Ohio Smoking Ban

October 3, 200618 yr

From the 10/1/06 Toledo Blade:

Smoking-ban battle takes shape in Ohio

Dueling issues on the November ballot pit tobacco giant against American Cancer Society

By JIM PROVANCE

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - In this corner, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the corporation that makes billions selling a product.

In this corner, the American Cancer Society, the nonprofit organization that spends millions battling a disease caused by that product.

October 5, 200618 yr

Yipee Horay!

Are you serious? Even if you arn't for a ban, Issue 4 is crazy. First, it is an admendment, and second, it will overrule communities right to choose. Cities that already have a ban will have it lifted. This would be another backward step for Ohio, I hope Ohioians are smart enough to recognize it. Proponents of the ban will probalby vote yes on 4 and 5, thus producing the opposite effect from what they wanted.

October 7, 200618 yr

From the 10/4/06 Toledo Blade:

OHIO SMOKING BAN

Backers lose bid to remove rival issue

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - Backers of a strict ban on smoking in indoor public places yesterday lost an attempt to push a competing proposal exempting bars, some restaurants, and other establishments off the Nov. 7 ballot.

October 7, 200618 yr

From the 10/6/06 Toledo Blade:

BALLOT ISSUE

Tobacco foes file enough signatures

SmokeFreeOhio still faces court test

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - The coalition behind a proposed strict ban on smoking in nearly all indoor public places filed more than enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot, the Ohio secretary of state's office said yesterday.

October 10, 200618 yr

Quicken goes smoke-free

By SCOTT SUTTELL

1:56 pm, October 9, 2006

LeBron James and his fellow Cleveland Cavaliers will be the only ones lighting it up at Quicken Loans Arena.

Officials at The Q today announced that effective immediately, no smoking will be permitted anywhere inside the arena. Prior to this move, the arena allowed smoking in Gordon's Sports Bar and Bridges Restaurant.

Link unavailable.

October 10, 200618 yr

Yipee Horay!

Are you serious? Even if you arn't for a ban, Issue 4 is crazy. First, it is an admendment, and second, it will overrule communities right to choose. Cities that already have a ban will have it lifted. This would be another backward step for Ohio, I hope Ohioians are smart enough to recognize it. Proponents of the ban will probalby vote yes on 4 and 5, thus producing the opposite effect from what they wanted.

I am well aware that people could vote yes on both. I don't care. BARS ARE NOT PUBLIC PLACES! They serve no purpose other than personal pleasure. Insisting that bars be healthy is ridiculous. No one goes to a bar to be healthy. You're drinking alcohol. Deal with the smoke. I don't think the health argument holds up for bars.

Shopping malls, government buildings, transit stations, medical buildings, educational facilities, stadiums, theaters, hotel lobbies, etc. Those are public places. No one goes to a bar to get healthy.

October 10, 200618 yr

I don't like how one goes too far and the other is a constitutional amendment. I might just vote for issue 5, even though I don't like it, it'd be easier to change than an amendment.

October 10, 200618 yr

Well I don't think a bar would be forced to allow smoking if the amendment passes. As I see it many are going smoke free on their own in places without a smoking ban. Down the road this will probably become more common. I bet a lot of bars in Columbus and other cities will stay smoke free, but I checked out the Smoke Less Ohio website. I found it interesting that a number of bars in their coalition are in Columbus.

As a smoker and patron I would certainly prefer to be allowed the option. But as a Clevelander I'm really worried that there are particularly unique neighborhood bars that would be adversely affected. Let the smoking culture subside naturally so these bars won't have to close if a ban passes.

October 11, 200618 yr

From the 10/8/06 Enquirer:

PHOTO: At his steakhouse, Maury's Tiny Cove, Paul Yamaguchi says he's for choice. "If a customer wants to smoke, they have their section." Thomas E. Witte for The Enquirer

Issues duel on smoking

5 is a ban; 4 allows light-ups

BY JOHN ECKBERG | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

In a time of declining smoking, two competing ballot issues could change how restaurants, bowling alleys and bars in Ohio operate after Nov. 7.

