DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ohio Senate proposal to modify Ohio smoking ban

Following is a letter to the editor of the Hillsborough Times-Gazette in support of Ohio Senate Bill 346 which, if passed, would ease restrictions on small businesses to provide a smoke-free venue.


http://www.timesgazette.com/main.asp?Sec...amp;TM=66030.51


7/18/2008 10:49:00 AM

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Ohio Senate should pass SB 346

To the editor:

As a family operated small business owner in Ohio, I urge Ohio senators to support the passage of Ohio SB346. The passage of this bill to clarify the language used in the ill-conceived "Smoke Free Work Place Act" would be an effective liberty preserving compromise to ensure the spirit, and intent of providing the sought after, but quite unnecessary "protection" for all employees from the alleged effects of second-hand smoke. Sufficient warning through appropriate signage, as decided upon by the individual small business owners and in order to meet free market demand for smoking venues, easily provides the "minimum standard of protection" cited by that law.

Small businesses (private property) are typically owned by individuals (not the public) and the choice to patronize or be employed in such businesses based at least in part on the environment offered there is a civil liberty historically worthy of protection. Passage of SB346 would clear the air of the palpable deceit surrounding the imposition of the new law and get Ohio citizens back into the clubs, bars, and family owned businesses that make up a significant portion of the state and national economy. "Non-profit" campaigns to redefine private property rights in Ohio, specifically to gain unprecedented rule-making authority have been allowed to continue for far too long. The Smoke Free Workplace Act was meticulously crafted with the hospitality and entertainment industries clearly in mind as a method to coerce smokers into quitting by specifically reducing individual choice. It is a selfishly absurd form of totalitarian rule and promotes an agenda that is completely opposite to the preservation of individual liberty. How this law impacted any other industry was purely incidental.

Likewise, amending ORC 3794, with dollar amount thresholds for food sales would be no less absurd. Because it's a personal choice to be there in the first place, the ridiculous notion that the alleged danger would somehow be magically lessened in any degree by some random percentage of food sales is flatly preposterous. A sign at the entrance of each business is all that was ever required as previously outlined in ORC 3791.031.

Signage also eliminates the necessity of treating every adult in Ohio as if they were imbecilic children.

Passage of SB346 would mean the property rights of small business owners would be restored, and recognition that everyone is entitled to choice (including citizens who smoke) would be an effective message to quell the commercially driven agenda of forced compliance "for your own good" currently promoted so vehemently by the health-scare industry and their pharmaceutical co-conspirators. Free choice places the onus of personal responsibility for ones' own health on the individual, (smokers and non-smokers alike) and removes it from the hands of government where it simply does not belong. Whether voters were educated on the issue or not, it is clear that a disproportionate number of votes were cast based solely on the information placed before voters once inside the voting booth. Regardless of what "they should have known," what they have discovered since Dec. 7, 2007 (another day in infamy), is that the actual ballot language was quite obviously and deliberately deceptive.

Smoking bans are clearly not about the health of non-smokers; if that were true, we would be debating full blown tobacco prohibition; not restrictions on tobacco use, or the forfeiture of individual liberty in the clandestine interest of corporate profit. Rescinding liberty for profit under the guise of offering protection is treasonous behavior, as the only healthy interests associated with smoking bans are those of the pharmaceutical companies' bottom line.

Choice is still the first BEST option to avoid any exposure to second-hand smoke. It always was. I urge you to restore and uphold the rights and civil liberties of all citizens and support Ohio SB346.

Sincerely,

William Brown

Hillsboro


Read SB346 here:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_346

Find and contact your State Senator and your State Representative here:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/search.cfm#reps_zip

(Just type in your Zip Code and your Ohio Senator and Ohio House Representative will be shown. Click the entry and use the email links to contact them.)

Send Governor Strickland a message here:
http://governor.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=448

A form is provided to send your message to the Governor


Let your legislators and governor know that you support personal and private property rights.


Thanks for reading this.

