Cleveland Nightlife Forum Index
    
Calendar

Post new topic   Reply to topic bar smoking ban in Cleveland

Cleveland Nightlife Forum Index : Forbidden City (General Discussion)
View previous topic : View next topic

Are you in favor of a smoking ban?
Smoking should be banned 100% from any public establishment
30%
 30%  [ 7 ]
I think the current setup with restaurants having a smoking and non-smoking section works well
13%
 13%  [ 3 ]
Having sequestered smokers' rooms is the way to go
13%
 13%  [ 3 ]
No need for separate rooms, establishments just need to maintain better ventilation systems
30%
 30%  [ 7 ]
Keep things the way they are. No need for policy
13%
 13%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 23

Posted by: Tekatoka Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 I<3CNL
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:36 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 2067
 Post Post subject: bar smoking ban in Cleveland

Location: 216
Back to top


Cleveland smoking ban urged
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Harlan Spector
Plain Dealer Reporter


An advisory panel on Wednesday recommended that Cleveland City Council put an end to indoor public smoking by passing a New York City-style ban in bars, restaurants and most other places.

The proposal is certain to be politically charged in a region where smoking rates have exceeded national averages and the anti-smoking movement has not mustered the level of public support seen elsewhere. Five states and 72 cities had imposed indoor-smoking bans as of January, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The Cleveland Clean Indoor Air Advisory Committee recommended a ban in workplaces and other public areas, with the exceptions of tobacco shops, private clubs and 10 percent of hotel rooms.

Members did not agree on a timetable and made no recommendation on penalties for violators. Some observers say a ban in Cleveland will likely have a ripple effect in the region, spurring other communities to follow. Anti-smoking activists pushed a ballot initiative in Garfield Heights last year, but it failed.

"If City Council will pass it, . . . it will be a tremendous step forward," said Gary DeNelsky, chairman of the Cuyahoga County Tobacco Control Coalition.

DeNelsky was not on the advisory panel. Members included people who work in public health, residents and representatives of the Greater Cleveland Restaurant Association and the union representing hotel and restaurant employees. The group began meeting in February and brought in outside authorities to discuss the health consequences of secondhand smoke and the economic fallout from smoking bans. Health experts say passive smoke causes as many as 65,000 deaths a year in the United States.

Anti-smoking campaigns have focused on the health effects on service workers.

Studies following smoking bans in New York City and El Paso, Texas, showed the laws did not hurt bar and restaurant profits.

A bar owner from Toledo, where a ban took effect this year, told the Cleveland advisory panel that the city has had trouble enforcing the law. He said he built a separate smoking lounge, which the law there allows.

Cleveland City Councilman Matthew Zone said last night that he would be open to allowing separate rooms with separate ventilation systems in bars. Zone favors a tougher smoking law, but was not making predictions about the chances of council adopting the panel's recommendation.

David Fitz, spokesman for Mayor Jane Campbell, was noncommittal about whether the city will adopt the committee's recommendations.

"We appreciate their thoughtful work and the mayor looks forward to meeting with them and hearing their recommendations," Fitz said, adding that no meeting has been scheduled.

Plain Dealer reporter Mike Tobin contributed to this story.
http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1085045622103461.xml

_________________
TITS



Last edited by Tekatoka on Thu May 20, 2004 9:58 am; edited 3 times in total

 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Posted by: Jamie Tyler Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:39 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 4477
 Post Post subject:

Location: sagamore hills
Back to top


Do it. But at the same time include provisions that insure that those who do go outside to smoke have (a) somewhere to put their cigarette butts and (b) no stupid issues getting back into venues.

And that's from someone who smokes waay too much in bars, as you all well know.

BTW I thounk it should only be indoor areas. Outdoors smoking generally isn't an issue, and as such shouldn't be regulated.


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: jdat Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 VIP Line Jumper
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:42 am
Joined: 05 Mar 2004  Posts: 1197
 Post Post subject:

Location: Mulhouse Alsace France
Back to top


I'm really not bothered about smoking in bars/clubs ... the only thing that gets on my nerve is the smell on my clothes when I go home.

Now in regards to New York ... Well I can only it's been amazing partying there since the smoking ban came into effect.
I know this might sound odd but the bigger clubs let you go outside in some cases to smoke and I go outside to to try and get some "fresh" air; bit contradictive/ironical I know; I tell all the bloody bastards to keep the smoke to themselves Razz .


