So they're thinking about amending the ban already. Read HERE
After a month of being in affect, we are already looking at changing it already.
We can be known as: "Fort Wayne, the town that dabbled in Smoking Bans"
Side note, this is the second time Knockouts has closed this year - are we really suppose to believe it closed because of the smoking ban?
53 comments:
So we vote down school improvements and want to allow smoking again.
I bet there is a huge line of new companies that want to re-locate to Fort Wayne.
So the bar owners are saying let's have the immediate economic benefit for them of higher bar sales, but ignore the long-term health care costs we all pay for in insurance premiums and Medicare taxes associated with lung cancer, heart disease and stroke.
Fort Wayne: The city that thinks in the short term
We vote down ridiculously large school improvements in order to keep property taxes from being outrageous. And as most people should know better buildings are not going to make all of the students more intelligent or more motivated.
Smoking should be allowed on private properties such as bars or restaurants if the owners feel that allowing it will help their business. Supporting individual and property rights is not the same thing as supporting smoking.
I am strongly against smoking for a multitude of reasons but I don't feel that I have the right to tell others what they can and can't do to harm themselves. This is, after all, supposed to be a free country.
Kody, you don't look old enough to visit a bar.
I don't think the property tax increase was that outrageous.
Again, I doubt you own any property in the FWCS district.
When I was back in Fort Wayne about a month ago bars did not look deserted. I will admit that the patio areas were a little more crowded than before though. Maybe bars should take that as a hint, build patio areas/beer gardens and people will come. My how I do like to drink outside in the summer. I just wish there were more beer gardens in town.
Rachel: higher bar sales?
The owners aren't dumb, they have their figures from the last few years (bars even have to watch this closely to maintain their food/spirits ratio).
Sales are down - badly - the businesses are hurting, employees are hurting, and those mythical non-smoking new customers aren't showing up.
And smoking isn't even really down, since there are still places in New Haven and elsewhere that don't have the ban.
Social engineering for the Fail, I'm afraid.
smaniac-
I agree that outdoor drinking facilities/beer gardens would be popular. See here and here.
Dave
Beer Gardens are too modern for Fort Wayne
You missed the point here.. it's private property.
What they should have done is take the smoking out of public places.. like the park when children are around..
Until cigarettes are illegal they have no say what you can't have on your own property.
What isn't clear about that?
This is a property rights issue. Period.
Anonymous:
I am not old enough to visit a bar. You are right about that. And even if I wouldn't really frequent bars. Just not my thing. I don't drink or smoke and I don't plan on starting either. I don't see what this fact has to do with personal or property rights though.
You may not think that the tax increase was that outrageous, but someone on a fixed income who can't afford to pay much more would most likely disagree with you on that.
And no, I don't pay property taxes, but my parents do, and my grandmother does. I am just out of high school and I know what the students are thinking. Spending half a billion dollars on buildings isn't going to cause some miracle that suddenly boosts ISTEP scores and lowers dropout rates. 5oo million is too much. A more reasonable amount would be much better. Education is about a lot more than just buildings.
It is a proerpty rights issue and the smoking ban is wrong. The government should not dictate to private business owners what they can allow on their property.
Mike Sylvester
Mike,
Why aren't the Libertarians asking for the lowering of the drinking age to 18 or 19 instead of fighting the smoking ban? Wouldn't these kinds of laws dictate what property owners can and cannot do on private property?
Rachel, drinking age laws are a separate issue (and law) and you're smart enough to know that.
Do you really want to get into "two wrongs don't make a right" territory, anyway?
http://www.vince.de/hiphopnet/images/cheech_chong.jpg
come smoke outdoors at showgirl 1's new outdoor patio. Hand crafted wood-grain construction. very professional. (I assume it will have be somewhat enclosed in the winter.
Its a wonderful life.
