DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum New Smoking Ban To Affect Trucking Companies

That's what I figured. It should be OK for a business to decide that it wants to smoke, but not OK for me to have a no-smoking trucking company.

Just wanted to be clear.

Michelle understood my point as she usually does.

That was a law passed by referendum...meaning it was up to voters to decide.

If that is condition of empolyment, you have that right.


The world is going mad.

Wrong. I should be able to decide whether I want to work for you just as you can decide if you want to allow smoking in your trucks. Same thing as me deciding which restaurants I frequent...ones that allow smoking or ones that don't.

Exactly. Just as if smoking is allowed when a driver is hired, then the policy changes, that driver can make his choice to stay or go. I don't get the confusion.

The confusion will be when the business owner--who you said has the right to make his own rules--fires all the smokers, they go get the lawyers, and the next thing you know, there is no company left to drive for anyway.

Not smoking makes you healthier .... and wealthier ..... <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/smokwlth.htm

SMOKING HURTS WEALTH AS WELL AS HEALTH, STUDY SUGGESTS
COLUMBUS, Ohio ? Maybe packs of cigarettes should come with a new warning:

"Smoking is hazardous to your wealth."

A new study suggests that typical non-smokers? net worth is roughly 50 percent higher than that of light smokers and about twice the level of that of heavy smokers.

And that wealth gap grows by about $410, or 4 percent, each year that a person continues to smoke, said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University?s Center for Human Resource Research.

Federal statistics on cigarette spending suggest that the wealth reductions are roughly equal to how much smokers spend on their habit.

?We don?t have any direct proof, but taking the study results and the federal statistics together, it seems that the money smokers spend on cigarettes comes out of income that normally would be saved,? Zagorsky said.

?It may be that smokers spend as much as others on everything else, and pay for smoking out of potential savings.?

The study was published in the current issue of the journal Tobacco Control.

The study used data involving about 8,900 people who participated in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which is funded primarily by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The NLSY is a nationally representative survey of people nationwide conducted by Ohio State?s Center for Human Resource Research.

The people in this study were interviewed in 1985, 1992, 1994, and 1998 about a variety of issues, including smoking and wealth.

In this study, light smokers were defined as those who reported smoking less than a pack a day on average, while heavy smokers used more than a pack a day. Wealth included home values, cash savings, stocks, bonds, and auto values, among other assets. Outstanding debts were subtracted from that total.

The participants in this study were between 33 and 40 years old in 1998, the last year of this study, Zagorsky said. By that time in their lives, they had not accumulated much wealth. The average net worth of all participants in 1998 was about $50,000.

While it was obvious that smokers had less wealth, Zagorsky said smokers also tend to come from lower socioeconomic categories, which may influence how much wealth they accumulate. So he analyzed the data taking into account many factors that may influence wealth, including education, race, and even income.

Even after these factors are taken into account, heavy smokers had a net worth that was about $8,300 less than non-smokers, while light smokers? net worth was about $2,000 lower.

In 2001, the typical smoker spent $715 per year on tobacco products. Multiplying this by the 7.5 years young baby boomers typically have smoked shows that the average baby boomer has spent more than $5,300 during their adult life on this habit. This figure is roughly right between the amount net worth falls for light smokers vs. heavy smokers, he said.

Zagorsky noted that the participants in this study were relatively young adults, with the oldest being 40 years old when the study concluded. That suggests the wealth gap could grow even larger if smokers continue their habit.

?Every year of smoking causes net worth to fall by almost 4 percent, so the effects add up over the years,? he said.

?Since the typical family in the United States currently has relatively little wealth and saves relatively little money, the financial implications are clear ? if you smoke and want to increase your wealth, stop smoking.?

Hey Michelle - you're down Dayton way right? I just heard on WTAM in Cleveland that WLW in Cinci is reporting that the Ohio Attorney General has put the smoking ban on hold until next spring ... can't find a link - WLW's homepage won't load for me.

