Ohio Smoking Ban

May 23, 200718 yr

^Poo.

May 23, 200718 yr

rickshaws?

maybe in columbus but cincy is too hilly.

May 23, 200718 yr

Time to put the marathoners to work.

May 24, 200718 yr

^diesel exhaust, believed to be just as much as a carcinogen as second hand smoke.

ETS isn't anything more than a nuisance in normally encountered concentrations so this is quite believable. Of course, now its the only workplace "toxin" not regulated by the concept of Permissable Exposure Limit.

In order to use the excuse of "protecting employees" (never mind that if only bar employees and patrons were allowed to vote this thing would have lost big time), the zealots had to completely dismiss the effect of concentration on toxicity. Which is like dismissing the effect of voltage on electricity.

May 24, 200718 yr

^allowing only who the ban would affect to vote is silly. That would be like having school children be the only ones to vote on their levies.

Or drug users the only ones to vote on stiffer penalties.

May 24, 200718 yr

Might as well go back to the horse and buggy.

Oh wait, the manure...

Hey I lived in an Amish town for 6 months. Those people are obnoxious. If people have to clean up dog sh!t, Amish people need to be required to clean up hose sh!t off the roads.

May 24, 200718 yr

>Why is it soo hard for people to just go outside to smoke.

Why is it soo hard for people who don't like smoking to not go to places where people smoke? Maybe because they're grossly exaggerating the risks and how much it irritates them. You know what? I hate techno. So I don't go to places that play techno.

And the other thing is all these radio ads on Ohio radio stations. This is a bar before smoking. This is a bar after smoking. Who the hell is paying for these ads? KENTUCKY BAR OWNERS, THAT'S WHO.

Amen to this one.

The bar I go to refused to enforce the ban until it had to. It's main two competitors enforced it. The smoker-friendly bar's business went way up. It's dropped somewhat since the ban kicked, but it hasn't gone back to where it was.

It ought to be strictly up to the owner. It's not for obvious reasons: the zealots wouldn't get their way in most bars. They needed an excuse beyond simple busybodyism. They came up with "protecting" employees. Never mind that the employees had no interest in such "protection", and that the ban ignores commonly accepted principles of occupational chemical exposure regulation.

"Why not just go outside?"

Several reasons.

The first two are obvious: rain and winter. This law even forbids "significant coverage" by umbrellas over a deck.

Third of all: if there's no controlled access, you can't take alcohol outside. Leaving a drink unattended is quite risky in some circles.

Fourth: The bar lacks the kind of control over the outside that it has inside. It's a lot tougher to keep undesirables from harrasing patrons.

Fifth: Noise. If there are houses nearby the bar just got a lot noisier, until 230am.

May 25, 200718 yr

If a business can only sustain itself by allowing smoking then I think that business has bigger problems than the smoking ban.

May 25, 200718 yr

Generally speaking, I like this thread better when it goes off-topic.

May 25, 200718 yr

^I like most threads better when they are off topic. Topics are for essays and speeches. Discussions need to follow an organic flow.

May 25, 200718 yr

>It ought to be strictly up to the owner. It's not for obvious reasons: the zealots wouldn't get their way in most bars. They needed an excuse beyond simple busybodyism. They came up with "protecting

This is exactly it. And another thing, nobody's going to change my mind about the supposed threat of cigarette smoke but I WOULD agree to a smoking ban IF THEY LOWERED THE DRINKING AGE BACK TO 18. Bar revenue would skyrocket. I argue too that MADD indirectly contributed to the ruining of American music by forcing the drinking age to 21 -- for the past 20 years there have been even fewer paying gigs for musicians and so people are both exposed to less good live music and there's less incentive for people to make a go at being professional musicians.

May 25, 200718 yr

If MADD really wanted to make a difference, every penny they touched would go into mass transit and all the lobbying would support it.

May 25, 200718 yr

From the 5/25/07 ABJ:

Callers report 4,251 smoking violations

Majority of complaints under new law target bars

By Tracy Wheeler

Beacon Journal medical writer

Since enforcement of Ohio's law banning public smoking went into effect on May 3, the state has received 4,251 complaints -- an average of 193 a day.

Smoking in prohibited areas is the most common grievance, though callers also have complained that some establishments are leaving ashtrays on the tables, some aren't posting the required "No Smoking'' signs and some are allowing smoke from outside to waft inside.

The vast majority of complaints have targeted bars -- Akron's Cliffside Club is leading the way locally with 10 complaints -- but they also have included such spots as the Varsity Teen Center in Barberton, the Hartville Flea Market and the Stark County Dental Society.

A complaint is not proof of a violation.

