Some time back, I wrote this post about Centerville’s anti-smoking ordinance. An article in today’s Dayton Daily News states that this ordinance has now claimed its first victim, the Thirsty Dog Brewery.
The DDN site is one of those you have to register for, so I’ll include the relevant quotes to make my point.
A steep drop in business the past several months was cited Friday night by the restaurant’s general manager, Bill Burns, a direct result of the city’s smoking ban that went into effect April 4, he said.
City Council member Susan W. Lienesch, notified at home about the business closing, said she was “very sad … it wasn’t the city’s intention to put anyone out of business. If that’s what happened, then legislative bodies need to know that.”
It wasn’t the city’s intention to put anyone out of business? When you inflict arbitrary anti-smoking laws upon private property and business owners, knowing that some significant portion of their customers smoke or purchase tobacco at their establishment, you must have some idea that they’re going to be damaged. Not knowing beforehand that the businesses you’re affecting with your legislation rely on smokers for revenue is irresponsible and inexcusable, and pretending to be surprised after they close is disingenuous and insulting.
The owner of the Thirsty Dog, Terry Adkins, said in a statement before the City Council voted 6-0 nine months ago to enact the smoking ban that it would result in a loss of customers.
“It will terribly affect our business and it will definitely make us consider leaving,” Adkins is quoted as saying in the Dayton Daily News on Dec. 21.
Did the Centerville City Council not hear this statement by the owner, or did they disregard it because it didn’t fit their dystopian vision of jackbooted purity in the city’s restaurants?
“It was such a large restaurant if I had a customer who complained about the smoke, I’d say something to the cigar-smoker. Once we lost that cigar business, it seemed to steam roll. It’s a tough business,” he said.
Imagine that… the private business owner handled smoking complaints on his own without involvement from city government, but when the city handed down their illogical and draconian restrictions, business dried up.
The Thirsty Dog payroll included about 40 employees until recent weeks.
And I’m sure not one member of the Centerville City Council will lose a wink of sleep while these people stress out collecting unemployment or searching for new jobs. They knew places like Thirsty Dog would move out of town or cease operations, and I think they’re happy about it. They want non-smoking businesses in their city at whatever cost, and if 40 people have to lose their jobs, so be it; there is a certain amount of collateral damage Centerville will accept. Centerville City Council needs to be intellectually honest with the people they’re depriving of their livelihoods and come right out and state such.
My .Mac Web Gallery
Loading ...
September 24th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
I wonder if anyone has ever considered a smoking only establishment? Can you imagine a restaurant or bar that only allowed smokers? The non-smokers would be outraged and begging to get in.
September 25th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
I personally have no issue with others smoking- around me or not. However, in NYC here we’ve had this law in effect for several years now. There was a similar reaction at the time. Most people accept it without question now. The logic behind the law makes sense, while at the same time, defies it- On one hand, it completely violates the rights of the business owner to operate his place as he pleases. However, on the other hand, tobacco smoke is damaging in so many ways to the environment, the human body, and even to the walls of the establishment (Anyone who saw Grand Central in the early 90’s- before the 80 years of smoke was washed off the walls will know what I mean).
September 25th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
…continued:
I would typically hope that the rights of the owner would prevail over the concerns of few. (I would be willing to bet that out of non-smokers who frequent these establishments, its a minority that is concerned with the smoke).
But all that being said- Seeing people smoke inside now days to me seems SO backwards. I’m just not used to it anymore. It’s like spitting on the walls- It just doesn’t seem right to me anymore. So I guess the law has grown on me.
September 25th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
I believe it is entirely within the purview of government to disallow smoking in public places such as Grand Central. Public services and facilities need to be accessible to as many people as possible, and clean facilities are a must. But I obviously draw the line at government’s intrusion into private property, including but not limited to business.