Dave

As long as Houston stays smoke free I don't care what Ohio does

Does the city of Houston, or the state of Texas, dictate to private property and business owners what legal activities can take place on their premises? What would be so wrong with letting the market decide? If the hue-and-cry for smoke-free venues is so great, wouldn't an establishment that is smoke-free flourish?

i always thought that law was so stupid....

i smoke, but i respect non-smokers too....

i fail to see why they couldn't have said declare one way or the other....i.e. smoking or non...for your establishment...

then the market would have dictated....

all the non-smokers would go to non-smoking bars, and all the smokers to smoking bars...


last year i was at a small bar that has a smoking patio....there was about 30 people there.....1 guy was sitting in the bar......the rest were outside....totally stupid law..

That's how the small bar we frequent is...a handful of people inside and 20 outside. Of course, nothing matters but that handful, you know. It's all about them.

Up until Novemeber 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pm, I was a 4 pack a day smoker.. I would have applauded this back then..

Today, to tell the truth,, I like going to resturants and bars and not smell smoke. Just a preference.

But, my wife is still a smoker. maybe less than one pack a day. I don't like that she has to go out to a patio area outside in the middle of winter to have a cig.

People still smoke.. and they still drink and most often, the two go together.

Let them smoke in bars..

Congrats for quitting. The free market could handle this very nicely, if it was allowed to. Capitalism is the ultimate meritocracy - very Darwinian - survival of the fittest, and all that. Reasonable people can disagree about the smoking / non-smoking debate, but I don't know anyone who thinks we (smokers) should have no options except to go outside into the elements to engage in a still-legal behavior.

And that doesn't even address the whole issue of private property rights infringement by this law.

I hope enough people contact their Senator to get this passed. I would and I don't smoke anymore.

j/c

What I find funny/odd/ironic is, this state, nor any other state, would be able to function if it weren't for the taxes smokers pay.

It's funny/odd/ironic, because, while the state still wants the smokers tax money, they don't want them to be able to smoke anywhere except outside. But, still smoke, people, we need your money, PLUS by banning smoking in indoor places, we, the gov't. get to enhance our image and get more votes! A win win for gov't. Forget about businesses making their own decisions, we'll decide what's good for them.........er, we'll decide whats good for us.

That's the attitude gov't. has - if it still brings in tax money, AND brings in votes, we're all for it.

Quote:

---

Congrats for quitting.

---

Thanks,, Hyponosis did the trick for me.. Oddly, it didn't help my wife at all..

I guess I just wanted to quit.. and she didn't.

how come when we decide whats good for the gov't they never do it?

Quote:

---

I don't care what Ohio does

---

wow.

you can lay your life on the line for ohio.

you cant even smoke a cigarette in a vets bar.

you can pay for cleveland browns stadium.

I agree with your sentiment, but just for the record, Racer didn't say that ... it was Jaybird.

I don't smoke, but I think the owner of the business should be able to decide if they want smoking inside their business. Then I, as a non-smoker, have the choice to go to businesses that allow smoking or go to ones that don't. That way EVERYONE has a choice.

i'm in a pool league south of dayton, and EVERY bar we shoot out of lets you smoke. no ashtrays, just empty cans. one even charges you a buck to smoke for the night!! now mind you that these are just little bars. but i can think of only 2 BARS in town that makes you go outside. they have only busted 3-4 bars here. and they were the eagles, VFW and the moose lodge. so some member there narced them out, sad. but this town is blue collar and the cops have better things to do than try to catch us somking a cig in a BAR. wow, i sad something good about cops, always a first

It appears to me that it is slowly being realized (especially at the lower levels) that this was a poorly conceived plan just as many of us posted when it first came to be. Here is an article that displays how counties are "giving back" to the state because they don't have the money nor the manpower to enforce the law:

Board: Can’t fund smoking ban cases
By MARY ANN GREIER
POSTED: July 17, 2008


LISBON - With no funds to enforce the smoking ban in public places, the Columbiana County Health Board opted Wednesday to turn the program over to the state.

"In no way does this mean the health department condones smoking," board vice chairman Shawn Apple said, explaining the department just can't implement the rules without funding.

The county health district became one of 19 county departments to give the program back to the state. When asked when the turnover takes effect, Health Commissioner Robert Morehead said he would need to notify the Ohio Department of Health about the board's action and ask their representative for more details.

