the people told you what to do. Im just amazed at how well educated the voters seemed to be on this issue, not letting the tobacco companies confuse them with their "issue 4" jargon.

Youre correct, Josh, that there IS a lot of information out there. It is extrordinarily difficult to know who to believe and how not to believe. But heres a good rule to live by; if its funded by a tobacco company, it's bull****.
*** Edited 11/10/2006 4:53:59 PM UTC by Kevinj***

Let me give you all a GREAT example of what I am talking about. In 2003, James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health published a study in the British Medical Journal which showed no association between SH-smoke and cancer. This study is ALWAYS referenced by those who claim no relationship.

But lets look a little closer.

The study was funded by something called the "Center for Indoor Air Research" Sounds great right? Yeah, to Joe Shmoe who doesn't have a clue. So what is this center for air research? It's a side-project of Phillip Morris. Hmmm.

In 1988, The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were ALL funded by tobacco companies.

So please...follow Josh's advice and do your research. Just dont forget to do your research on the research you are reading.
*** Edited 11/10/2006 5:02:33 PM UTC by Kevinj***

No one here is arguing that second hand smoke isn't bad for you.

The issue is the rights of the businesses, and I'll post this quote from another thread, since it's relative to what you said, Kevin:

Jeremy Sell said:
Denying liberty to individuals based on majority rule represents what Thomas Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority", where 51% can enslave the other 49%. For majority rule to function without oppression, accomodations have to be made for the liberties of the minority. Liberty is the one aspect where majority rule should have no say. If it did, then logically it would be theoretically acceptable for white people to ban being black, Christians to ban being Jewish, and straight people to ban being gay. It's regressive, and it's counter to everything America was founded on. Banning smoking in private businesses represents the same kind of authoritarianism, and the same denial of liberty.