From the 10/21/05 Toledo Blade:

 

Legal battles forecast if Ohio OKs smoking ban

By JIM PROVANCE

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

 

COLUMBUS - Three weeks before petitions are to be filed to force a statewide ban on smoking in public places, advocates yesterday received free legal advice for inevitable court fights ahead. 

 

"If you're doing [a Clean Indoor Air Act] and you haven't been sued yet, you're not doing it right," Christina Mickey, of the Smoke-Free Initiative of West Virginia, told a crowd at the first conference sponsored by the new Tobacco Public Policy Center.  The center, based at Capital University Law School in Columbus, is slated to receive a total of $900,000 in grants over three years from the Ohio Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Foundation.

 

The statewide ban effort, spearheaded by organizations such as the American Cancer Society, plans to file at least 96,780 signatures, equal to 3 percent of the votes cast in the 2002 gubernatorial election, on Nov. 17, coinciding with the Great American Smokeout.  If the petitions are certified by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, lawmakers would have four months to act.  Petitioners also have the option of gathering another 96,870 signatures to put the question directly to voters in November 2006.

 

Approval would make Ohio the first Midwest state to ban smoking in all indoor places, including bars and restaurants, going further than Toledo's ban.  Given the history in cities such as Toledo and Columbus, aggressive court challenges are likely with smokers, bars, restaurants, hotels, bowling alleys, or cigarette retailers who may feel their rights or livelihoods will go up in smoke.

 

Full article at http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051021/NEWS24/510210382/-1/NEWS

where's this petition anyway?  I want to sign!

 

Here's the local American Cancer Society Legislative Advocacy link: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/COM/content/div_OH/COM_4_5x_SmokefreeOhio.asp?sitearea=

 

And it looks like Smoke Free Ohio is collecting the petition, which you can sign on to here: http://smokefreeohio.grassroots.com/webpages/SFOPetitionRegistration/

 

Actually the second link is where you sign up to be sent or to download petition forms and instructions - to gather your own signatures. 

(<a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3183">sigh</a>)  :-(

:roll:

Yes, there are other ways to go about doing this other than BANNING it. :P

Government and special interest groups know best.

People who work in bars aren't smart enought to make decisions for themselves.

 

Do you really think that banning smoking in public indoor places is taking away our civil liberties?  I understand the fear of losing business to bars and restaurants in smoking cities (although this is a state-wide ban, so that wouldn't be as much of an issue), but I don't really get any of the other arguments.  Smoking bans are not about trying to get people to stop smoking - it is a public health issue.  I think it's only fair that people be able to go into public establishments without having to suck in 2nd hand smoke. 

 

I am honestly trying to understand why people are against this. 

 

While I am pretty much in favor of it, I can see how the other side feels. As for the loss of business, we would see that in Cincy where the smockers would go to NKY.

 

What about granting smocking permits like liquor licences? This would limit the number of establishments, giving both sides a place to enjoy.

Cincy does have more of an issue there - but do you really think people will cross the border just to be able to smoke inside?  Maybe some will, but I don't think it would be that big of a hit to business. 

 

I like the smoking permit idea.  There can also be permissions written into the law - for instance, in NY bars are allowed to have smoking if a) they are staffed only by owners (some bars sell ownership of the bar like stock, so their employees are part owners) and/or b) a certain % of their sales are in tobacco (like cigar bars or hookah bars). 

 

I would very much like to go to smoke-free establishments and would probably enjoy the effects of a smoking ban, but I won't support a smoking ban.

 

However, I could go for some sort of compromise like the NY law mentioned above.

 

PB: Why wouldn't you support a ban without compromises?  Just out of curiousity...

I just think owners ought to have at least some right to make the decision for themselves.

California has a smocking ban and they are the land of liberals.

i believe that this should be a local government issue, not a state one.

 

much like the strip club legistlation

^I can see merit in that idea.

 

Except that one of the most mentioned negatives to the ban is that people will just hop over to the neighboring city to go out.  I personally don't think this is true, but if the ban is statewide (or county-wide, which I think is a good idea) it certainly cuts down on that problem.

 

 

I think it is true that people will go eat in other localitites, sometimes, but in the same way, people will go into the banned cities to eat, just not as much. I think smocking is different than a civil right because it actually hurts other people. Unlike gay marriage, it harms everyone.

> I think it's only fair that people be able to go into public establishments without having to suck in 2nd hand smoke. 

 

Most people who complain about cigarette smoke are just looking for something to complain about.  How, when nearly *everyone* smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day 50 years ago, are there suddenly all these people "bothered" by smoke?  I am not convinced that second-hand smoke poses any major health risk, even for non-smokers who work in bars.  And by pushing smoking, quite literally, to the physical fringes of society (back doors, loading docks) it becomes more counter-cultural than it was before. 