I dont mind some smoke in saloons,as long as the smokers are considerate of non-smokers- like a lot of bar patrons. Also, be careful with your cigarettes, so we dont burn anybodys clothing. A little courtesey, and thoughtfulness goes a long way.
try to look for the silver lining in the smoke cloud, and be open minded. BTW, I enjoy cigars, just not cigarettes-personal preference.
Lifting the ban on over 21 saloons, seems reasonable to me, given the competitive disadvantage it makes vis-a-vis county saloons.
the way bigger problem is the .08 laws- why should I go out to a bar to drink, when I can invite friends over to smoke, and drink, and not have to worry about the FWPD DUI Nazis waiting to pounce on every departing bar patron. A little reasonableness, and common sense would go a long way. Comparing Tobacco smoke to Lead, and asbestos is a little loony-toons.
MichaelK,
I was actually trying to find out where the line is for local libertarians, especially Sylvester. What, in their minds, is acceptable government intervention in the operation of a commercial establishment and what constitutes "the nanny state."
Under this thinking, zoning is government intervention. It is telling me as a property owner that my rights are limited as to what I can do. My residential home cannot become a tavern, manufacturing facility or even a nuclear power plant. Is this unjust?
Just for clarification, the drinking age and the smoking ban are law. Different jurisdictions (federal vs. municipal), but still law.
Yes, drinking age is a law too - it is also different in that it is in the same effect everywhere regardless of whether it is private or public/quasi-public property - so still law, but not comparable for our purposes. It's not like we've suddenly outlawed 18-21 drinking in public but it's still legal at home.
Zoning is a different can of worms. And yes, it could be argued that it's partially responsible for suburban sprawl and other ills, and not entirely a good thing depending on the degree.
But that's all distracting from the point. Who cares where the line is, anyway, if we know the smoking ban is far enough over it?
All Fort Wayne is really doing is shooting itself in the economic foot. And it's the business owners and employees who are the first to pay for what is amounting to the non-smokers' "right" to continue not going to these places even now that they're smoke-free.
Who is the "we" that knows the smoking ban went too far? I think we are on the right track.
Economic development through smoking?
It's truly amazing that California, New York City, Chicago, Columbus, Ohio, Ireland, DC and the list goes haven't just shriveled up with their lack of public tobacco smoking.
Rachel, given that you're not risking your business or job in this, I think there's another "we" that might disagree with you.
Fort Wayne is none of those places. It's a much smaller place surrounded by a much larger area where people are still given a choice.
Ireland is a particularly lousy example, it's an island.
Let's not tie the smoking ban to the FWCS issue. I'll separate both in this response.
Smoking ban:
Tom Henry should be able to tell us if it has had an effect on local bars with his family's interest in several of them. What's he had to say? Nothing. Outdoor patios are great and have saved a lot of pubs initially, let's see how many people use them in January and how many fold then. This issue is about property rights and if health was the real concern could been solved by having owners place a sticker on the entrance declaring it a smoking or non-smoking facility. What's next? Limiting trans-fat, deciding serving portions on a person's weight, noise levels inside, using fluorescent or incandescent light bulbs? Please. If a private bar/restaurant is too smoky, to noisy, serves greasy food and is under lit go somewhere else. That is still your right. Until the next ordinance issued in the name of public safety.
FWCS:
For the record, I live in NWAC's district but would have signed blue for this reason and it's not the tax increase. Passing a 500 million dollar bond is just asking for a lot of excess and corruption and the numbers of what was being fixed were continuously misstated. Prime example--Elmhurst High School. First we were told it was ready to be condemned, needed new boilers and roof, was in jeopardy by the gravel pit because of dynamite blasting and wasn't worth the 39 million asked for improvements. Much easier to demolish for $200,000 and send all the students to Wayne High School for free and sell the property to the gravel pit. Nice, easy decision. Until we find out that the boilers were already replaced, most of roof has been repaired, the cost to demolish is now $1.4 million, Wayne now needs $40 million to handle the Elmhurst students and nobody has stated that the south bus garage is between the gravel pit and Elmurst and would also need to be relocated. Funny how most of the Elmhurst building was built after 1967 but 80 years of dynamiting by the pit has taken its toll. Of course, I'm a 1981 Elmhurst grad so my numbers probably don't work since I was educated in such a dilapidated building. How many of the other building repairs are subject to the same discrepancies?
