I didn't like either of the two options presented for vote.

 

The version backed by the tobacco industry was a bit more reasonable, but the language related to changing the state constitution, and over turning existing, more stringent smoking bans made it too dumb to vote for.

 

The version backed by the American Cancer Society (the one that passed) is too restrictive.  It seems that there should at least be some venues that should be ale to permit indoor smoking.  Some bars, cigar bars, private clubs like country clubs and the VFW, etc.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I love that any place where I don't really have a choice to be is going to be smoke free.  Offices, lobby areas, airports, stores. I just think the law that passed went a bit too far.

 

For the record.  I don't smoke cigarettes, but I love my occasional cigar. 

 

 

i don't own a tobacco shop, but 80% of revenues from tobacco doesn't seem like a lofty goal. I mean what else can a tobacco shop sell? Doilies?

i don't own a tobacco shop, but 80% of revenues from tobacco doesn't seem like a lofty goal. I mean what else can a tobacco shop sell? Doilies?

 

Bongs, lottery tickets, pop, chips, bongs, lighters, magazines, candy, bongs, CDs, newspapers, ashtrays, bongs...

 

Bongs,

 

That's "tobacco water pipe" to you, mister!

 

I am encountering more and more people who wish they hadn't voted for issue 5, because they didn't realize how strict it was.

 

I've heard this statement many times now.  Why would you vote for something if you didn't know what you were voting for???  The text of the issue was available to read for a while before election day and the language was on the ballot.  Do people not even bother to read?  It's disturbing.

 

 

I believe not every detail was included on the ballot. I don't remember reading or knowing anything about all the stipulations for tobacco shops on election day.

I am encountering more and more people who wish they hadn't voted for issue 5, because they didn't realize how strict it was.

 

Think there's a chance you're selectively listening, Vulpster? :roll:

Everyone I know is thrilled about the ban and can't wait for it to become reliably and uniformly enforced.

^ hey, I never said that I didn't encounter people thrilled with the ban, but I sense that there are enough people who could have made the issue passage even closer if they had known all the details and/or voted based on other considerations beside if they personally smoke or not.

^The ban passed by a 20-point margin.

 

That's a lot of confused people.

^The ban passed by a 20-point margin.

 

That's a lot of confused people.

 

i'm confused why we are still whining about it.

^ I'm clearly talking about Issue 5 (the smoking ban), which won 58% of the votes.

^exactly, why are we still whining about it?

ughh.. nevermind. i meant to post it in response to kingfish. the margin wasn't 20 points.

  58% Fer

-  42% Agin

-- -----------

  16% Margin 

 

I stand corrected.

 

The ban passed by a 16 point margin.

 

That's (still) a lot of confused people.

if the people were truly confused, Issue 4 would have also passed due to its politicking and obscure wording.

^Spoken like a true nazi.

^Spoken like a true nazi.

 

i prefer the term, ethically challenged fascist.

I'm actually pretty satisfied with the situation right now. If there wasn't all this confusion about enforcement, I'd say that there is a nice and fair balance between smoking and non-smoking establishments and I hope it could just remain this way.

I supported the ban as far better than issue 4, better than the situation before, but certainly not ideal.  My preferred solution would have been to create a limited number of smoking "licenses" a la liqour licenses.  Set the number at something like 20% of the number of establishments that currently allow smoking and auction them off.  Would allow places that really felt that smoking was important to their business continue to allow it and raise some $ for the state budget (I'd feel better about that part if I thought they'd actually do something intelligent with it, but I digress). 

 

I do think some of the restrictions in the current one go too far - e.g. the patio rule pretty much eliminates smoking on outdoor, open-air patios, which seems a bit much, as does the restrictions on private clubs (why does it need to be a standalone building?)  Since it's a law, though, I expect that some of these quirky problems will be addressed.

Ohio smoking ban draws comments

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

January 12, 2007

 

COLUMBUS – Thousands of Ohioans responded to the state’s invitation to submit comments that health officials will use to develop rules for enforcing the new statewide smoking ban.

 

More than 60 percent of the more than 3,500 letters and e-mail messages received by Thursday’s deadline supported the ban, said Kristopher Weiss, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Health.

 

Read more:

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/NEWS01/301120006

Does the ban exclude hookah bars?