Some people may point out that restaurants, the subject of this particular post, are already subject to government regulation in the form of health inspections and the like. That kind of government action is justified because diseases that result from improper food preparation are a threat to public health and can spread into the community. Second hand smoke, however, presents no such demonstrable danger, and any alleged malady resulting from it cannot cause an epidemic or otherwise be transferred to the community at large. Despite the rather effective propaganda campaign we’ve seen in the past decade from the anti-smoking crowd, there exists not one shred of evidence, not one documented case of a death or disease directly attributable to second hand smoke. I’ve seen some clever commercials that would lead the less critical viewer to believe otherwise. One comes readily to mind: A woman says that her father contracted lung cancer at the age of 35 (I’m guessing the age, I don’t remember precisely) but he never smoked. Then the voiceover says that second hand smoke is dangerous and the usual bit. But at no time during the commercial do they ever state the direct cause of this man’s lung cancer. Never once do they unequivocally state that second hand smoke killed this man. They imply it pretty hard, but they can’t draw that conclusion because it’s unsupported by fact. Watch these ads carefully and you’ll see the other implications without facts to back them up. Directly inhaled smoke has been conclusively shown to be harmful to the human body, but right now no such conclusion exists for second hand smoke.
Some may think smoke is disgusting, and it’s entirely their choice to frequent such establishments that promote a legal (for now) behavior of which they disapprove. If smoking in restaurants is that sickening to that many people, then the market should force those smoking establishments out of business. No interference from government of any level is needed.
What I found most troubling about the DDN article I quoted is that the owner of the Thirsty Dog told the City Council nine months ago, in as many words, that this ordinance would destroy his business. The council passed the ordinance anyway, and when at least one member heard that the owner’s forecast had become reality, she feigned shock and stated the city’s intention wasn’t to harm any business. As I said, this is disingenuous and insulting. This restaurant is closed and 40 people are out of work directly because of action taken by the city, and Centerville can’t even be forthright enough to admit they knew it was likely and that they aren’t concerned because it furthers their agenda.
Here’s what I found interesting about Paul’s comments:
New York is a pretty liberal city and my understanding is that one of the basic tenets of liberalism is “question authority”. So why aren’t the citizens of NY questioning authority when it comes to such an infringement of their privacy rights? The idea that they’ve accepted it with a “Whaddya gonna do?” attitude is bothersome. As the cliche goes, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and when it comes to this issue, it seems a different price is being paid.
September 26th, 2005 at 9:41 am
this really saddens me.. I railed against the law when it was passed (and am a nonsmoker). Thirsty Dog itself holds some dear memories for me also..
1. Only MicroBrew left in town (food sucked but beer was awesome, got me interested and starting to brew my own beer)
2. Where my wife and I had our first date and where we’ve gone back periodically on subsequent anniversaries.. (tried to go on Sunday even, not realizing it was closed)
well… Let Freedom Coalesece!
March 26th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
I lived in the area in the 80’s and enjoyed the Obadiah’s club on 725.
I am sorry to hear of the loss of this restaurant as from what I am reading, it was a favorite for those of you who live in Centerville. We have had many closings up here in Columbus. I see that the Dayton Daily News at least will report these. The Dispatch has been rather silent on the matter for the most part.
The smoking ban in Columbus has been a direct hardship to musicians playing live music clubs especially.
Draw has been down consistently since 02/05 when the all inclusive Columbus smoking ban went into effect and some clubs are cutting corners and going to DJ karaoke route as they simply cannot afford live bands anymore.
Many small neighborhood bars are just saying…”hell no, we won’t go antismoking” and just ignore the ban. They would rather pay the fines than close their doors.
Don’t let anyone talk you into the “level playing field” of the propsed Ohio law. The only thing that will be leveled will be ALL the clubs in Ohio and they will all suffer these same hardships going on in Columbus at the after- dinner clubs (neighborhood pubs and live music bars). The Columbus ban is the model for the ban SmokeFree Ohio is pushing for and is one of the strictest ones in the entire nation.