Morehead raised the issue with board members, saying if they decided to keep the program, they would need to form a committee to hear administrative appeals over
complaints or hire an attorney to perform the function, which would be costly, considering the county gets no funding from the state for enforcement of the smoking ban.

The county would get 90 percent of the fine money, but fines only total about $100 each. He also said a separate inspection of facilities would be required. The health department couldn't just rely on the food sanitarians to do the work because the inspection has to be separate.

He also pointed out that in the case of private clubs, the inspector would have to be buzzed in and by the time they got inside, all cigarettes would likely be extinguished.

The health department doesn't get any funding for school safety inspections, either, which are required, but Morehead said he considers those more valuable since the inspections can help keep students safe. In the case of the smoking ban, they're trying to intervene in adult behavior.

Mary Ann Greier can be reached at mgreier@salemnews.net

I'm an ex-smoker and I have no problem making people go outside to have a smoke. Especially in a restaurant. If you can't wait that extra 10-15 minutes to light up then you've got a problem. Same for an office environment. I don't need to smell your stink while I'm working.

If you want to make it an optional thing in a bar, where no food is consumed, be my guest. Frankly, even having been a smoker, I think tobacco addicts are some of the biggest whiners around. JMHO

You are missing the point entirely. It should be the decision of the OWNER of the business to decide what he allows and what he doesn't. Then YOU have a choice whether or not to eat there. If someone "has a problem" it's THEIR problem to deal with. It's not up to you or the government to make them deal with their problem.

You talk about whining? Those demanding that no business should be allowed to run it as they see fit are the real whiners. After all, if there are two bars and one allows smoking and one doesn't, the non smoker can choose to go to the one that doesn't. Why is it the non smoker feels it is their right to not give anyone a choice just because they don't like something? Why not have alternatives for everyone? That's pretty sad when you really think about it.

I missed no point. I saw all of the comments regarding free choice. My point would be that this is essentially a health issue. As such, I have no problem with a smoking ban. Take your butts outside.......

So you think the government should dictate what someone can do inside their business? I guess we should ban what happens in someone's home, too? Being overweight is a health issue, so the government better start outlawing all foods that are bad for you. They better start printing the permissable foods on menus. Hey, drinking alcohol can lead to serious health issues. Better bring back prohibition.

Again, I'm a non-smoker. I just think that it isn't the goverments job deciding what can be done by a business owner. Yes, it's a health issue. If you don't want to be around the smoke, go to the smoke free establishment. Why is that so hard?

Did the big bad ol Government make that decision or did the voters / citizens / people of the state of Ohio?

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

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.

Did the voters muddie the waters with this and make it so confusing to vote on the issue that they didn't know what they were voting for? Even if the voters put this in, IMO, it doesn't matter. This, IMO, may be an unconstitutional law. I think that if someone challenged it, the law would be overturned.

As the link indicates.. it's been since 2006. Go ahead and challenge it.

I don't need to. I don't own one of the businesses and I'm a non-smoker. I'm just pointing out that just because the voters approved it doesn't make it Constitutional. There have been many laws that were passed and later ruled unconstituational.

Well, right now, it's Constitutional until the Ohio Supreme Court rules otherwise. Like I said, it's been awhile now. If it's so unconstiututional why haven't we seen an easy challenge?

Possibly the reason it has not been challenged in the courts is because the business that are being caused real harm - the small mom-and-pop type bars and restaurants do not have the funds for expensive legal challenges. After all, I'm pretty sure the Applebees, The Outbacks, and Red Lobsters of the world don't give a rip about the law - they may even welcome it. But the corner bar and grill that might employ a bartender or two, a couple cooks, and a couple waitresses are really feeling the squeeze because about half of their regulars are staying home. I work with a single mother who used to work a second job as a bartender to bolster her income - she hasn't had any hours in the last 6 months, and its not for lack of trying. Nobody in that sector is hiring. A little ways from my house there's this popular corner bar - very nice, clean, friendly place - always empty, or nearly empty since the ban. The owner put a sign in his window that says "Nonsmokers: Where are you?". These are just examples, but they are real people with a real grievance, IMO.