 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Posted by: Tiesto Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Afterhours Champion
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:47 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 1407
 Post Post subject:

Location: Chicago, IL
Back to top


This has been an interesting implementation in Toledo, where the law bans smoking in all establishments unless they have an entirely separate, specially ventilated area sequestered for smoking (and some weird rules about what % of total square feet the "lounge" can occupy). It's caused a few interesting things to happen. Firstly, the law only applies to Toledo proper, so bars in neighboring suburbs and municipalities really benefit. It would be the equivalent of a no smoking ban in downtown, yet Parma bars would not be effected. To combat exodus and retain business, Toledo bars have had to put thousands of dollars into construction, which then must pass inspection by the city. It's a stretch for all of these businesses to make that investment.

Just a couple of things to keep in mind, should Cleveland try to emulate other cities.


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

Posted by: candice radin Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Afterhours Champion
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:50 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 1267
 Post Post subject:

Location: c-bus
Back to top


I donít like this. Especially in Cleveland. Whatís the point of living here if I canít smoke in places? That was the only thing keeping me here a little longer and holding off on my move to nyc. I wasnít ready for that no smoking thing. Wow. Crying or Very sad


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Posted by: Jamie Tyler Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:54 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 4477
 Post Post subject:

Location: sagamore hills
Back to top


If Cleveland were to do this ALL the surrounding municipalities would have to do it as well or cleveland's bar economy would go completely to sheite in a very short amount of time...does cleveland have enough influence to convince every municipality from mentor to avon lake to brunswick to do the same...i doubt it.

BTW they sell cigarettes in most bars...does that make them smoke shops? Probably not, but it's an interesting loophole.

I'd like to see a smokeless environment (it'd help me smoke less too), but I don't want to see it happen to the detriment of cleveland's bar/club scene


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: geeves Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Professional Hipster
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 8:58 am
Joined: 22 Mar 2004  Posts: 499
 Post Post subject:


Back to top


This is the only trend I've been waiting for to hit the mid-west. Hopefully Pittsburgh isn't far behind either.

In CA it was statewide and it was great to be able to goto a big club, or even just the smallest of bars and not reek of smoke and not have to wash my clothes twice to get rid of the smokey smell.

Everyone thought it would mess up the bar scene in CA too, but people go there to drink and get drunk with hopes of getting some - not to smoke.


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Posted by: Tekatoka Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 I<3CNL
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:09 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 2067
 Post Post subject:

Location: 216
Back to top


I really think that if more clubs/bars had kick-ass ventilation systems and HVAC, smoking bans would be irrelevant.

You can tell just by walking into a place how clean the air will be by looking at the vents and all the dust and dirt that have accumulated around the air system. Yech.

I have been to clubs where people were allowed to smoke and I came out smelling like a rose. The HVAC rapidly whisked the air up and out and anything that was being recirculated was filtered very well. (Space -- #1 not Space 34) was a really good example.

Sometimes I think the problem is not the smokers but rather the maintenance of the building.

_________________
TITS


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Posted by: thomar Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 VIP Line Jumper
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:18 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 937
 Post Post subject:

Location: nyc
Back to top


The smoking ban in NYC is awesome Rolling Eyes you do smoke less, but it sucks.


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Posted by: Jamie Tyler Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:32 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 4477
 Post Post subject:

Location: sagamore hills
Back to top


geeves wrote:
In CA it was statewide...


that's how it should be. Individual cities that do this WILL lose business to surrounding areas that don't. I'd be all for a statewide ban.


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:48 am
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


How about a poll with this discussion? I'd like to see what general concensus is Smile


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: Tekatoka Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 I<3CNL
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 9:59 am
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 2067
 Post Post subject:

Location: 216
Back to top


Poobas wrote:
How about a poll with this discussion? I'd like to see what general concensus is Smile


Added.

_________________
TITS


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Posted by: Brian B Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Candy Raver
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 11:30 am
Joined: 07 May 2004  Posts: 30
 Post Post subject:

Location: Mentor, OH
Back to top


I don't like this idea, even when I did not smoke I would never make it an issue because it never bothered me. This is like saying you can't wear anything with the color blue. If you can buy them, you should be able to smoke them.

_________________
I'm Rick James Biyatch!
www.koala-tea.com


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger

Posted by: Tymezup Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 11:54 am
Joined: 01 Feb 2004  Posts: 5295
 Post Post subject:

Location: Cleveland, OH
Back to top


Wasn't there some study done recently, or some finding that second hand smoke was not as bad for you as once thought?