 

 

 

I think smoking is different than a civil right because it actually hurts other people. Unlike gay marriage, it harms everyone.

 

Yes, exactly. 

 

Re: people going to other localities: I doubt it would happen any more than it does now.  People go to the Warehouse District b/c of the location...likewise with Tremont or Ohio City or Cleveland Heights or Lakewood.  I don't know many (or any, really) people who would care enough to drive to another city just so they could smoke in a bar.  I'm not saying those people don't exist, I just think they're a minority.

Most people who complain about cigarette smoke are just looking for something to complain about.  How, when nearly *everyone* smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day 50 years ago, are there suddenly all these people "bothered" by smoke?  I am not convinced that second-hand smoke poses any major health risk, even for non-smokers who work in bars.  And by pushing smoking, quite literally, to the physical fringes of society (back doors, loading docks) it becomes more counter-cultural than it was before. 

 

Ok, seriously - are you joking?  I didn't go to bars 50 years ago so I wouldn't know whether people were bothered by the smoke back then.  I would call it progress.  But, if you really don't believe that second-hand smoke poses a health risk, then I don't know if it's worth it to try and convince you of anything.

How, when nearly *everyone* smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day 50 years ago, are there suddenly all these people "bothered" by smoke?

50 years=suddenly?

I think it is true that people will go eat in other localitites, sometimes, but in the same way, people will go into the banned cities to eat, just not as much. I think smocking is different than a civil right because it actually hurts other people. Unlike gay marriage, it harms everyone.

 

when i'm in columbus i'm not going to drive to dayton just to light up

 

even when i'm in ontario, i'm not going to select a bar because it has a patio (and they have some pretty awesome ones there, for use in the winter), but if i end up a bar with smoking accomodations, so be it

Most people who complain about cigarette smoke are just looking for something to complain about.  How, when nearly *everyone* smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day 50 years ago, are there suddenly all these people "bothered" by smoke?  I am not convinced that second-hand smoke poses any major health risk, even for non-smokers who work in bars.  And by pushing smoking, quite literally, to the physical fringes of society (back doors, loading docks) it becomes more counter-cultural than it was before. 

 

I have heard about the effects of second hand smoking for more than 10 years. My parents have been annoyed with smoking longer than that. Just because it took a while for someone to fight for a ban, doesn't mean they are suddenly bothered by it. I don't know what your remark about wanting to have something to complain about is, thats just crazy. What is that based on? I don't see the problem with making smocking "counter cultural" either. Are you not convinced that smoking causes any health risk?

^or we are convinced that government should not be legislating how we live our lives

^Your right to punch me stops at my face.

That's just the thing - a smoking ban doesn't tell anyone how to live their lives.  Noone is saying people can't smoke when they're the only ones being physically effected by it. 

 

That said, smoking bans are about workplace health issues, not about allowing me to go to a bar and not be around smoke.  I think it sucks, but it's true that I can decide not to go to a bar if I know the smoke bothers me, but not all bar/restaurant employees can so easily quit and get another job. 

That's just the thing - a smoking ban doesn't tell anyone how to live their lives.  Noone is saying people can't smoke when they're the only ones being physically effected by it. 

 

its not telling anyone how to live their lives specificly but it does affect multiple parties: smokers, non-smokers, restaurant/bar employees, restaurant/bar owners, tobacco companies, insurance companies, etc  (whether positively or negatively, i'm not here to debate that)

 

its not telling anyone how to live their lives specificly but it does affect multiple parties: smokers, non-smokers, restaurant/bar employees, restaurant/bar owners, tobacco companies, insurance companies, etc  (whether positively or negatively, i'm not here to debate that)

 

Well, sure - but all laws affect people (usually multiple parties).  That's the point. 

I am honestly trying to understand why people are against this. 

 

The reason I am against it, along with financial reasons is the fact that people are doing it for workers safety is bull.  I work in a manufacturing environment, welding specifically, and I worked my way through college by bartending.  Let me tell you, it is much smokier in the factory than it ever was in the bar.  And I worked in some of the smokiest bars in Ohio.

Welding smoke, with all of the metal and oil vapors is more toxic than cigarette smoke, but it has about the same particulate size.  So it is breathed in the same as cigarette smoke.

So, where is the concerned interest groups to make manufacturing illegal in Ohio?

 

Its also quite condescending to think that people who work in the hospitality industry, whether it is a corner diner, or a fine dining establishment, are too stupid to get a job in another industry it they needed to.

 

Why do they work there?  The same reason the welder works here, they consider it to be a good job for the money.

 

If you want to make smoking, and then later drinking illegal, go ahead, but be honest about it.