I do think that the reason you are seeing attempts to modify the law is because legislators are hearing from their consituents, and are beginning to see the unintended consequences of this law. The state is losing jobs, and people are spending their entertainment dollars out of state, in Michigan, Windsor, Pa, West Va, etc, where there are casinos, and where like-minded people can have a smoke and a drink together while they wait for their meal.

Unless I missed something, there's no such thing as second hand obesity!

The only place smoking should be allowed is in bars. Restaurants and workplaces should remain smoke free in my eyes. Go smoke outside. I hate the smell of cigarettes, especially while I'm eating. And god forbid someone light up a cigar!

I normally would agree that the govt should dictate such things, but when it's something as dangerous and deadly as smoking, I wouldn't let smokers dictate what's healthy for me either. As far they're concerned, I can go outside for some clean air

I do feel some compassion for smokers though, I used to be one. But I never minded having to go outside to smoke, because I realized that not everyone wants to smell that.

Like I never understood, have a smoking and non-smoking section in restaurants...like that smell won't travel..

I'm not saying this is good or bad, right or wrong, but it is what it is.

Smoking and Drinking go together. Small bars are hurting over the smoking ban. That is a fact, but they are a small contingent to be sure. That's why you don't see a big uproar. but it's hurting the smallest of business owners. (bar related)

And, I know that the bar owners have been getting together and presenting their case for well over a year. I was told by a bar owner when he told me how much money he's losing over this issue.

Regardless, personal choice issues should not be brought to the voters, IMO. Just because the voters voted a certain way doesn't mean they understood what they were voting for. With the wording of our ballot choices on this one, even I was confused.

No, there isn't second hand obesity. However, you as a non-smoker (and me as well) have a choice whether to go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking or one that forbids it. That's the whole point.

Saint, Dave already summed up my thoughts on why it hasn't been challenged. My only question is where is the ACLU?

But don't you think that there are enough folks like you who hate cigarette smoke, that there would be a whole host of restaurants and bars that would want to cater to your preference by prohibiting smoking on their premises, as is their right? I do. But conversely, I think the same right should exist for the owner who wants to cater to his smoking patrons. It is their property after all.

I don't see this as an either/or argument, and I don't see why there can't be some spirit of fairness and accomodation to both sides. I understand having to go outside when I'm at work, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay a $35-40 restaurant/bar tab for a couple fish frys and a few beers and then go outside into single-digit cold for a smoke. That doesn't make me a "whiner" (Otto); that makes me a person who isn't willing to be used.

I don't see why smokers just can't go outside.

And if the small bars are hurting, it's because smokers are just too lazy to get up and go outside to smoke. There's nothing stopping them from going to these small bars. It's not like they have any other option except to stay at home. All bars are operating under the same rules. Smokers abandoned these places, not non smokers. Most non smokers, aren't usually big drinkers, because drinking and smoking go hand in hand.

Restaurant owners have to cater to the biggest crowd, and not make a choice of smokers vs. non smokers...and basically it comes down to will you get a bigger crowd allowing smoking or not. People with children will be less likely to visit a place that allows smoking...I know that's true for me. I truly believe it's in their best interests to not allow smoking.

Bottom line, get up and go outside. It's not that painful to do!

See, that's just it. First, it should be up to the owners to decide what the policy is, not dictated by the government. That's the whole point.

Also, it isn't that hard to do? So, if it's pourinf rain, snowing, cold, whatever, it isn't that hard to stand out in inclement weather and smoke a cig?

Again, please explain to me why it is easier for the smokers to go outside than it is for a non-smoker to choose between a bar that allows smoking and those that don't?

Welcome to the brave new world ... no compromise, no sense of fairness ... go outside, and don't give us any lip.

Sieg heil.

I won't get into the bar discussion too in-depth because I don't drink. But I imagine that once bars are allowed to have smokers inside, there won't be very many non-smoking bars. So there won't be much of a choice to make. So it is easier for smokers to go outside. If I was a bar owner, I'd put an awning up out back...and BOOM, smoking section. Or go smoke in your car!

If second hand smoke didn't cause cancer, I'm sure this wouldn't be a legal issue, but because it does, public health and safety is something that is dictated by govt regulation.