Both of these issues (and Harrison Square) boil down to this. As a citizen and taxpayer I'm damned tired of being lied to. Lied to by the Mayor, City Council, FWCS school board, County Council, County Commissioners, State Legislators, the Governor, etc. Stop me before I name the entire elected branch. Oh wait, maybe I just did. Think about your votes in the next election, I know I will.
Rachel:
For the record I think that we should have one age at which children are considered adults.
Currently if you are 18 you can:
Get drafted into the military
Be tried as an adult.
I either think that the age for the draft should be increased to 21 and the age at which you can be tried as an adult should be raised to 21 OR I think the driking age should be lwoered to 18.
My preference would be to consider people as adults when they are 18...
Mike Sylvester
Thanks, Mike. I'm glad to hear your perspective.
Seriously, its time for SYLVESTER!!!!
Rachel:
What do you think about some items being 18 and others 21?
Mike Sylvester
Can you imagine what FW would be like if the Libertarians ran the city?
I would be the first one out of here
I understand the reasoning why states moved to the 21 age minimum for alcohol consumption. I tend to look at government intervention and regulation from a more pragmatic view.
Thus, I'm not so sure a 21 drinking age is really effective. It drives drinking underground on college campuses and it doesn't seem eliminate underage drinking or drunken driving. If the point is to keep alcohol out of the hands of high school seniors, move the age up to 19. That, in my mind, is a reasonable compromise.
However it is too politically sensitive for any elected or electable official to touch.
Philosophically it is appropriate to have a single age of adulthood, but sometimes the realities of life affect policy decisions.
Rachel,
You made a very good point saying that lowering the drinking age is too sensitive for any elected official to touch. It is because of that so many issues that can easily be fixed or solved but are not actually getting done.
Politicians don't want to step up and use common sense to help make more successful policies. Instead they would rather take the easy road and not really accomplish anything.
"Ron Paul",
If Libertarians ran this city your taxes would eventually become much lower because local government would be more fiscally responsible. Your individual freedoms would increase and you wouldn't feel as if someone was always watching over you to make sure you don't break some useless rule. Also businesses in the private sector would see Fort Wayne as a great place to move to or open up at because there would be minimal regulations for them and they wouldn't have ridiculous amounts of taxes to pay.
LET THEM SMOKE
SMOKE IT WITH A COKE. GIGGLES
DRIVING WHILE SMOKING. .08 OH NO!
SENATOR WYSS WILL GET YOU
STAND OUTSIDE AND SMOKE UNDER THE OAK TREE
DRIVE YOUR BLACK ECONO VAN TO KOKOMO
DANCE THE NIGHT AT THE MOOSE LODGE
SMOKING TO THE OLDIES. GIGGLES!
-ROACH
"Philosophically it is appropriate to have a single age of adulthood, but sometimes the realities of life affect policy decisions."
Rachel is correct.
"Politicians don't want to step up and use common sense to help make more successful policies. Instead they would rather take the easy road and not really accomplish anything."
Kody misses the point - politicians respond to the complicated and often conflicting
viewpoints of lots and lots of citizens. Each of us has his or her own idea of common sense that works well for ourselves. But what is common sense for one person is often complete insanity for another....and politicians try to find the balance. Ask 50 people (and not just yourself and 49 people like yourself) their exact mix of taxes and services and you will be lucky to get only 50 answers.
That is not to say that some politicians aren't cowards or fools....just like some libertarians, I imagine. But politics is the art of the possible, not the art of What Kody Wants. And that just makes things a bit more complicated.