Issue 5, a measure that has the support of the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association, would make all public places and workplaces in Ohio smoke-free.

But even if Issue 5 passes, smoke-free bars, restaurants and designated public places m

October 11, 200618 yr

From the AP, 10/11/06:

Poll: At least one Ohio-wide smoking ban likely to pass

By Julie Carr Smyth

Associated Press

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

A new poll of likely voters shows that an all-out smoking ban in public places is too close to call, with support among likely voters leading opposition by just 3.8 percent, or less than the survey's margin of error. A second less-restrictive ban allowing smoking in bars, restaurants and bowling alleys winning was favored by 52.5 percent of likely voters and opposed by 36.1 percent, according to the poll sponsored by the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.

From the 10/11/06 PD:

Mayor Jackson supports smoking ban

Issue 5 initiative endorsement expected

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Harlan Spector

Plain Dealer Reporter

Mayor Frank Jackson is expected today to announce support for Issue 5, the initiative to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and other public spaces.

The mayor's support is a boost to anti-smoking advocates who were disappointed two years ago when Jackson, then council president, balked at an advisory panel recommendation for a smoking ban in Cleveland.

October 12, 200618 yr

Well I don't think a bar would be forced to allow smoking if the amendment passes. As I see it many are going smoke free on their own in places without a smoking ban. Down the road this will probably become more common. I bet a lot of bars in Columbus and other cities will stay smoke free, but I checked out the Smoke Less Ohio website. I found it interesting that a number of bars in their coalition are in Columbus.

As a smoker and patron I would certainly prefer to be allowed the option. But as a Clevelander I'm really worried that there are particularly unique neighborhood bars that would be adversely affected. Let the smoking culture subside naturally so these bars won't have to close if a ban passes.

A lot of people & business owners in NYC felt the same way and thought that the ban would hamper their patronage, but for the most part, it's actually increased business in most bars, clubs and restaurants. and most restaurants opened out door patios, where people can smoke, that increased observation and vibrancy on streets.

As a non-smoker, I for one would rarely go out to bars/clubs/restaurant that had smoking prior to the band, because I didn't want to feel like a smoke stack when I return from one of those establishments.

I for one know lots of people that NOW go out MORE because they don't have to worry about smoke.

October 12, 200618 yr

Cleveland is different than New York. I don't think New York's experience applies. They have an abundance of tourists, visitors, and new people all the time. I believe the smoking ban correlation to increased patronage of bars in New York is a stretch. There have probably been many factors that increased bars business in New York. In Cleveland we have too much of a tendancy to look at New York for everything, and I get sick of it. Toledo's experience is more applicable to Cleveland than New York's. Or maybe Columbus. What has the effect of the ban been on Columbus.

Look, I'll buy the health argument, but I don't buy the business argument in the pro-smoking ban movement. And frankly, the pro-smoking ban has racist, classist, and suburban undertones. I don't believe anything they say.

October 12, 200618 yr

Cleveland is different than New York. I don't think New York's experience applies. They have an abundance of tourists, visitors, and new people all the time. I believe the smoking ban correlation to increased patronage of bars in New York is a stretch. There have probably been many factors that increased bars business in New York. In Cleveland we have too much of a tendancy to look at New York for everything, and I get sick of it. Toledo's experience is more applicable to Cleveland than New York's. Or maybe Columbus. What has the effect of the ban been on Columbus.

Look, I'll buy the health argument, but I don't buy the business argument in the pro-smoking ban movement. And frankly, the pro-smoking ban has racist, classist, and suburban undertones. I don't believe anything they say.

I disagree. Here's a report from July. http://smokefreecharlotte.com/docs/100map.pdf. As Cleveland has citizens, employers, business and leisure travelers, coming into the city. I think the ban is progressive.

Can you give me an in-depth, explanation as to why the ban is racist, classist and has suburban undertones, when there are probably MORE smokers in the burbs than in Cleveland.