Must be a smoker,,.... <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Wow. Your conditions of employment are your rules. If drivers don't want to comply, they can quit or you can fire them if they don't comply. They can't sue you for that. I can't smoke in the spa -- and I don't sue them because I can't smoke while I give a massage. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Or quit.

The last stat I saw was somewhere around 20% of the Ohio population are smokers.

Yeah, but you don't smoke anyway,...you did say you quit right,...??

Good for you,..and your health. (Sorry I made you angry.)

Exactly... Medical Mutual of Ohio won't even hire you if you are a tobacco user. Note, not just smoker, but tombacco user.

Work is a privilege, not a right.

They just did an update on the local news. It's not on hold, but there will be no fines until the rules are made in June (or is it July). As it stands, the policy has not been put in place by lawmakers, but by Smoke Free Ohio. They are not the "law." That's what's being fought. So, until OHIO sets the rules, no fines for smoking too close to or in a building.

Tabacco is not ILEAGAL. Do they also not hire people that drink every night?

I don't think it matters if it's legal, remember,...businesses should be allowed to make their own rules,....

It's already ugly. Standing in the middle of a parking lot with snow flying around, and 20 to 30 MPH winds while smoking is not pretty. The cold doesn't bother me, but the wet clothes do <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119585&article=1550722

Smoking Ban on Hold

AG says ban can't be enforced
By 700WLW News
Thursday, December 7, 2006
To hear the report from 700WLW's Bill Rinehart, click here:
(go to the link to hear the report)

Right....and I agree. However, drinking is far more dangerous than smoking...why just pick on smokers? Also, if I pay a higher premium because I'm a smoker, why should it matter if I smoke on my own time?

On this note, I'm heading to a smokey, drinky place to watch the game. Have a good night breathing your fresh air, everyone! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Hey, is this discussion about over yet,...? I gotta get going down to the bar, where I don't know if there'll be smoking yet, because the governemnt can't make a decision, but I'm going anyway because the Browns are more important to me than fresh air is, and it's a long walk down there because my wife won't let me smoke in my own truck,.... <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Right. No fines....but probably no smoking from most owners either. Of course, it's still up to them as far as I can tell. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I have been to a couple of stores (family owned) that allowed smoking. The ashtrays are gone, and there's no smoking inside. It was almost weird to walk in and not smell the musty smell of lingering smoke in the air. Nice though. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Wonder how whatever bar I wind up at tonight will be?

No, tobacco is not illegal... but it doesn't have to be. It's their right as an employer to hire the people they choose to employ.

The funny thing about the alcohol comment is that if someone is addicted to cigarettes, they are just expected to quit to keep their job or whatever, but that is unenforceable with alcohol because addiction to alcohol = alcoholism which is a disease and it would be discrimination to fire someone for their disease.

This country is soooooo screwed up it isn't even funny.
It's hip to hate on smoking, so the same things that apply to other addictions don't apply to it.

If there are no fines there is no ban ... why would a bar owner chase business away if there are no consequences?

In the meantime, an organization of bar and restaurant owners are starting a petition to put an initiative on the May ballot that would allow liquor-licensed business owners to decide the smoking policy of their own business ... gets my vote every time.

Now if that passes, I WILL open a no-smoking bar.

well, that would be a start.... get them as an exception and build from there to get ALL businesses their rights back.

Let the free market rule ... reject the nanny state.

The funny thing about the alcohol comment is that if someone is addicted to cigarettes, they are just expected to quit to keep their job or whatever, but that is unenforceable with alcohol because addiction to alcohol = alcoholism which is a disease and it would be discrimination to fire someone for their disease.


Now that is one well-placed, thought out comment/argument.

Do you think it would make it,...?

I don't know if you can put the toothpaste back in the tube ... this country has gone so far the other way that its getting a little scary. But you're right, its a start.

You're asking the wrong guy - I wouldn't go to a nonsmoking bar if they had nickel beers. I guess there are enough non-smokers who like bars that it might. My problem is when they come to my smoking bar and want to tell everybody to put it out.