Does the ban exclude hookah bars?

 

only if 80% of their revenue is derived from tobacco.

Businesses warned to enforce ban

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

January 13, 2007

 

COLUMBUS - State health officials reminded businesses again Friday that Ohio now has a statewide smoking ban.

 

In a letter sent to some 280,000 businesses, the Ohio Department of Health repeated its warning that the smoking ban is in effect, though rules for enforcing it are not final.

 

Read more:

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/NEWS01/701130420/1056/COL02

Smoking-ban rules draw heat

VFW hall patrons cry foul: 'Those guys fought for that freedom'

BY LIZ LONG | [email protected]

January 17, 2007

 

COLUMBUS - Veterans, a local politician and bowling alley owners Tuesday lit into the state's proposed rules for enforcing a new smoking ban.

 

The ban passed by voters in November took effect Dec. 7 but can't be enforced until the state health department adopts rules. The ban prohibits smoking in any "public place" or "place of employment."

 

Read more:

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/NEWS01/701170345/1077/COL02

"When many of these veterans went to war, the government threw cigarettes at them, and now they are 80 years old, and the government is telling them that they can't smoke in their private club," said Seagraves, who is also a member of the advisory committee. "The government made smokers out of them. ... Those guys fought for that freedom."

 

Oh thats great...here comes the freedom thing again...you know the government also threw guns at them, should we allow them to shoot people too (cough Paul Hacket).

 

State Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Green Twp. In a written statement, he called the draft rules "an abomination."

 

"The rules are overbroad, vague, internally inconsistent and fail to comport with the most basic requirements of due process," Seitz, a Republican, said in a letter co-signed by state Sen. Timothy J. Grendell, R-Chesterland. He said he has never seen an agency proposal "so utterly lacking in its respect for due process of law.''

 

Great another idiot politician from the westside of Cincinnati!!!  I guess its too much to ask people that want to light up to be respectful about it and not do it inside a public place.  I understand that people LOVE to chainsmoke at some of these establishments, but what about the workers that are confined to this smoke filled environment whether they like it or not.  Is it fair to them, for trying to make some money...and having to deal with that nonsense??

there's a guy named Socrates Tuch?

 

Tenant in duplex is fuming over neighbor's smoking

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Harlan Spector

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Cozette Morgan pulled a breathing mask over her face as she stepped outside her second-story rental into a hallway that reeks of stale cigar smoke.

 

The painter's mask may be more theatrical than pragmatic. "I'm not sure it even works very well," said Morgan, 51, a one-time rising R&B singer and self-described eccentric loner.

Seems like more and more people are realizing this ban is more than what they thought. (VFW anyone?)

I don't really care about it since I don't smoke.  Its still gonna be an issue because people either didn't understand it or they didn't anticipate what the ban would apply to.  Of course there will be those resistant to the ban as others have pointed out.  At least its something to keep an eye on.

Columbus Field Report:

 

Went out drinking in the Short North with an old pal last night, and out of four bars visited, only one was not enforcing the smoking ban (Mike's at High and Buttles).

 

Also, my head hurts really, really bad.

 

And I could use a tall glass of water and some eggs.

Seems like more and more people are realizing this ban is more than what they thought. (VFW anyone?)

I don't really care about it since I don't smoke.  Its still gonna be an issue because people either didn't understand it or they didn't anticipate what the ban would apply to.  Of course there will be those resistant to the ban as others have pointed out.  At least its something to keep an eye on.

 

How could a person make that statement?  I don't even vote in Ohio and I was able to print each issues and read them.

 

So how, better yet, why would a person vote for something they didn't understand?  If they did vote and now are having second thoughts, who's fault is it?

 

The same thing happened in NYC, people complained at first, in a few months when all the laws enforceable laws are explained, there should be any reason for people to not know what is expected.

So how, better yet, why would a person vote for something they didn't understand?  If they did vote and now are having second thoughts, who's fault is it?

 

Thats funny...why do you think we have our current leadership in the White House??  :laugh:

So how, better yet, why would a person vote for something they didn't understand?  If they did vote and now are having second thoughts, who's fault is it?

 

Thats funny...why do you think we have our current leadership in the White House??  :laugh:

 

 

HELLO!!