 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number

Posted by: validation Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 "The Situation"
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 1:11 pm
Joined: 08 Mar 2004  Posts: 4177
 Post Post subject:


Back to top


Quote:
This is like saying you can't wear anything with the color blue.



not really . . .

:wink:


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: Tekatoka Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 I<3CNL
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 1:26 pm
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 2067
 Post Post subject: This study?

Location: 216
Back to top


Second-hand Smoke Study Sparks Controversy
By Mike Wendling
CNSNews.com London Bureau Chief
May 16, 2003


London (CNSNews.com) - A study about to be published in this week's British Medical Journal indicates that second-hand smoke doesn't increase the risk of heart disease or lung cancer, but the publication and the study's authors have come under attack by anti-smoking groups.

Two American researchers analyzed data from an American Cancer Society survey that followed more than 118,000 Californians from 1960 until 1998.

James E. Enstrom, of the University of California at Los Angeles and Geoffrey C. Kabat of the State University of New York at Stony Brook concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke (second-hand smoke) and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."

"The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed," the researchers wrote.

The study was roundly condemned by anti-smoking groups including the American Cancer Society and even by the British Medical Journal's parent organization, the British Medical Association. They said the researchers received money from the tobacco industry, a statement that was confirmed by the journal Friday.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) pointed out what it called several flaws in the research. The researchers based their study on a small subset of the original data, the ACS said, and because of the greater prevalence of smokers in the 60s and 70s, "virtually everyone was exposed to environmental tobacco smoke."

Smoking opponents also pointed out in the original study, although the health of the subjects were monitored until 1998, no information on smoking habits was collected after 1972.

"We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems," Michael J. Thun, ACS national vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research, said in a statement.

"The American Cancer Society welcomes thoughtful, independent peer review of our data. But this study is neither reliable nor independent," Thun said.

Other studies have indicated that inhaling second-hand smoke on a regular basis increases the risk of heart disease by about 30 percent. But as the researchers pointed out in their BMJ article, exposure to second-hand smoke is difficult to measure and such studies necessarily rely on self-reported data that may or may not be accurate.

Figures are skewed, researchers said, by former smokers who are wrongly classified.

"The relation between tobacco-related diseases and environmental tobacco smoke may be influenced by misclassification of some smokers as never smokers," the researchers wrote.

However, several British groups agreed with the ACS assessment of the study. The British Medical Association said that 1,000 people die every year in the U.K. as a result of passive smoking.

"There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks," said Vivienne Nathanson, BMA's head of science and ethics. "In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth, as well as both causing and worsening asthma."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said: "We are utterly surprised as to why the BMJ has published this. It's nothing but a lobbying tool."

"This is just one study," the spokesman said. "It will do nothing to change the massive body of evidence that has built up over the years."

The journal stood by its decision to publish research but editors turned down interview requests Friday. A spokeswoman said decisions on publication were made only after "careful consideration and peer review."

The study, which was available online and will be published in the BMJ on Saturday, was partially funded by money from the tobacco industry, the spokeswoman said, but could not provide further details.

Groups campaigning against further tobacco regulations in Britain welcomed the research. Smokers' lobby group FOREST said the "jury is still out" on the effects of second-hand smoke.

"This is typical of the anti-smoking lobby's bullying tactics," said FOREST director Simon Clark. "They attack not just the authors but the messenger ... the BMJ is one of the most respected journals in the world."

Attacks on the study in the U.K. have been led by proponents of a total ban on smoking in public places like pubs, clubs and restaurants, a position that Clark said was undermined by the study.

"People who want to ban smoking in public places use passive smoking as their number one argument," he said. "That's why this study is so significant."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200305%5CFOR20030516d.html

_________________
TITS


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Posted by: Archived Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 Moderator
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 2:55 pm
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 2638
 Post Post subject:

Location: Omnipresence, Ohio
Back to top


Brian B wrote:
This is like saying you can't wear anything with the color blue.


Not really.. wearing a blue garment won't make my clothes blue when I leave the club, won't make my eyes burn while in the club, and won't (possibly) give me blue lung cancer a few years down the road. smoking effects the people around you.


 View user's profile Send private message

Posted by: thomar Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List
 VIP Line Jumper
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 3:53 pm
Joined: 10 Feb 2004  Posts: 937
 Post Post subject:

Location: nyc
Back to top


I vote to take the alcohol out of bars! WAY more people get killed each year by the dumb motherf-ers that drink too much and then get in the steel missile to get home.


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic   Reply to topic
Display posts from previous:   

Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum

Cleveland Nightlife topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group