One reason no politician here will touch it is because it's not controlled at the local level.
It, among other things, is controlled by the bigger brother and tied to our allowance.
I think the smoking ban should be waited out. It has only been one month. Only 10 bars submitted data which was 5-10% in losses which is typical for summertime. Bars like Club Soda have seen an increase of people.
The US is in a major health care crisis - insurance rates will lower in regions with smoking bans in effect. Businesses will relocate jobs to places where they save money on insurance.
I think it will be hilarious when Fort Wayne repeals the smoking ban and the state of IN then enforces a total state ban like Ohio did. It is very close to happening.
So we lost the All American City again, perhaps with this we can once again gain our footprint in Mens Health Magazine for a repeat year. But hey, maybe we'll be the last city in the US to allow smoking everywhere and this will be the tourist attraction we've all been waiting for ......
"Some people in Fort Wayne are aware that the steady diminishment of its intellectual capital is directly connected to the town's stagnant economy and are trying to do something about it," says Prokopowicz, who teaches history at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C. "Unfortunately, they face a strong current of anti-intellectualism mixed with complacency and ignorance that characterizes much of the local business leadership."
What a condescending post by amused and annoyed.
Knocouts, another strip mall bar. Drink and drive!
Kody, people that smoke can smoke to harm themselves if they please. Correct. However, many civilized cities are now saying they can't smoke to harm other people. Science!!!!!!!
Amused and Annoyed:
I am aware that different people have different versions of common sense. Perhaps my wording wasn't the greatest. And I am aware that the job of a politician isn't exactly the easiest. And I am not saying that my viewpoint is always correct, however, if a law is unConstitutional then a an elected leader has the responsiblity to go against what the voters want. I tend to side with the Constitution because it is a very important document to this country and to many it makes a lot of sense. If a politician does not stand up for the Constitution then I believe they are acting cowardly.
Anonymous 12:26:
For more information on the specifics of how I feel about the smoking ban please check out my blog. I posted my full opinion a few days ago. But to quickly respond to your post here I will say that nonsmokers do not have to be around smoke if they do not want to. Don't go to bars that allow smoking if you are so worried about your health. One can easily get alcohol elsewhere and drink it in their home where they can choose whether or not they want to breathe in smoke.
Good job Kody.
Thanks Tim.
Are you guys gonna get this cranky every time someone disagrees with your agenda?
Jon:
Who is getting cranky?
Mens Health -
They were presenting data that sales were down compared to this time last year not compared to the previous month.
Important difference.
Did anyone here read my post? No comments on Tom Henry having an interest in several pubs.
No comments on the ever changing numbers on Wendy's grand plan?
Blah, blah, blah Fort Wayne is so backwood and boring...Let's talk about what color the brick should be on the new stadium and parking garage. Gray. Changing Fort Wayne at the speed of snail...
Oh, the Change Fort Wayne guys are the ones getting cranky. Sure, whenever their side is winning, they're happy-go-lucky goofballs.
But once even one thing happens that sets any of their causes back an inch -- hotel not as purdy as they hoped, smokers still like smoking, etc. -- they get gloomy and predictable.
Good grief, they have Harrison Square, the smoking ban *and* the delicious smugness of being a Young Professional. So why are the kids so sad?
"So why are the kids so sad?"
The Lexus mantra: the constant pursuit of perfection.
To annon, 12:26
Non smokers do not have the same rights as smokers. While I agree that if you only want alcohol you can drink at home or somewhere smoke free, what about concerts? I am allergic to cigarette smoke and was thrilled about the ban. Before I couldn't go to a bar, go bowling or go to a concert (especially a concert at a bar). But the enforcement is a joke. Local bars have more smokers than ever before. What about MY rights?
anonymous 12:31
If a restaurant, bar, or bowling alley has mainly smoking customers they will most likely cater to them by allowing smoking because that is how they make their money. If a business mainly wants nonsmokers they will ban smoking in their establishment as their own personal business choice and not because the government is forcing them to. This has been done many times before.