As a voting resident of the city of Cleveland I'm 100% for a ban!

October 17, 200618 yr

Statiscally - and I don't have web links - smoking is more common among lower-income people, foreigners, minorities and gays. I honestly believe people have developed a stigma against smokers, and it is just so convenient that it happens to correlate with socially marginalized people. I don't know how old you are Mytwosense, but I was in elementary and junior high school in the puritanical nineties. Anti-smoking edcuation had (and probably still does have) a strong presence in public schools. The problem though, is that a lot of the education I received really demonized not only cigarettes and tobacco companies, but people also people who smoked. We were told not to be friends with smokers, to tell them to stop (even if they were our parents or grandparents), and told it was not only an unhealthy thing but a very very dirty thing. Also the very emphasis on "health" reminds me of the popular political slogan "health is duty" that the Nazis used. I for one do not advocate Nazi policies or anything that resembles them.

Middle-class suburbia is probably the least tolerant when it comes to smoking. Remember that these people generally live in a culture of fear. Afraid to go into the city, afraid of minorities, afraid to drive a small (fuel-efficient) car, afraid of pollution, and afraid of many other things. It isn't that unlikely to see how they would be more afraid to be near second hand smoke than those in cities. In fact, the places that have enacted bans (even in cities like New York) probably did so to appease these types of suburban people coming into their city.

Growing up in suburbia I have noticed that fast food restaurants and public places in suburbia were among the first establishments in Ohio to go smoke free. Working and spending a lot of leisure time in the city, I've noticed a hell of a lot more people who smoke in the city versus the suburbs. Walk around downtown, and you see a lot more people smoking than you do at Crocker Park or outside a suburban office building.

You claim that smoking bans are a progressive policy. History has shown that some supposedly progressive policies were not only a debacle, but also quite exclusive in nature. The Temperance movement grew out of the Progressive era in American politics, but in actuality had nothing to do with being progressive. The Temperance movement was about social control and exclusive policy-making. As a young adult who wants to live and work in Cleveland and values inclusive policy-making, I am 100% against the ban.

October 17, 200618 yr

funny story from around the world:

Calgary, AB is having to revisit their laws after realizing they banned smoking on PATIOS, but not INDOORS.

October 17, 200618 yr

As a young adult who wants to live and work in Cleveland and values inclusive policy-making, I am 100% against the ban.

right after you start paying for 100% of your healthcare.

October 19, 200618 yr

From the 10/12/06 PD:

Smoking ban gains political clout

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Harlan Spector

Plain Dealer Reporter

The local movement to ban smoking in public spaces reached a political milestone on Wednesday. Politicians couldn't run away fast enough when organized efforts aimed at anti-smoking legislation began a few years ago.

From the Other Paper, 10/12/06:

THE BIG LIE

Joe Camel wants to trick you into bringing smoking back to restaurants. Polls show you’re falling for it.

By Dan Williamson / OCTOBER 12, 2006

Talking on the phone from his car Monday with a sandwich in one hand and the steering wheel in another, Jacob Evans somehow managed to stay on message.

Evans, vice president of governmental affairs for PR firm the Craig Group, is the media spokesman for State Issue 4, one of two statewide smoking bans on the Nov. 7 ballot.

October 19, 200618 yr

From the 10/13/06 Toledo Blade:

Ohio top court won't hear smoke-ban group's appeal

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Supreme Court yesterday refused to hear an appeal from backers of a strict ban on indoor public smoking of a lower-court decision that placed the issue's spot on the Nov. 7 ballot in doubt.

The 4-2 high-court decision shifts the focus to a separate case filed by backers of a competing, weaker proposal that asks the court to remove Issue 5 from the ballot.

October 19, 200618 yr

From the 10/14/06 Dispatch:

STATEWIDE MEASURES

Tobacco foes push Issue 5, say rivals blow smoke

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Mark Niquette

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

With chants of "no on 4, yes on 5," the group pushing a strict statewide smoking ban launched a campaign yesterday both to pass its issue on the Nov. 7 ballot and defeat a rival measure.