See, I've never done that. Your bar just won't get my business. What's more important is what it boils down to.

I just might try it anyway,...(opening a smokeless)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...

Jacobs Field bans all smoking to comply with new law

December 7, 2006

CLEVELAND (AP) -- Smoking will be prohibited throughout Jacobs Field next season in compliance with Ohio's new ban.

Starting with the Cleveland Indians' home opener April 6, fans will not be allowed to smoke anywhere, including outdoor patio areas, lounges and interior suites.

The law took effect Thursday and applies to the ballpark's Terrace Club restaurant, the only area with public access during the offseason.

Indians vice president Bob DiBiasio said stadium workers would ask fans who light up to put it out.

Last week, officials in Hamilton County advised the Cincinnati Reds and Cincinnati Bengals to ban smoking in and around their stadiums to comply with the law, which was approved by 58 percent of voters on Election Day.

The law prohibits smoking in nearly all public buildings and work places. Exceptions include tobacco shops, designated hotel rooms and enclosed areas of nursing homes.

Jacobs Field and the adjacent basketball arena, home of the Cavaliers, were built in part with money from a tax on alcohol and tobacco products.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-smokingban-jacobsfield&prov=ap&type=lgns

***************

Seems to me the Indians should be happy if anyone wants to pay to see their sorry-ass product. But that's just me.

Okay, they keep using the word "law" but I can't find a written one. Can anyone help?

well, the smoking ban is gonna save lives, plus now i wont have to go to a bar and puke...( puke everytime i smell cigs, lol kinda sucks cause i puke everytime i go to party.........)

Is this it?

Ohio voters passed Issue 5 on Nov. 7, 2006, creating Ohio?s indoor smoking ban under a new chapter of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) effective Dec. 7, 2006. This new law requires ?public places? and ?places of employment? prohibit smoking as of that date. These business and organizations must also post ?No Smoking? signs that contain the telephone number 1-866-559-OHIO (6446) for reporting violations; and remove ashtrays and other smoking receptacles.

To read the entire ORC Chapter 3794, click here.


To implement and enforce this new law, the Director of Health will adopt rules focusing on enforcement authority and procedures. While ORC Chapter 3794 is effective Dec. 7, 2006, the director of health then has six months, or until June 7, 2007, to adopt rules.



While the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) and other organizations work through the rule-making process, businesses and organizations will be required to comply with the statute starting Dec. 7. In order to help affected entities towards complying with the new law during the rule-making process, ODH provides the following interim guidance:



? Prohibit smoking in any ?public place? or ?place of employment? as of Dec. 7, 2006. For definitions of a ?public place? and ?place of employment,? please follow this link to ORC 3794.01 Definitions.ORC 3794.01 Definitions



? All ?public places? and ?places of employment? must, by Dec. 7, 2006, post conspicuous signs at each entrance. The signs must be clearly legible and shall contain a toll-free number for reporting violations. ODH has designed two sample signs which, when properly placed, meet the requirements of ORC 3794.06 (A) Posting of Signs.

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/alerts/ohiosmokingban.aspx

Ohio smoking ban will not be enforced

The state of Ohio has delayed enforcing the new smoking ban until specific rules and regulations are written.

The decision was made after settlement talks between the Ohio Attorney General's office and lawyers for two groups that had filed suits challenging the constitutionality of the Smoke Free Workplace Act that went into effect shortly after midnight.

The Ohio Department of Health has six months to write rules, but expects to do so sooner.

"We've been on a fast track from the beginning, so I don't see that changing," said Health Department spokesman Jay Carey. "We going to make sure we've got rules that are fair to everyone. As soon as the rules are implemented, enforcement will be."

It comes down to this: Instead of issuing warning letters for first violations, the state will send informational letters about the public smoking ban.

Warning letters were to have served as a first strike, followed by a fine for subsequent violations.

No matter how many informational letters an establishment receives before the new rules go into effect, they won't count as prior violations in the establishment's case file.