For now, I enjoy playing out of town in Ohio and have had to make this adjustment for my vocation to not become just a hobby.
Smoking bans are the start of antis and do-gooders in general wanting night club culture to simply die totally. There are many other prohibition organizations that have ties to the antismoking organizations.
Smoking bans are the guinea pig to see if they can bring their particular “missions” to the table.
I hope I will not be able to say a short time down the road “I told you so” if you take these bans at face value simply because of a preference for not being in a smoking environment.
We are already seeing our Columbus City Council feeling enabled in other “for the greater good” ways since the smoking ban passed. Watch yourself in Columbus as the insection cameras will be going up soon. Who knows what other “bright ideas” our council has on their plate? I may move out of here soon so I do not have to find out.
March 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Wow, great comment, Thanks for taking the time to post.
I’ve lived in Dayton, Ohio, for all but a few months of my life and I really like it here. But some of the things that have been happening locally and state-wide have made me start thinking about whether this is where I want to be long-term. The cost and standard of living here is very good, and I’m making a fine living in a nice suburban neighborhood. I don’t foresee any problems with my employment. Personal circumstances such as these aren’t what make me doubt my future in Ohio, rather some of the activist, nanny state, do-gooder citizens do. Combine that with Ohio’s painful state taxes and a state government that appears to be nothing short of corrupt and incompetent, and you understand what I’ve begun thinking about other places.
I try to avoid hyperbole in serious discussion such as this, but what you’ve described here as happening in Columbus truly scares me, in the sense that I get a little knot in my stomach thinking of what additional restrictions the nannies have in mind. I was initially appalled at the passage of issue one in 2004 (which I’ve written about elsewhere on this site) because it’s the use of the state constitution as an enforcement of morals and preferences rather than a solution to a problem that deprives citizens of life, liberty, or property. Prohibiting same-sex marriage, allowing DUI checkpoints, compelling suspects to give evidence against themselves at those checkpoints, prohibiting smoking on private property (whether enforced on a state or local level), banning cell phone use in cars, releasing dangerous sex offenders into communities and tracking them, and seat belt requirements are the most prominent issues on my mind that I group under the category “civil liberties”, and I feel they’re being violated. I really don’t think the state or local government needs to be involved in my life or livelihood to the extent they are (and propose to be).
Same-sex marriage does not threaten the life, liberty, or property of any other citizen, nor does it place an undue burden on government. It protects the rights and property of those who engage in it. Government’s purpose is to protect citizens’ rights and property, not deny them of it.
Stopping all drivers along a certain road to make sure they’re obeying the law is absurd and a direct violation of the fourth amendment,
Unless I am threatening others with my inability to control my vehicle, I expect to be secure in my person and effects from unreasonable search. Same for cell phone use and seat belts; If I’m not a danger to others, I’m not a criminal. Being in a state where you can potentially become a danger to others (or not) is also not a crime, in my opinion. Ask the people from Texas this week who were arrested for being drunk in a bar how their rights have been trampled on. We’ve reached the point where the fact that you may commit a crime, is a crime.
I should have the right to remain silent and not incriminate myself, without penalty, if I’m pulled over for DUI. From the fifth amendment:
Blowing into a breathalizer is certainly becoming a witness against yourself. Whether you’re over the legal limit or have no blood alcohol whatsoever, you’re providing evidence for the prosecutors, and in Ohio, refusing to provide evidence against yourself in this circumstance is, in itself, a crime.
If sex offenders are so dangerous that they need to be tracked after they’re released from prison, why are they released? And if an individual is considered safe enough for release, why track them? Is there no point at which they have paid their debt to society? And if not, why, again, are they out of jail? And why track only sex criminals? Would you like to know who in your neighborhood has been convicted of burglary or auto theft?