From the 10/14/06 Toledo Blade:

Smoke ban proponents release 2 new TV ads

Spots designed to link Issue 4 to Big Tobacco

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - Backers of a strict ban on smoking in indoor public places unveiled a pair of TV ads yesterday that it says are designed to cut through the "smokescreen" of a competing proposal exempting bars, some restaurants, and other establishments.

The ads will begin to air Monday, urging voters to say "no" to Issue 4, the weaker ban pushed by the tobacco and hospitality industries, and "yes" to Issue 5, the strict ban pushed by a coalition of health organizations led by the American Cancer Society.

From the 10/14/06 Newark Advocate:

Statewide smoking issues bring varied views

Some locals differ on argument of health vs. business

By KENT MALLETT

Advocate Reporter

NEWARK -- Local residents and business owners say the stakes are high in the Nov. 7 general election, when competing smoking bans will appear on the ballot as state issues.

Tina Ridgely, a Newark woman with asthma, says passage of Issue 4 effectively would ban her and her 14-year-old asthmatic son from eating in most local restaurants or going bowling.

October 19, 200618 yr

From the 10/18/06 Canton Repository:

Smoking: It's a hot topic at local lanes

By LORI MONSEWICZ

REPOSITORY STAFF WRITER

Voters will determine Nov. 7 whether Ohio will get tougher on smoking — or ban local bans on public smoking.

Issue 5 would largely prohibit smoking in most public places. But it's a legislative issue and can be trumped if Issue 4 passes. If voters approve Issue 4, Issue 5 won't matter.

That's because Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment that clears most businesses to continue to allow smoking, and overturns any local laws that limit smoking in places such as restaurants, bars and bingo halls.

October 20, 200618 yr

Forged signatures, dead voters apparently on petitions
Election officials investigate Smoke Less Ohio.

Welcome ladies and gentleman to another episode of "Spot the Irony!"

October 20, 200618 yr

i'm loving the issue 4 and how funny it would be that the tobacco lobby could trick the entire state into unwittingly voting for it.

October 20, 200618 yr

As a young adult who wants to live and work in Cleveland and values inclusive policy-making, I am 100% against the ban.

right after you start paying for 100% of your healthcare.

I guess so, but I never admit that I smoke when nurses and/or doctors ask me anyway to keep my insurance rates low. Maybe thats insurance fraud, but I think I will quit before it comes a health issue for me.

October 20, 200618 yr

As a young adult who wants to live and work in Cleveland and values inclusive policy-making, I am 100% against the ban.

right after you start paying for 100% of your healthcare.

I guess so, but I never admit that I smoke when nurses and/or doctors ask me anyway to keep my insurance rates low. Maybe thats insurance fraud, but I think I will quit before it comes a health issue for me.

That you're willing to smoke your health away, I'd say you already have a health issue on your hands.

*Hardcore smoker for 7 years*

October 20, 200618 yr

After you quit smoking it only takes a couple years for any health risks to be completely eliminated, so in the mean time I don't know why my insurance rates should have to be higher than everyone else.

October 20, 200618 yr

After you quit smoking it only takes a couple years for any health risks to be completely eliminated, so in the mean time I don't know why my insurance rates should have to be higher than everyone else.

Your cancer risk will always be higher, but I'm sure they figure if we were stupid enough put things in our mouths and light them on fire, we're liable to do all kinds of other stupid things in the future, as well.

October 26, 200618 yr

Poll added. You may select two options in this poll--one for each issue.

October 26, 200618 yr

After you quit smoking it only takes a couple years for any health risks to be completely eliminated, so in the mean time I don't know why my insurance rates should have to be higher than everyone else.

Your cancer risk will always be higher, but I'm sure they figure if we were stupid enough put things in our mouths and light them on fire, we're liable to do all kinds of other stupid things in the future, as well.

