Smoking Policy

I remember when the ban was set to go into effect, there were countless threads of thousands of posts (other sites) debating both sides of the argument. Bottom line, you and I both (and all non-smokers, really) are benefiting from the ban. Hell, even smokers are benefiting, because in theory they are smoking less, I know this to be true from every bar visit I've had since then. Smokers don't want to go outside, especially during the winter. They still do, but maybe they are smoking less. The only people I've heard complain about it are bartenders... they tell me bar traffic is down since the ban went into effect.

I don't like the "gun to the head" analogy, It's a little dramatic and unrealistic, but is a go-to defense in most of these arguments. When's the last time you ever had a gun to your head?

I hate the notion of big government and being told what to do. But in a very few cases, it's necessary because the "free markets" do not make choices that are in the best interests of most. It would be kind of like saying pedestrians shouldn't have the right of way, and red lights are overkill, and that if people are afraid of getting hit by a car, they simply should not cross the street. After all, there is not a gun to their head forcing them to do so...

So you are against big government unless its doing something you like. Primary reason why we have big government.

TwistedWicker77 said:
...non smokers shouldn't have to avoid going out in public just because there was smoking almost everywhere.

Private businesses are not public places.

MaverickLaunch said:
I hate the notion of big government and being told what to do. But in a very few cases, it's necessary because the "free markets" do not make choices that are in the best interests of most.

Except in this case, the free market was adjusting. But non-smokers didn't like that it wasn't occurring quickly enough for their tastes, so they used the tyranny of the majority to create more big government.

Funny how some folks don't mind big government when they benefit, but when others benefit, it's suddenly a bad thing.

EDIT: Basically, what GB said. You don't dislike big government. You dislike big government that doesn't benefit you.

It would be kind of like saying pedestrians shouldn't have the right of way, and red lights are overkill, and that if people are afraid of getting hit by a car, they simply should not cross the street. After all, there is not a gun to their head forcing them to do so...

Also worth noting is that in each of these examples, you're using public infrastructure in comparison to private businesses. That makes the comparisons totally illogical.

Except private businesses are still public places. It's not like we are talking about eliminating smoking in people's homes. I've noticed that many times when you don't agree with a particular argument or viewpoint, you paint it as illogical. Saying that doesn't make it so. You can label it as such to make your point, but I disagree with the labeling, not the argument that follows.

And I promise you, this is the ONE singular example of big government that you will ever hear me agree with. We could debate this till the end of time never convince each other of anything. I have to say, after reading so many of your posts, I'm surprised to see you take this side of this particular argument. You might even say the same for me (a very politically conservative individual).

Oh well, I guess I have to admit then that liberals were right about at least one thing.

MaverickLaunch said:
Except private businesses are still public places.

So, the public should get to decide the rules for a particular establishment? What about the menu? The waitstaff uniforms? Prices? Whether they sell alcohol?

...you paint it as illogical. Saying that doesn't make it so.

Similarly for ad hominem responses.

Your comparison is illogical because you're talking about public infrastructure - which we all pay for via taxes - to private business. If you don't want to go to a strip club, the appropriate response is to not visit them, rather than have them outlawed.

And I promise you, this is the ONE singular example of big government that you will ever hear me agree with.

I'll make the safe assumption that you're white, middle-ish class and male. That you have issues with other big government doesn't surprise at all, considering many big government issues relate to leveling the playing field with respect to socioeconomic status. That you side with the rare exception that benefits you, rather than others, is not terribly surprising. A lot of people would behave similarly.

djDaemon said:

So, the public should get to decide the rules for a particular establishment? What about the menu? The waitstaff uniforms? Prices? Whether they sell alcohol?

Hyperbole! We are talking about the dangers of secondhand smoke, not menu items and uniforms.

Similarly for ad hominem responses.

Touche'

If you don't want to go to a strip club, the appropriate response is to not visit them, rather than have them outlawed.

Agree 100%.

I'll make the safe assumption that you're white, middle-ish class and male. That you have issues with other big government doesn't surprise at all, considering many big government issues relate to leveling the playing field with respect to socioeconomic status.

If by "leveling the playing field" you mean mandating equal outcomes instead of creating equal opportunities, then yes I have issues with any government program or rule that attempts to "level the playing field".

That you side with the rare exception that benefits you, rather than others, is not terribly surprising. A lot of people would behave similarly.

Aren't we all hypocritical to some extent? I'm not going to deny that. But I will say that I feel okay with a carve-out for JUST this, because it's about the ability of others to impact MY health, directly, in public places, or otherwise limiting my ability to enjoy the same choices in restaurants, etc as a smoker. It's not as hypocritical as say, a conservative, who collects unemployment or welfare or uses medicaid when they don't financially need it.

Finally, what's so damn hard about going outside for a smoke? I mean, can't these people make it through a steak or plate of pasta without inhaling some carcinogens? A little inconvenience for them goes a LONG way for the majority, who don't smoke.

This thread, has gone out of hand

Actually the public does get to decide whether a private business sells alcohol (at least in Ohio). They're called liquor options, and you see them just about every election. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the driving force behind the smoking ban was not necessarily to protect the consumer who goes into a private establishment that allows smoking, but rather the employees that worked there the entire day.