If I'm not mistaken, the new bowling alley Crazy Pinz is completely nonsmoking and I believe it was that way even without the smoking ban.
It is simple economics.
You still have the right to CHOOSE where to eat, drink, bowl, etc. and you can CHOOSE an establishment that is nonsmoking. You do not have to go to places that allow smoking. By not giving a place your business you are voicing your opinion through your pocketbook that you would like them to change their policies. The government does not need to step in and tell certain people or businesses to change because their preference does not match up with that of others.
Anon 12:31 must have been absent the first five minutes of econ class.
You, as a nonsmoker, do not have the right (constitutionally) to dictate to a bar owner to ban smoking. Just like a smoker does not have the right to dictate that a otherwise nonsmoking establishment permit smoking. Sheesh.
Kody,
You're gonna go far in that anti-intellectual, anti-gummint, backward-ass, mean little town. Don't ever leave.
Better yet, save yourself the money of additional education at Bypass U. because you've already closed your mind to other ways of thinking. How very sad.
anonymous 9:55,
If my understanding of limited government is considered anti-intellectual then I am proud to consider myself anti-intellectual. I don't know if the US Constitution just doesn't seem reasonable to you, but it makes a lot of sense to many people and it should because it has lasted a good number of years. I am strongly in favor of freedom of choice when it comes to just about everything, including one's right to smoke or own a business in which the customers can smoke.
I'm not sure why you had to insult the city in which I live. I find that very rude and quite tacky. If you are going to resort to childish insults at least give your real name instead of posting as anonymous. And many people would disagree and say that Fort Wayne is a very nice town that isn't perfect but is still a very nice place to live.
I believe you are the one that has closed your mind. Why can't you be open minded and understand that sometimes people do things that you might not disagree with but that doesn't mean they are always wrong? Others have a right to do things as long as they are not infringing on your rights. That is what this country is supposed to be based on. It's called liberty.
If you would like to further discuss this without ridiculous insults please feel free to contact me or visit my blog.
Kody -
Some people just aren't happy unless they're telling other people they're wrong and exercising their "right" to dictate how other people live.
(For the other people's own good, of course.)
Well, it's unfortunate that discussions like this can't be done without the insults (from both sides), but alas, I guess that's the nature of democracy. I've found this discussion quite interesting. I myself am a social outcast, being that I get sick from second-hand smoke. But I have to admit, the smoking ban hasn't caused me to all of sudden change my lifestyle and rush into the bars to take up drinking and socializing. And I won't be doing that anytime soon. So, it doesn't really impact me. But, to Kody, I think it's a bit insensitive to dismiss those of us who have those allergies. Yes, we can choose to stay at home, and be social outcasts. You're correct. And I do. But I wouldn't care to force that fate onto those who are less of a loser than I am. :) And I have to admit it's kind of nice to see the smokers having to be the outcasts for a change. I guess that makes me pretty shallow. So be it. But anyway, I have a question for you, Kody. Since your objection is purely constitutional (and I'm not conceding that the smoking ban is unconstitutional), if an amendment to the constitution were passed that banned smoking, would you still object???
To answer your question, I would strongly object to any Constitutional amendment that is aimed at taking away the liberties of anyone for just about anything. If this country is based on freedom why are so many politicians constantly trying to take that away? That concept confuses me greatly.
And by choosing not to go to bars or restaurants you are not making yourself a social outcast. There are many other places that groups of people can socialize that don't allow smoking, such as your home. People have get togethers in their homes all the time. Why should the social lives of Americans be mostly based around going out to eat or drink? There are so many other ways to be social and hang out with friends. I will even make a little list of examples.