Actually, if you quit within a reasonable timeframe, your risk of cancer is completely eliminated. Now in regars to smotking "other things," I'm actually alergic to them, so after numerous attempts I've stopped trying. Smoking "other things" by the way, is the equivilent on the lungs of smoking nearly a pack of cigarettes.

October 26, 200618 yr

True, generally-speaking, 15 years after your last cigarette, your risk of smoke-related death returns to that of someone who never smoked. But 15 years from the day you quit, you'll be subject to all the factors that contribute to being-15-years-older-related death.

Smoke up if it makes you feel better. I smoked hardcore for years, and shared your same frame of mind while I was doing it. I was up on the facts and figures. I budgeted wisely around my habit. I devoted buckets of rationale to which brand I smoked and why and where and when I would some day quit. Fortunately, one day, at the ripe old age of 25, I had one of them "moments of clarity" and stopped smoking.

Strange how not doing something can provide such strength, but I draw upon the experience of sloughing off that smoking monkey almost every day.

The thing that gave me the most support was an article from a great general reference book called "Life's Big Instruction Book" (I was a HUGE reference book guy pre-internets); it spoke to the way your body is always trying to forget your last cigarette, and how it goes about the business of healing itself. I've found the article here: http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/afterquitting/a/after_quitting.htm. Bookmark it or print it out or whatever for when you're ready.

Wow. Look at that. Our 50-minutes are up. It's been nice speaking with you today, vulpster. I feel like we accomplished a lot. Don't you? I'll see you next week, and please, don't forget to pay Donna on your way out.

October 26, 200618 yr

and not to mention, smoking just ages you. 8-)

October 26, 200618 yr

Interesting results so far. I wonder if some people don't understand Issue 4 and how Big Tobacco is behind it. I mailed in my absentee today.

October 26, 200618 yr

Issue 4 and 5 confused the hell out of me.

Issue, 4 makes you want to vote yes, you have to read it really carefully

October 26, 200618 yr

^I know what you're saying. I'll be sending out an email to all my relatives to explain the difference. My family members would all vote 'the correct way', but I'm afraid that this one may confuse them.

October 26, 200618 yr

It's true that this is one of the most confusing ballot issue pairs I've ever seen. Fortunately for me, I caught a program on NPR that discussed the difference, but honestly, how many voters will actually understand the difference?

October 26, 200618 yr

I don't think the wording is so confusing.

October 26, 200618 yr

Most people won't understand the difference. Constitutional amendments, bills, etc. There are huge differences between them. I already sent in my absentee..the wording is quite long. I think that a lot of voters won't read the entire thing.

October 27, 200618 yr

I guess I will have to vote no on 5....I mean seriously, look how all the bars in NYC are empty now..there is nothing to do there now that you can't smoke indoors!

Come on people...for those that say that drinking is as bad as smoking ...fine.....Tell ya what....next time I am in the bar...when you blow smoke in my face from YOUR cig....I'll just spit some beer in your face from my mug...fair enough?

October 27, 200618 yr

^wow, the thought process of a five year old.

October 27, 200618 yr

Really Pope? Do you have to drink MY drink at a bar...no....so why do I have to breath YOUR smoke? If other places can survive without smoking in the bars, why can't Ohio?

October 27, 200618 yr

the fact that you are comparing spitting beer and spewing smoke to eachother doesn't lead me to believe that you understand the issue.

I digress. let the individual bar owner decide. One of the great things about this highly mobile american economy is the consumers ability to vote with their feet.

October 27, 200618 yr

Bars in their very essence exist for leisure; certainly not health or public safety. It is no one's "right" to go to a bar and demand the owners and patrons restrict smoking. In fact of all the measures we would try to improve health and public safety in bars, eliminating smoking is the most superfolous, repugnant, and nonesensical. It is someone's choice to go into a bar and inhale second smoke. It is not someone's choice to get struck by a drunk driver nor is it someone's choice to become the victim of someone coming from the bars and heading home.