Patrick Carroll, president of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, which has about 250 members in an eight-county region making up Southwest Ohio, said his members were elated by news of the consent agreement.

"I've informed my members to carry on as usual," Carroll said from Westy's Pub in Madeira. "I've told them, 'Smoke 'em if you got 'em.' "

But supporters of the public smoking ban, which voters approved on Nov. 7, were disappointed.

"I've got three kids and if we go out as a family, I'll stay away from a place I know is consistently smoky," said Mark Sparks of Pierce Township. "I'm sure that if there's not even a slap on the wrist, some places will flout the law. That's too bad, but what can you do?"

About 22 percent of adult Ohioans smoke, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Around Greater Cincinnati, owners and managers of bars, restaurants, bowling centers and other businesses braced for the smoking ban by removing ashtrays and posting no-smoking signs.

Last call for cigarettes and cigars came shortly before midnight Wednesday. Prohibition - at least, the kind of prohibition with teeth - lasted all of 16 hours.

Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association filed suit Wednesday against the Ohio Department of Health, alleging that the Ohio Smoke Free Workplace Act violated the state constitution.

It asked for a temporary restraining order to suspend the law, but didn't ask for an emergency hearing. Thus the law went into effect 12:01 a.m.

A second lawsuit was filed in Franklin County.

Carey said the issuance of informational letters instead of warning letters to violators doesn't change the fact that the smoke-free law is now in effect. He said the department hadn't planned to send warning letters anyway until rules were written.

"Whether the enforcement provisions are in effect or not, the law is the law," he said. "We expect high compliance."

So does Peter Osborne, spokesman for the American Cancer Society in Cincinnati.

The American Cancer Society was the lead advocate of the Smoke Free Ohio referendum of Nov. 7. He said he suspects businesses will comply with the law, enforced or not.

"The law is on the books as of today," Osborne said. "Just because there's no police officer on every street in the country does not mean you're not expected to do the speed limit."

Indeed, many establishments have no intention to restore smoking.

Other than perhaps a smoking of the Oakland Raiders, the Cincinnati Bengals will host their first smoke-free game at Paul Brown Stadium this Sunday. Smoking will be prohibited in seats as well as in previous smoking decks.

Duke Energy Ohio won't allow smoking outside the doors of its building at Fourth and Main downtown, where it is housing its holiday train display. Duke Realty Corp. removed cigarette butt urns Thursday from the areas next to the doors of its office buildings and posted no-smoking signs.

The lawsuit, filed by lawyer Louis Sirkin in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, says the smoking ban infringes on the fundamental right to earn a living and constitutes an unlawful taking without just compensation.

Micah Berman, executive director of the Tobacco Public Policy Center at Capital University in the Columbus suburb of Bexley - which provides legal support for tobacco-control efforts - said such lawsuits generally flop.

"Constitutional challenges have uniformly failed," Berman said. "All the issues in this suit have been raised before elsewhere, and I expect will fail here as well."

A group of tavern, casino and supermarket owners in Nevada, for example, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a public smoking ban approved by 54 percent of Nevada voters. The law was to take effect today. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday.

For details on how this will affect Northeast Ohio businesses, watch Channel 3 News at 11 p.m.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=60343

I went out tonight to watch the game .... and for the 1st time in as long as I can remember, didn't come home smelling like smoke. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

That's text of the "proposed" law, yes. Doesn't mention December that I can find.

I talked with a friend last night that was in a local bar for the game...she said they were smoking away and there were ashtrays everywhere. A cop was there talking with the owner. Don't know what happened after that. I think it's funny and if I were a bar owner, I would let people smoke until this state gets its eggs in a basket.

i was at blind pig last night for the game and i can tell you that the only people who came out in that cold to go to a bar either smoked or don't care about people smoking. i'm tired of people trying to push their beliefs on me especially when they don't even understand what they're voting for. i'm willing to bet most of the people who supported the ban are people who rarely go out to bars or even restaurants and mostly just stay home and talk about what people "should" be doing...