1) dinner parties at home
2) nonsmoking restaurants
3) golfing
4) nonsmoking bowling alleys
5) going to the park
6) going shopping
7) coffee shops
8) seeing a movie
9) going to a ballgame
10) volunteering
Ok, first of all, if you're going to be unfair and use logic on me, we might as well end this conversation right now. :) Next thing you know you'll be suggesting that allergies to smoking are only an excuse to cover up my loserness. Alas, that's probably the case. Ok, seriously, most of those things I enjoy doing, but stopped doing a long time ago because they were filled with smokers--dinner parties--my a#@hole father was a smoker, so I retreated into my room. Non-smoking restaurants? I'm also a vegetarian, and in hoosier-state, that pretty much means I stick to my own cooking. Coffee shops--didn't exist where I grew up. (small farm town) Golfing? An excuse by developers to destroy beautiful prairie in the name of economic progress. Sorry, I won't budge on that one. Going to the park? I just got back, oddly enough. The only other person there was some old guy who didn't look like he was looking for friends. But, damn, lots of Queen Anne's Lace! Very pretty. But alas, if the human population of that park doesn’t pick up soon, those who favor economic progress will find a much better use for it. Sad to say it, but humans don’t always make the best decisions, especially when the profit motive is involved. As to going to ballgames, those things should be banned…just kidding. But, alas, your point is taken. And my smoking allergies aren't really the issue for me anyway. I think smoking is filthy and disgusting--but that aside, the tobacco industry is a societal pariah. I'd love to see government go beyond banning smoking, and actually ban the industry. This is no different than going after any other industry that pollutes, in my opinion. If you cause physical harm to others, then you should be subject to regulation, or an outright ban. Despite Supreme Court rulings concerning the 14th Amendment, I don't think corporations are people, but if so, then treat them like it. If I murdered someone, quickly, or slowly, then I'd be held accountable. Why shouldn't industries similarly be held accountable? Well, alas, I'm going way beyond the issue of a smoking ban, but that's a more honest enunciation of my position. Anyway, am I out of line in suggesting that what you perceive as the unconstitutionality of a smoking ban isn’t really your justification? (Since if the ban were encoded as an amendment, hence making it constitutional, you’d still be against it?) Thanks for taking a moment to respond to my incoherent rants. I read over your blog and you come across as a smart, reasonable, and insightful human being—and a compassionate one at that. I still hate smoking though--and right now, I'm not too keen on standing up for the rights of those who have blown toxic fumes in my face since I was a little kid. And I don't much like all the cigarrette butts I see all over the ground at the park either!!
I too think smoking is a ridiculous habit that no one should practice. But my dislike for it should not dictate whether or not others can smoke. I would rather do all I can to get people to quit without the government getting involved. There are many groups out there aimed at persuading people to quit or not start. They are helping by giving people valid reasons not to smoke. I think this helps more than making smokers feel like second class citizens.
I am rarely in favor of banning anything that is essentially victimless because those things will never actually go away. However I am in favor of putting social pressure on people to get them to stop doing things that might not be that great. The government just doesn't need to get involved.
And I believe that throwing cigarette butts on the ground is considered littering. Unfortunately this is rarely enforced.
Hi Kody - You are correct that throwing cig butts is considered littering. I would add, there is also a smoking ban. Why do you support one, and not the other?
I should also clarify my position. I wrote so much crap, that it probably wasn't clear. I don't want to ban smoking because of my personal dislike for it. For me the issue is that it hurts other people. So I guess our disagreement is over whether or not it is a "victimless crime." (That aside, I'm perfectly content to let people slowly kill themselves. I even believe in physician assisted suicide, so, I guess I'm content with people quickly killing themselves as well). That, in my opinion, is when the government has a right to intervene--as governments are instituted to protect people. Anyway, in the grand scheme of things, a smoking ban is way at the bottom of my list of things that I'm concerned about. There are other more aggregious violations of human rights in our society that I'm concerned with first. So, I'll give you the last word on this, as you'd probably whip my ass in this debate anyway.
Post a Comment