We know that there are increasing amount of smoke free bars, and choice will also increase without passing the ban. And honestly, how much time do you or should you spend n a bar anyway to the point where a couple hours of second hand smoke would really pose as a health issue? Bars are really the only places that allow smoking. Not in offices, medical buildings, transit stations (or vehicles), educational buildings, shopping centers, or government buildings. How different the situation is today from that of my parents, where second-hand smoke was an inescapable aspect of daily life. Today, if smoking is restricted to bars, you can't say that second hand smoke still posses a threat to the public.

If people cannot deal with adults smoking in bars, I suggest they seek evening leisure in ice cream shops or nurseries, where I am sure they will all feel more comfortable.

"Health is Duty" was a slogan used by the Nazi party. I for one do not endorss Nazi policies.

October 27, 200618 yr

Ugh. The Nazi Card. Honkey please...

There is no analogue to cigarette smoking, so don't even try. It's a product designed to harm the user and all in his proximity. Cigarettes would never make it to market if they were introduced today. Period.

It is absolutely my right to demand a safe environment. A bar owner, like any other proprietor of a business, is dutybound to preserve a safe environment for his employees and patrons alike.

The hazards of second hand smoke are well known: http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html If you can show me an example of a proprietor who can knowingly subject his staff and customers to known carcinogens the likes of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzo[a]pyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, then I'll show you a proprietor with OSHA breathing down his neck.

Yes. Cigarette smoke bothers me. And while I do enjoy a good ice cream cone, I would like the opportunity to buy a drink at a bar. And the last time I checked, that's what bars sell: drinks.

And sometimes pickled eggs.

October 27, 200618 yr

Ugh. The Nazi Card. Honkey please...

There is no analogue to cigarette smoking, so don't even try. It's a product designed to harm the user and all in his proximity. Cigarettes would never make it to market if they were introduced today. Period.

It is absolutely my right to demand a safe environment. A bar owner, like any other proprietor of a business, is dutybound to preserve a safe environment for his employees and patrons alike.

The hazards of second hand smoke are well known: http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html If you can show me an example of a proprietor who can knowingly subject his staff and customers to known carcinogens the likes of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzo[a]pyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, then I'll show you a proprietor with OSHA breathing down his neck.

Yes. Cigarette smoke bothers me. And while I do enjoy a good ice cream cone, I would like the opportunity to buy a drink at a bar. And the last time I checked, that's what bars sell: drinks.

And sometimes pickled eggs.

Well alrighty then Mr. Jefferson!

October 27, 200618 yr

^Why do you think they called my wife "Wheezy"?

Two-pack-a-day smoker.

Shocking.

October 27, 200618 yr

Ugh. The Nazi Card. Honkey please...

There is no analogue to cigarette smoking, so don't even try. It's a product designed to harm the user and all in his proximity. Cigarettes would never make it to market if they were introduced today. Period.

It is absolutely my right to demand a safe environment. A bar owner, like any other proprietor of a business, is dutybound to preserve a safe environment for his employees and patrons alike.

The hazards of second hand smoke are well known: http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html If you can show me an example of a proprietor who can knowingly subject his staff and customers to known carcinogens the likes of benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzo[a]pyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, then I'll show you a proprietor with OSHA breathing down his neck.

Yes. Cigarette smoke bothers me. And while I do enjoy a good ice cream cone, I would like the opportunity to buy a drink at a bar. And the last time I checked, that's what bars sell: drinks.

And sometimes pickled eggs.

98% of cigarette smoke is comprised of H2O; the sustanance of life. And I don't think cigarettes were designed to harm people. That makes no sense. Though smoking can be harmful, I think the native Americans and subesquent users took up smoking as a mode of relaxation and socialization.

What about the auto industry or the food industry? Were cars designed so people could get into accidents? Were French fries designed to clog arteries? There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, and there is no such thing as a safe car or a safe french frie. What is emmitting from the tailpipe of your car is lot more potent than a single cigarette, and I hope you don't dare have the audacity to drive in public.

