-
Website
http://www.erieblogs.com -
Original page
http://www.burghblogs.com/2008/09/11/erie-pa-news-and-events-for-thursday-september-11-2008/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Wow. That *is* extreme!
Is a state university in a position to make such a decree? I don't quite understand if they can make a stance similar to Hamot regarding smoking on their property.
Is a state funded Univ. the same as a privately owned business in that respect?
Bit extreme to attempt to police people driving through campus who may be smoking. Also interesting to see where exactly this jurisdiction ends.
When I attended classes (got a BS and a masters at EUP) up until just a few years ago (2006?) some professors still smoked pipes, etc. in their own offices. Like within Hendrix Hall, etc.
Small side note: the tab order on the comments thing seems goofy. In tabbing from Name, expecting to go to e-mail address, I instead go to the yellow pages search above, then tab back into e-mail address.
They appear to be taking the route of making it confusing as all hell. As you walk in there are signs above some slots that say "NO SMOKING" but the whole bank of slots next to them is smoking. Very odd.
I wonder if they are making it hard on purpose. Would have seemed easier to block off a section of the casino for smokers, instead they are sprinkled throughout and intermixed with the non-smoking areas.
The government shouldn't ( in my and the Constitution's opinion) make these kind of decisions for people.
what's next?
So now we are entering an area in which some customers are allowed to break the law, and others are not. Thanks PA
The state of Pennsylvania is not my Daddy.
I am an adult, I can buy a legal product sold in most bars from a vending machine, and even from behind the counter at some bars, It's taxed by the state. Yet I am unable to use this product in the same establishment that I purchased it, and payed the tax.
A little bit of Pennsylvania died today and you all should be outraged. What will be next? Can we ban Blond hair people from from bars? Cause there are a TON of you!
Now I am sure most of these anti-smoker people will put me down. I want all of you to know, and realize this. You think you won with this smoking ban, but think of it this way..
On State Street, the only bars this really will effect is the Plymouth, Calamari's, Molly Brannigan's, and the the Market Place Grill.
All the other bars downtown will remain the same, Docksider, Papa Gorges', Nickie's, Peccidillo's, Skeeter's, Sherlock's, Scully's, Sulleven's Scottie's, Antler's, The Shaggy Dog, The Beer Mug, and more. Almost too many to list.
All you did was make certain business harder to function. I have friends that will not be able to pay the bills. So while you think you are breathing fresh air everywhere, I hope you remember the hard working people that you theoritically took food out of their child's mouth. I hope you can sleep well at night.
Citizens of Pennsylvania were not given the opportunity to vote on this. It was decided by a hand full of idiots.. Sadly the same idiots everyone raged about when they voted themselves a pay raise. Where are your voices now?
Why?
Take a look at the list of states that have statewide smoking bans. Take a look into their revenue generation and sales in restaurants and establishments that previously allowed smoking. It hasn't dropped drastically like you say it will in PA.
If someone was concerned about their finances, maybe they should stop sucking down cigarettes.
How many bars actually still sell cigarettes? I thought this went the way of the dinosaurs...
Almost all bars have a cigarette machine. This has not gone the way of the dinosaurs. Maybe you need to go out more.
I'm also getting sick of people trying to compare our smoking ban with other states. It's not the same. Pennsylvania's smoking ban is basically communistic. All these people posting here that are psyched about the government making decisions for only certain business owners need to get their head examined. You are part of the problem with this country. You are happy that other citizens rights are being taken away. I'm sure you wont be so happy when the government finally gets around to taking away a right that you cherish.
1. People demanding that the government do what they could do for themselves, and 2. If "we the people" couldn't do it ourselves, should it have been legislated on everyone?
1. As Jeremy states, non-smokers are the majority today. Why did we need the government to make a law when non-smokers could have just stopped visiting smoking establishments?
This is not a "if you don't like then just don't go" rant. This is about "we have the power!"
Have you not noticed that more establishment have gone non-smoking each year? If we would only say "I will not be back until you are non-smoking", these bars and other facilities would switch in a heartbeat. There are too many non-smokers. And smokers would be relegated to a few smoking permitted places. Would that be so bad? It would accomplish your goal of visiting Sherlocks without the smoke and maitain the freedom, greatness, and power of choice. Vote with your dollar.
Here's the "but", people don't the nerve to give up their Sherlocks or other hang out. And everyone knows it. The point of view seems to be "I don't want to actually give anything up for my cause. The government will do it." And I know everyone knows it, because everyone says to me, "We needed a law because that would never happen. People can't do that kind of thing together." We are our own worst enemy.
2. If we could not come together on this, if we couldn't act together on this, if a handful of legislators had to enact this, then I wonder if people really wanted this? Or did we just not have enough people who cared? That could certainly be asked of any legislation. But, it a question we must each ask ourselves, every time, with every new law.
For me, we could have settled it ourselves. If we didn't care enough to work toward out cause, then we don't deserve it. There was no legislation that would have prevented our purchases, or lack of, from settling this.
I think you aimed this at the WRONG person.
For my own reasons and research, I've done a good amount of reading into this ban and other state bans. Initially, I was questioning the validity of "telling a business owner what they can or can't do" as many are saying. At the surface, this may seem to be just another case of government intervention and loss of rights. On the other hand, there's a significant case for workplace safety, removal of air pollutants. In states that have held a majority vote for bans, ratios typically run 80% in favor, 20% disapproval rate.
I asked if you had subsantial evidence that bars will lose revenue in the means of customer loss because of this ban. You did not answer that. I do get out, albeit on the other side of Pennsylvania. Many establishments have already made the leap to non-smoking establishments well in advance of the ban. I avoid establishments which permit smoking, as many others in this comment section have expressed as previously doing.