Your excellent reply to this post makes the point that governments and the citizens who petition them (gay marriage, anti-smoking) need to realize that their efforts to legislate the behaviors of others that they find distasteful (but not harmful) will have unintended consequences that will quietly be ignored, to the detriment of us all. So far, affected groups such as smokers and homosexuals have engaged in a lethargic defense at best. I’m sincerely concerned what kind of place Ohio will be to live a decade or more from now. Government intervention into our personal habits and lives can only result in misery.
If people don’t want to go to a smoking bar or restaurant, they have every right not to go or to frequent establishments where smoking is prohibited. Likewise, business owners have every right to permit or prohibit smoking on their premises to cater to the clientele they prefer. I don’t understand why that concept is unacceptable and why some people find it hard to comprehend.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I don’t feel like America is the home of the free anymore. It’s like communisum. We’re told what we can do on our property and in our cars. If I don’t want to wear a seatbelt, I’m not hurting anyone but maybe myself and it certainly shouldn’t be a matter for the law. If a business wants to have a smoking room for it’s employees, then that should be their right. Where I worked in Kettering, they had a smoking room in the basemnet for employees, which certainly wasn’t going to effect anyone else, but that was stopped because of our laws in this free country.This is America and we shouldn’t be dictated as to what we do.
October 12th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
It’s nice to have someone local make a comment. Thanks Diane. Obviously I agree with your sentiments and I wonder when America in general will wake up and realize that personal liberty is far more valuable to our future success than attempting to eliminate every possible risk in life via smothering government regulation.
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:51 pm
my god…someone actually making some sense.
I have just returned to the Centerville area since leaving and living in the UK for the last 8 years (I’m from the UK originally), my American wife and I decided to move back to her hometown to raise our kids and have some sort of standard of living as opposed to the high costs of London. (this is all pertinent)
The term Freedom is thrown about way to much as a catchphrase or useful word when describing what the USA has over others…well it’s a farce, like I’ve said I’ve lived both sides of the pond and for all the stupid laws in the UK (you NEED a TV license is just the start)at least we are in the open about the civil liberties or lack off…in any one day in London you will probably been recorded around 300 times by CCTV, we know it and some of us get caught doing stupid things and some don’t, that’s life as we’ve accepted it. It was the way the Police, so they say caught the Tube bombers associates so quickly.
Please can someone list the ACTUAL FREEDOMS that the USA believes it has, as everyday I seem to come up against new restrictions and policies that challenge those so-called freedoms.
Very few people in the US bother to question authority anymore, that’s not to be obstructive or unhelpful, but if something doesn’t sound right then a natural human response should be to question it.
The problem as I see it with the Dayton area is to many puritanical hypocrites with no experience of the real world, imposing their views on others without thought to peoples choice…Too Many Churches, count em, and not enough Pubs (not Sports Bars)
October 23rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
The comments this post gets continue to surprise and encourage me. It’s nice to know that this issue is so important that, even on my little blog, people feel the need to intelligently respond. And now we have the view of Nathan, who is not a natural born American, with some very good questions and points.
Nathan, I think over the past 15 years or so, many Americans have started to believe they have a right not to be offended and a right not to be made even the slightest bit uncomfortable. It’s part of our rapidly intensifying entitlement mentality. We have become a country that is sharply averse to risk or unpleasantness of any kind, and if that means government must be strengthened to save people from themselves or clamp down on the annoyances of life with draconian regulations, all the better, in their minds.
I have to agree with some of the commenters here that I don’t feel “free” anymore. I’m not suggesting that some kind of police state is smothering us, rather, my intention is to lament the loss of the idea in America that life is about give and take, the free market, new ideas, and confidence in the individual. As long as citizens aren’t depriving each other of life, liberty, or property, where’s the crime? Where’s the need for government involvement? I don’t like the way government’s tentacles are creeping into my life in so many different ways.