Bars should not be bound to a smoke-free environment. No one has to go to a bar!!! As long as tobacco is legal, the right to use it limited places should be protected. And you say you would like to have the opportunity to a buy a drink. A drink that is directly responsible for thousands of deaths of users and nonusers of alcohol a like. If you decide to become a health advocate, don't think you can take on your health advocacy without the same zeal towards other forms of public health infractions.

October 27, 200618 yr

98% of cigarette smoke is comprised of H2O; the sustanance of life.

And bullets contain carbon, the basis of life. What's your point?

And I don't think cigarettes were designed to harm people. That makes no sense. Though smoking can be harmful, I think the native Americans and subesquent users took up smoking as a mode of relaxation and socialization.

I doubt Native Americans mass-produced cigarettes, marketed them to minorities and teens, and carefully controlled the nicotine content to maximize the addicton impulse. But then, I'm not much of a historian.

What about the auto industry? Were cars designed so people could get into accidents?

No, and the ones that do are recalled. Eventually.

There is no such thing as a safe cigarette,

True.

and there is no such thing as a safe car.

But such a thing is the goal, and in the case of my Volvo, one reasonably well-acheived.

What is emmitting from the tailpipe of your car is lot more potent than a single cigarette, and I hope you don't dare have the audacity to drive in public.

In public, yes. But I will refrain from pulling up next to you at the bar and idling all night.

Bars should not be bound to a smoke-free environment. No one has to go to a bar!!!

Yes, but I LIKE to go the the bar. Freedom of choice, the same as yours. Your freedom to smoke, however, ends at my nose.

As long as tobacco is legal, the right to use it limited places should be protected.

And it is. But if smoking is banned in bars, it won't be legal now, would it.

Which reminds me of the old bumper sticker, "When pickled eggs are outlawed, only outlaws..."

And you say you would like to have the opportunity to a buy a drink. A drink that is directly responsible for thousands of deaths of users and nonusers of alcohol a like.

The beer I just ordered isn't directly responsible for killing anybody. Don't be silly. If I drink a lot of them and get drunk and got in my car and ran you over, I would be directly responsible. But my beer sitting there on the bar never hurt nobody. Unless I spilled it on you and you stabbed me in retaliation. Just don't try to blame the knife when you're talking to the judge.

If you decide to become a health advocate, don't think you can take on your health advocacy without the same zeal towards other forms of public health infractions.

I have taken stands against public polluters (and won), further reinforcing to me that toxins recklessly spewing forth from an unregulated source are odious and socially unacceptable when they're coming from the stack on a medical waste incinerator, too.

October 27, 200618 yr

^Why do you think they called my wife "Wheezy"?

Two-pack-a-day smoker.

Shocking.

LMAO!!! :mrgreen:

October 27, 200618 yr

lol! game, set & match to the kingfish.

i would just add "and clothes" to his "your freedom to smoke ends at my nose" quote. you can not believe how nice it is to go out all night and still be able to wear some of those clothes the next day.

October 28, 200618 yr

I'm with you Mrnyc.....go over your way a LOT...and I guess some people here in good ole Ohio just don't get the concept. Maybe you can explain a little to the nay sayers and dooms dayers that it really does work. I don't mind people smoking at all....I just don't want to smoke with them, and by being jammed into a place that allows it, thats exactly what I get to do. Maybe instead of "spitting beer in the face" of a smoker...maybe we should all just share in their drinks...since they are so willing to share their smoke....

October 28, 200618 yr

In NY and NJ I know a lot of people like myself, where more apprehensive to go out to a club PRIOR to the smoking ban being put into place.

Now I am more apt to go to a bar, dinner, a club with friends and not worry about smelling like a tobacco factory after I leave; worry about someone blowing their smoke UP into my face; worry about being accidently burned by a smoker; worry about ruining clothes or the associated dry cleaning bills.

I hope the ohio law passes.

Sign In

Ohio Smoking Ban

Featured Replies

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Recently Browsing 0

Account

Navigation

Search