This proves nothing other than the speed with which people faced with the prospect of a temporary windfall will cave into their own craven fears.

all it proves to me is that it needs to be an all or nothing ban across an entire state.

Ditto.

 

We have a new ordinance banning smoking in eateries, businesses and workplaces in Ashland, Kentucky. Result?

 

30-40% INCREASE in traffic at Blue Ribbon Lanes, a local bowling and game center with a bar and restaurant. More diversity, the owners stated. They were originally strongly opposed to the ordinance. There are many alternatives for the smokers to go -- there are two bowling centers in cities/areas where smoking is allowed, so alternatives _do_ exist.

 

Other restaurants, like Boston Beanerie, saw no change in traffic.

 

The only loss? Katie's Corner Cafe. A grease pit which features some downright _nasty_ food. They also receive 70-80% in their food inspections (it is published). They nearly went backrupt and came very close to closing food good -- but instead, they cut their hours back, then raised them soon after to 24 hours to serve the truck drivers (despite the fact this is in _downtown_). Now they are closing at 3 PM Mondays and Tuesdays because of the "smoking ban."

 

Perhaps it's their lousy food and lousy health inspections. People will continue to blame the smoking ban for their ills, but if business drops, it's for another reason.

its seems any time a business fails, the owner is quick to blame someone else, typical potential scapegoats:

 

1) Smoking Bans!

2) Construction (see also Euclid Corridor Construction)

3) The all evil Big Box Retailer

4) 9/11

5) Nazis

6) The Nanny State

7) Parking

8 ) The ZBA

9) 9/11 (It's important to not forget 9/11)

10) Green Onions (Chi Chi's)

11) Fingers (Wendy's)

12) Name on sign (Jack in the Box, Frickers, Hobo's Chicken, Finger's)

I was in a bar the other night that was openly violating the ban, while still posting the no smoking signs with the hotline number.  The owners were both there...one drunk and smoking as every other night.  The other owner, a non-smoker, told me that they were losing too much business to enforce the smoking ban.  However, I was there a week ago with about 6 smokers who all just went outside whenever then needed their fix... it was cold, but no big deal!  He cited panhandlers and the litter problem as reasons why that wouldn't work.  I suggested that he look into one of those ash buckets or something, but he didn't like that idea. 

Follow-up to my Columbus Field Report: out of the four bars visited, by far the most empty was the one allowing smoking.

Hey now look!

 

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/NEWS01/70123012/-1/NEWS13

 

“I just don’t think that it’s right to run our World War II vets and Korean vets outside to smoke a cigarette,” Seagraves said. “I think they should have a place they can go smoke without going outside in the snow and the rain to have a cigarette.”

 

Um, just because you fought in a war doesn't give you the right to pollute the VFW (or any place) with your cancer-causing smoke. War veterans are just people - and I fully respect that they fought in a war - but that doesn't automatically give them special privileges to smoke.

^one on hand though its amusing how the government was the handing out cigarettes left and right to them while abroad.

 

pope's asshole insensitive comment: "yeah, and sunlamps and sunbeds is known to be a human carcinogen, but I don't see the government regulating them!"

 

Yes i know you can avoid sunlamps, but there's always diesel exhaust, which is in the "believed" category.

I have to go with "I was against the ban before, but now I'm glad it passed."  As a smoker, I was totally against the smoking ban, but the ban has actually gave me the push I needed to quit.  Although it has only been about 3 weeks since my last cigarette, past attempts at quitting usually would already be a lost cause at the 3 week mark becuase of drunken nights out at smoke-filled bars.  Now the temptation to have a smoke isn't nearly as great when I go out.

The only thing worse than a smoker is a self-righteous former-smoker, of which I am absolutely the worst possible example.

 

Welcome to the smoke-free fold, brother dfly!

quitters. 

losers.

this coming from spongebob

You don't have imagination?

You don't have imagination?

 

no, SHS took that and it raped my mother.

Um, just because you fought in a war doesn't give you the right to pollute the VFW (or any place) with your cancer-causing smoke. War veterans are just people - and I fully respect that they fought in a war - but that doesn't automatically give them special privileges to smoke.

Kindness!  Some of those men have PTSD.  You don't know what it's like.