Also remember that bars receiving 20% or less profits from food sales are exempt from the ban. This would effectively include a number of the downtown bars in Erie which, I suppose you could say, cater to a smoking crowd. Another point is that clubs or members-only establishments (and as many know, there are MANY of these in Erie which are quite well attended) are also exempt.
Pennsylvania's ban, as compared to other statewide bans, is less restrictive. If you don't believe me, please take a drive into New York state. Smoking is prohibited in all bars, regardless of revenue generation. Myself and many others have found ourselves driving into NY and OH just to go to bars which are non-smoking. PA lost my revenue and my tips, which, by the way, are generous, as I have worked previously in waitstaff.
Private businesses are not exempt from government regulation. If you think about it, look at all the safety regulations in place that effect businesses. Health safety, worker safety, fire code, etc etc. Alcohol sales are STILL more heavily regulated than the sale of cigarettes.
Yes, we have unalienable rights as Americans. We also have rules and regulations placed on us regarding our behavior as to how it effects others. If we perceive an action as a harm to another person, or a workplace danger, why should it continually be allowed? I don't consider a habit which directly and negatively affects those around me a "cherished right." That's about synonymous with saying I should have the right to get smashed and crash my car into a building. We sure have laws on that, now, don't we? When the overwhelming majority of society views a habit as dangerous or unsafe to others, you sure as hell will see limits placed on that habit. Look at alcohol. Look at public violence and behavior. This isn't excessive government. Some things come down to common sense.
First I would like to thank you for responding to my post in an intelligent manner. It's refreshing to see a well thought out discussion from someone in Erie.
But lets break down what you said a bit and actually talk about the facts.
You said..
"On the other hand, there's a significant case for workplace safety, removal of air pollutants. In states that have held a majority vote for bans, ratios typically run 80% in favor, 20% disapproval rate."
This is truly sad cause the smoking ban really doesn't have anything to do with health. I agree smoking is bad, but there are worse things that I myself deal with on a daily basis that are far worse than a little second hand smoke. Where are those laws to protect me? Also your stats are a bit skewed, but not too far off. All those statistics show is that democracy doesn't work. If you know the definition of a democracy you would understand that 51%+ decide for the other 49%. It's only a few points off from communism. I would prefer the Republic form of government which says those 80% can eat dirt. "We are governing our selves"
You said..
"I asked if you had subsantial evidence that bars will lose revenue in the means of customer loss because of this ban. You did not answer"
That's really not the point is it? I think everyone is in agreement that all bars effected will lose some revenue at first but might make it up later. Does that make it any more right? It's like saying "I know we are making it harder for you to function, but if you survive it, things will get better" It makes absolutely no sense to do this.
You said...
"Also remember that bars receiving 20% or less profits from food sales are exempt from the ban. "
Don't you understand this is the root of the problem? You could theoretically have two identical bars directly next door to each other and because one of the bars sells one more order of French fries, that bar is imposed with government sanctions? I'm sure you can even see the fault in that.
You Said..
"Pennsylvania's ban, as compared to other statewide bans, is less restrictive."
Yes it is, I agree with you. Fair, no. Communism , yes. You can't have a business that sells a product, charges a state tax on you, then restricts you from using the product. It would be like a gas station charging you for the gas tax but you need to push your car off the station's property before you can start your car.
You Said..
"Myself and many others have found ourselves driving into NY and OH just to go to bars which are non-smoking. PA lost my revenue and my tips,"
You actually made the air quality worse for everyone. The car you drove distributed more pollutants and C02 than a few cigarettes in the bar would ever produce. Can we ban you from unnecessarily driving?
You Said...
"Private businesses are not exempt from government regulation. If you think about it, look at all the safety regulations in place that effect businesses. Health safety, worker safety, fire code, etc etc. Alcohol sales are STILL more heavily regulated than the sale of cigarettes."
This is clearly not true. Myself and other friends work in far more health dangerous areas that you could get from a thousand people smoking around you. Try coming home every night covered in soot, with burns on your arms and face, breathing in god knows what. Then tell me that someone smoking a cigarette next to you is a problem.
You Said...
"If we perceive an action as a harm to another person, or a workplace danger, why should it continually be allowed? "
Then why allow the state to sell cigarettes? Wouldn't a ban on sales be more reasonable solution? We both know we can't do that cause the state gets money for it. Yet again another reason to debunk your "health" rationing with this law.
You Said..
"I should have the right to get smashed and crash my car into a building. We sure have laws on that, now, don't we? When the overwhelming majority of society views a habit as dangerous or unsafe to others, you sure as hell will see limits placed on that habit. Look at alcohol. Look at public violence and behavior. This isn't excessive government. Some things come down to common sense."
Wow, where do I start..
For one, you do have the right to smash your car into a building. There is no law regarding that. Although I'm sure your insurance company might have something to say about it.
Secondly, with the alcohol thing. It's legal, no one is banning that.. You are going off point. Licensed bars pay a license fee to sell the alcohol. Just like bars pay for a special tax stamp to have a cigarette machine on premises.
Like you said above. " It all comes down to common sense" Unfortunately most of the anti-smokers don't have that, or they would have been frequenting non-smoking establishments long ago. They would rather sit and complain.
So with all the bars on state street not effected by this ban, does it give us smokers the right to complain, and have you non-smokers kicked out?
Meaning that all you non-smokers will NEVER step foot in a smoking bar again? Cause that would be super.