Also, not to nitpick, but on the big government question, it should be pointed out the Ohio smoking ban was not enacted by the government but by a vote of the electorate. It's not a case where the government imposed the ban on the people. A majority of the voters supported it therefore it became law. Kind of democracy in action if ask me.

EDIT: I agree with you devarious.

That a majority of people vote for a law rather than it being enacted by a legislature doesn't change the fact that its an example of big government. And that a majority of people want something doesn't necessarily make it good or right.

And if I remember the last time we had this discussion right, it pretty much started the same way: post made complaining about the enforcement of CP's smoking policy and the discussion eventually turned to merits of smoking bans, dangers of second hand smoke, etc. Recall that threaded going more than 10 pages though I could be wrong.

Aside from the health debate - Smoking is a fire hazard. Been known to burn a few places to the ground.

Smoking at the park, although outside, still a fire hazard.

So Now we need the Sandusky fire department patrolling the park at all times. I'd be happy to help, I'm usually carrying around a bottle of water and I will be happy to help extinguish the cancer stick one is smoking; in non-designated area's of course.

MaverickLaunch said:
Hyperbole! We are talking about the dangers of secondhand smoke, not menu items and uniforms.

And what about the dangers of alcohol consumption? Alcohol presents all sorts of dangers, so why not outlaw that?

That's a loaded question, as I suspect your reasoning has a lot to do with the fact that you consume alcohol. In other words, outlawing the sale of alcohol would not provide you a net benefit, so you're not in favor of it.

...it's about the ability of others to impact MY health, directly, in public places...

How many times need it be pointed out that private businesses are not public places? Want to outlaw smoking in public parks? Absolutely reasonable. Outlawing an otherwise legal activity inside a private business? Government run amok.

...what's so damn hard about going outside for a smoke?

What's so hard about visiting restaurants that prohibit smoking? Believe it or not, they did exist prior to these laws.

I have never heard the idea of "big government" being applied to a policy that a private business chooses to have at their location.

This is really simple. Cedar Point chooses to have a smoking policy. It really doesn't matter why they chose this. In fact, they don't need a reason. It just is.

Just remember that. They don't need a reason that satisfies me, you, or anyone else. Whether anyone...even G.I. John, thinks it's right, doesn't matter at all.

It certainly has not adversely impacted their business.

What are we even debating here?

As in public, we mean in a social environment which I'm sure you already knew. You were just trying to prove a point.

djDaemon said:
What's so hard about visiting restaurants that prohibit smoking? Believe it or not, they did exist prior to these laws.

So you're suggesting that because certain restaurants/bars prohibited smoking before, those were the only places anti smokers should have gone to eat or drink? Why should non smokers revolve where they go to eat around the minorities who smoke?

But to answer your poor question, maybe it's the same reasons why it's so hard for you to not visit certain restaurants in or around Cedar Point. The food, the quality, the price...Come on now.

And what about the dangers of alcohol consumption? Alcohol presents all sorts of dangers, so why not outlaw that?

That's a loaded question, as I suspect your reasoning has a lot to do with the fact that you consume alcohol. In other words, outlawing the sale of alcohol would not provide you a net benefit, so you're not in favor of it.

Except, you're comparing alcohol, which doesn't have any negative health effect on a bystander, to cigarettes, which provide second hand smoke. Also, it's out of the ordinary for somebody to bring their own alcohol (although it does happen) opposed to bringing their own pack of cigarettes and light up wherever they damn well please.

It's just an argument where we can all agree to disagree because our opinions aren't going to change.

TwistedWicker77 said:

So you're suggesting that because certain restaurants/bars prohibited smoking before, those were the only places anti smokers should have gone to eat or drink? Why should non smokers revolve where they go to eat around the minorities who smoke?

Because that's how a free market works. If a restaurant doesn't provide an environment to your liking, find one that does. It's not a difficult concept.

I understand how a free market works thank you, but in order to accommodate everybody, it would be better for a business to either designate areas (such as Cedar Point) and enforce the policy, or make the smokers go outside. That's why the law in Ohio has changed. But suggesting that everybody revolve their social environment around smokers, later becoming banned indoors, is just silly.

TwistedWicker77 said:
As in public, we mean in a social environment which I'm sure you already knew. You were just trying to prove a point.

Actually, I'm not sure MaverickLaunch understands the distinction, given his comparisons to pedestrian right-of-way and so forth. Using the term "public" is not correct, and seems like an attempt to legitimize the idea that anyone has a "right" to dictate the use of that particular space.

So you're suggesting that because certain restaurants/bars prohibited smoking before, those were the only places anti smokers should have gone to eat or drink?

If avoiding smoke is that important to them, then yes.

People were making the value judgment that the restaurant/bar/whatever was worth visiting, even though they were exposed to second hand smoke. If the smoke was that bad (that is, if the value proposition was too poor), they shouldn't be there. Eventually, the market will react.

But people are too self-centered & lazy for such a thing it seems, because using tyranny of the majority to force rules on others is so much easier than voting with one's wallet.

I think we've sufficiently moved away from any kind of Cedar Point discussion.