 

 

 

 

>But, if you really don't believe that second-hand smoke poses a health risk,

 

No, I don't.  It's neither annoying nor going to cause me or any non-smoker to suffer health consequences remotely resembling that of a full-time smoker.  It's like banning cars because even though I don't own one I find their sound and fumes annoying and there's a remote possibility that one will jump the curb and pin me against a building.   

 

Oh, my brand new clothes smell like smoke.  Oh, my contacts are burning my eyes.  Boo-hoo.  Woe is me.   

 

 

Must not watch the stand online commercials, eh?

^ A lot of the ads like that make me want to slap people.  Actually it's more those "Truth" ads, which I can't say I've seen in a while.  Their "blame big tobacco" attitude irritates me.

^Yeah some of them can be annoying, but I do find them interesting when they tell of a 38 year old dying of lung cancer from smoking, having never smoked, just marring a smoker.

From the 11/6/05 Akron Beacon Journal:

 

Petitioners want state smoke-free

By Lisa A. Abraham

Beacon Journal staff writer

 

Organizers of SmokeFreeOhio are expected to march into the Ohio Secretary of State's Office next week and turn in petitions signed by more than 100,000 Ohioans who want their state to be smoke-free.  The event is scheduled for Nov. 17, in conjunction with the American Cancer Society's annual Great American Smokeout.  Since March, SmokeFreeOhio has been pushing to make it illegal to smoke indoors in Ohio virtually anywhere but one's home.

 

Ideally, the group would like the Ohio General Assembly to pass a state law making Ohio's workplaces smoke-free.  Realistically, its members are hoping the legislature won't stand in the way of them putting a referendum before Ohio voters in November 2006, asking them to approve making Ohio workplaces smoke-free.

 

Clean indoor air acts, like the one currently being considered by Summit County Council, have been working their way through Ohio for the past two years.  So far, 20 Ohio cities have bans on indoor smoking.  Nationally, 14 states have passed some form of ban on smoking in public places.

 

Full article at http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/13096134.htm?source=rss&channel=ohio_news

 

 

Its also quite condescending to think that people who work in the hospitality industry, whether it is a corner diner, or a fine dining establishment, are too stupid to get a job in another industry it they needed to.

 

Why do they work there?  The same reason the welder works here, they consider it to be a good job for the money.

 

If you want to make smoking, and then later drinking illegal, go ahead, but be honest about it.

 

I never said I thought people working in the service industry are too dumb to get another job - I said sometimes it's difficult for people to just quit and find another job...this is true no matter what industry you work in.  Moreover, they shouldn't have to get another job just because they don't want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke for 8-12 hours a day. 

 

And, drinking is completely different.  The act of drinking, in and of itself, does not hurt those around you.  Things you do when you've been drinking too much sometimes do and that's why they have laws against drunk driving and the like. 

Again, saying this smoking ban is only to protect workers is bull, I can go through my manufacturing analogy again.

People want to make smoking illeagal.

 

As for drinking, as soon as the liberal elitists and the consevative bible thumpers get together and decide that the poor, dumb lower classes are making mistakes because of booze, that winning coalition will push for prohibition 2.0

For the record.  I'm completely against such a ban.

 

Do I prefer dining in an establishment where I don't have to smell cigarette smoke while I eat?  Yes.

 

Therefore, I spend my money at dining establishments where a suitable boundary exists between smoking and non-smoking sections, or I visit restaurants where the owner of the business has decided to go "non-smoking" only. 

 

I too believe that those claiming to protect the "workers" are for the most part being dishonest about their motives. They have found a position that's easier to defend, and they're running with it.

 

i believe that this should be a local government issue, not a state one.

 

much like the strip club legistlation

 

You say that because you smoke; well its disgusting and I won't risk my life because other people smoke in bars while I watch the Games...

 

SIGN

^ There's a defendable position.  Try taking that to a court of law and see what happens.  :roll:

I dont smoke and I worked in bars and restuarants for about 10 years

I am in complete disbelief that this paranoia about cigarette smoke actually exists.  You just plain aren't going to get lung cancer from second-hand smoke in bars and restaurants.  People who have never smoked can get lung cancer.  Bam -- I just explained away whatever that TV commercial was.  I just looked this up: an average of 470 men die annually from breast cancer.  Find me 470 people dying annually out of 300 million Americans from second-hand smoke.  They just plain aren't.  You're all delusional.     

 

I've lost hearing from playing drums and going to probably over 500 loud club shows and concerts.  I've spent upwards of $10,000 on alcohol and cover charges.  It was worth it.  Everyone in my family was a smoker for decades and decades and all quit by about 10 years ago and nobody has gotten lung cancer.  My babysitters smoked!  Tons of cigarettes, cigars, pipe smoke, and TONS OF SECOND-HAND SMOKE.  I grew up in a haze of it and just look how I turned out! 