Nobody is entitled to be free from annoyance or offense. Nobody is entitled to a life of dancing bunnies and singing flowers in a green meadow. And again, I challenge anyone to post here a link to any study recognized by the AMA that conclusively proves that second-hand smoke is the directly attributable cause of death of even one person. Let the free market take care of the demand for smokeless restaurants and other facilities, not government. Let individuals act freely in their own self-interest without harming others.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I have been following the smokeing bans all around. What gets me the worse is the control they try to exibit. I.E. My hospital here in wilmington is now saying they are going smoke free. They are trying to tell us that we cannot do it in our cars. They don’t cover any thing if my car gets hit in the parking lot so how can they dictate what I do in my car as long as it is leagal. I know it is against the law, in ohio, to not allow me to smoke in my vehicle on “private property”. I cannot find the statue and have been looking hard for it.
I wish someone would have enough money to sue these people for discrimination. Cause that is what it is in essence. Tobbacco is still a leagal substance.
November 16th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Considering this is now past the November elections, and Ohio has determined “non-smoking” will be the law of any public place…..I think I see a common theme as to why it passed. It wasn’t about smoking in bars. It was about closing them altogether. To sell off liquor licenses to places like Appleby’s, or a Ruby Tuesdays. A place where non-smokers could sip their virgin dacquiri’s and snicker……knowing full-well, they had finally written off the hole in the wall tavern.
the night club
the outdoor live band patios…..all of it. It was never about smoking or not smoking at all….but the non-smokers DID realize……smoking occured in the places they wanted OUT of their neighborhoods & gated communities.
and so…..this was their angle. They lived in fear of nightclub fires (haha….the old throwback to Great White)…..they feared clublife (god forbid anyone ever raved…..must mean drugs are coming to town….give me a break OHIO….they were here long ago). Outdoor concerts (Polaris….legend valley…..etc)…..and you turkeys moved into condos bordering their property.
they were there before you…and in no way shape or form, should they…the business owners…now have to cater to you. There exists the concept of Grandfather Clause.
Means…what’s there is there…if you don’t like it….don’t go there & try to change it….simply because “you” are there. Also implies…what they do….and what they’ve paid in taxes…property rights…and business choices…..is not for you to dictate, just because you like the new condo complex.
It might be a kiss my arse point of view……but you as an individual…..can buy property wherever it is “available”…not necessarily “accomodating”. Either you get along with your neighbors…..move somewhere else….or just hush up for being there. Some smoke…some don’t.
some drink…some don’t
some party…some don’t
some go to concerts…some put on blinders and pretend the rest of the world isn’t having fun……and label them all as sinners while they wait for their bread biscuits at the Red Lobster.
put that bar worker out of a job, and I guarantee you….goody-two shoes americans that you think you are for wiping the slate clean of vices in your mind…that they….will be your server at said restaurant….and you will be waiting a long time for your drinks sans smoke.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Well Ohio is officially smoke free now. I hope the voters are happy because now that the government sees we are in favor of banning our own freedoms they can now move on with banning others items no so bad as smoking.
What’s next everyone? You can already see the working of the government taking our freedoms away such as forcing fast food establishments to bad Trans fats.
I will tell you what is next. They are sooner or later going to tell over weight men and women they can no longer eat fast food and claim they are just looking out for their health. The voters of Ohio just opened themselves up for a whole new can of worms because now the government will start taking our freedoms away.
Sooner or later SUV’s will be banned because of ozone and greenhouse effect concerns. Then they will move to alcohol saying we can no longer drink in bars and only in hour homes to combat DUI’s.
Yes everyone our freedoms will slowly start going away now that we have set a precedent.
I am not a smoker and honestly think the habit is dirty and disgusting BUT as much as I hate smoking I love freedom even more. If I was going out to eat with my wife and kids I simply would sit
in a non smoking section or go somewhere else. If I were looking for a job and didn’t want to be around smoke I would just not work in a place that allowed it. It’s that simple but Ohioans wanted the government to interfere and they actually asked them to take our freedom away.
This is just the start everyone. Let’s all wait and see what freedom they take away from us next.