Bar Wins Smoking Ban Case

• Prescott

  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?
• 2kool4skool

  

  How many times did you have to change your underwear while you were making this thread?
• QuakerOats

  Will bars that suffered economic injustice ever gain recourse; will their private property rights ever be restored?
• Prescott

  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interviewed despised the ban because of lost revenue, a few claimed they would stay smoke free even if the ban were repealed.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.
• 2kool4skool

  

  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.
• MANAZE

  

  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.
• eersandbeers

  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.
• Apple

  

  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.
• BCBulldog

  

  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.
• eersandbeers

  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.
• Prescott

  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.
• Gobuckeyes1

  The smoking ban is great. The people of Ohio have spoken.
• Prescott

  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.
• Prescott

  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!!
• majorspark

  

  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
• Prescott

  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.
• Glory Days

  

  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.
• I Wear Pants

  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.
• Gobuckeyes1

  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.
• I Wear Pants

  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.
• BCBulldog

  

  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.
• eersandbeers

  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.
• majorspark

  

  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.
• Glory Days

  

  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.
• Ghmothwdwhso

  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.