 

 

>Again, saying this smoking ban is only to protect workers is bull, I can go through my manufacturing analogy again.

People want to make smoking illegal.

 

No fucking kidding.  Got pegged in the nuts when I was a little league umpire.  Let's ban umpiring.   

 

 

>As for drinking, as soon as the liberal elitists and the Conservative bible thumpers get together and decide that the poor, dumb lower classes are making mistakes because of booze, that winning coalition will push for prohibition 2.0

 

Absolutely.

Find me 470 people dying annually out of 300 million Americans from second-hand smoke.  They just plain aren't.  You're all delusional.

Say what?  Maybe you should have looked that one up, too, as long as you were looking up men's breast cancer death rates.  Delusion is pretending that second-hand smoke is harmless.  Even discounting as overstated the 3,000 lung cancer and 35,000 heart disease deaths that the CDC (or whoever compiled their numbers) attributes to second-hand smoke, it's not a non-existent problem.  Hell, even 3,000 is only a thousandth of one percent of Americans; just because you're not dead doesn't mean a few people aren't.

 

People die from all kinds of things that we take for granted.  It doesn't have to be made imaginary to justify not personally worrying about it.

Anyone listen to 90.3 @ 9 on WCPN (Cleveland's Ideastream, NPR) yesterday?  From 9 - 10 am the conversation was about the smoking ban proposed for Summit County.  It was a very interested (and heated) conversation between a pro-ban and an anti-ban advocate and went pretty much like this thread has gone.  Each would present data or an argument that seemed unrefutable and the other would come right back with completely contradictory data that seemed equally unrefutable.  So, much as is the norm with these sorts of debates, if you went in with your mind set on one opinion, you surely left with the same opinion.  And if you went in hoping for guidance, you probably left just as undecided!

 

I'll keep an eye on www.wcpn.org to see if they post the podcast...I'm sure you'd all be interested to hear it!

>it's not a non-existent problem.  Hell, even 3,000 is only a thousandth of one percent of Americans; just because you're not dead doesn't mean a few people aren't.

 

Yeah, a few, who are also allergic to their own snot. 

>it's not a non-existent problem.  Hell, even 3,000 is only a thousandth of one percent of Americans; just because you're not dead doesn't mean a few people aren't.

 

Yeah, a few, who are also allergic to their own snot. 

 

Thats real nice to say about someone who is dead and you don't even know. I suppose your not against safe handling of abestos or lead paint either because the people who will die are just losers with alergies anyway, right?

^Well on the radio today their spokesman was on there, saying 54,000 people die annually from second-hand smoke.  So what is it?  30-odd or 50-odd thousand (or none)?  A specific, quantifiable number of people die annually in car wrecks.  How do you isolate exposure to second-hand smoke as the butterfly that started the hurricane?  So irrefutably, 54,000 deaths were caused last year in the United States of America single-handedly by exposure to cigarette smoke?  Or did a certain number of people die from exposure to Colonel Sanders and Little Debbie who, by the way, used to work in a bar in their 20's?  How many of theise second-hand smokers were formerly Smokers with a capital S?         

 

 

Why is second-hand smoke less believable as a cause of death than the multitude of other things that cause lung cancer, heart disease, or whatever else people are said to die from?  Whatever the true number of deaths is, I trust that it is a far cry from zero, because although I don't know any particular study's methods, no legitimate scientist or scientific organization just makes up numbers out of thin air.

 

If you said that second-hand smoke is not worth society losing much sleep over, I'd probably agree with you (and others here would not), but I do recognize that the hazard exists, just like all kinds of other hazards we don't spend much time worrying about.

From the 11/16/05 Toledo Blade:

 

Ban backers send smoke signals

Activists prefer 2006 vote to legislation

By JIM PROVANCE

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

 

COLUMBUS - Anti-tobacco activists who plan to file petitions tomorrow to force lawmakers to consider a statewide ban on smoking in public places are delivering a different message in private meetings with legislative leaders: "Never mind."

 

House Speaker Jon Husted (R., Kettering) is willing to give them what they want. That would be to allow the four-month clock on legislative action to run out so those who've gathered signatures for an initiated statute can return to the signature mine to put the law directly to voters in November, 2006.

 

Petitions containing approximately 150,000 signatures will be filed tomorrow with the secretary of state's office requiring the General Assembly to consider a law setting a statewide standard against smoking in enclosed restaurants, bars, and any other indoor location where the general public congregates.

 

Full article at http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051116/NEWS24/511160472/-1/NEWS