May 26, 200718 yr

...And another thing, nobody's going to change my mind about the supposed threat of cigarette smoke but I WOULD agree to a smoking ban IF THEY LOWERED THE DRINKING AGE BACK TO 18. Bar revenue would skyrocket. I argue too that MADD indirectly contributed to the ruining of American music by forcing the drinking age to 21 -- for the past 20 years there have been even fewer paying gigs for musicians and so people are both exposed to less good live music and there's less incentive for people to make a go at being professional musicians.

There are so many leaps of logic in this paragraph that I'm no longer certain of which forum I'm on.

Thanks!

May 26, 200718 yr

From the 5/26/07 Dispatch:

Smoking ban goes back to court

Strickland supports leeway for private clubs, such as VFWs

Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:23 AM

By James Nash

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Ohio voters didn't intend to take cigarettes out of the hands of veterans and other patrons of private clubs, Gov. Ted Strickland said yesterday in appealing a judge's decision that applied the statewide smoking ban to those clubs.

Strickland directed Attorney General Marc Dann to appeal a Franklin County judge's May 17 ruling that voided the Ohio Department of Health's decision to allow smoking at private clubs.

Strickland said voters approved a ballot measure in November that specifically exempted Ohio's estimated 1,500 private clubs from anti-smoking rules. The clubs include veteran's organizations as well as ethnic clubs, motorcycle groups and yacht clubs.

The measure approved by 58 percent of Ohio voters banished smoking in most public places. It allowed smoking in private clubs but not in businesses with employees -- an apparent contradiction that has left the matter in court.

Judge David E. Cain of Franklin County Common Pleas Court ruled that the private-club exemption was an "apparition" because all private clubs have employees, even unpaid ones.

The American Cancer Society and the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, which were on opposite sides of last year's campaign, agree that smoking should be forbidden at private clubs because they have employees. A coalition of clubs, led by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, supports the Ohio Department of Health's position that the ballot measure explicitly exempted private clubs.

Strickland weighed in yesterday on the clubs' side.

Read more:

[email protected]

http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/05/26/SMOKBAN.ART_ART_05-26-07_B1_6S6R3D9.html

From the 5/25/07 Port Clinton News Herald:

Possible smoking-ban side effect: mulch fires, says chief

By CATHARINE HADLEY

Staff writer

PORT CLINTON --Landscaping mulch might have a less-attractive feature -- it could be a fire hazard, according to an official.

"We've had seven mulch fires this year," said Port Clinton Fire Department Chief Kent Johnson. He said that number is much higher than past years, especially this early in the season.

A contributing factor might be Ohio's new smoking ban, since more people have been smoking outside, Johnson said. Businesses can help the situation by making sure smokers have a convenient, obvious place to discard their cigarette butts instead of letting them fall into mulch, he said.

May 27, 200718 yr

From the 5/27/07 Lima News:

Health departments around the region weigh in on smoking ban

Kimberly R. Simmons | [email protected] - 05.27.2007

LIMA — It took one comment from Karen Swan’s then-10-year-old granddaughter to get her to quit smoking.

As Swan was about to light up, her granddaughter asked her not to do it.

“She said, ‘Please don’t smoke because I don’t want you to die,’” Swan said. “That stuck in my head.”

Swan, of Columbus, said she owes her success to being smoke-free for more than a year to the Ohio Tobacco Quit Line.

May 29, 200718 yr

>There are so many leaps of logic in this paragraph that I'm no longer certain of which forum I'm on.

Well there are so many leaps of logic in the rationale behind the smoking ban I'm not sure we're still living in the America that beat back the Krauts.

>If MADD really wanted to make a difference, every penny they touched would go into mass transit and all the lobbying would support it.

That's right. Although they do have a lot of trouble with drunks trashing trains and buses in England to the extent that some late night routes have actually been cut. What's funny is they launched something called Care Cab when MADD was in full swing back around 1988 and people abused the heck out of it. It was supposed to be a free cab to take you home anywhere in Cincinnati but instead people called it to bar and party hop.

Also here's a gem from my photo archives, the immortal Joe Nuxhall smoking in his van.

May 29, 200718 yr

Link contains a photo. From the 5/28/07 Dayton Business Journal:

Eateries contend with smoking ban

Ohio received 3,800 complaints since May

Dayton Business Journal - May 25, 2007

by Tracy Kershaw-Staley

DBJ Staff Reporter

Terry Riber can tell the difference.

His clothes no longer smell of smoke. The air is clearer. And business, knock on wood, isn't down.

Riber, general manger of two Cadillac Jack's restaurants in Greene County, believes Ohio's statewide smoking ban actually will spur new business, drawing more families in for dinner and lunch.

But in these first months of the smoking ban, other restaurants are taking a hit, mostly on their bar business.

Some began enforcing the law in January, while others have waited until this May, when the state began collecting complaints. More than 3,800 complaints have been filed statewide since May 1, according to the Ohio Department of Health. In a nine-county area of southwestern Ohio, reaching south to Butler and Warren, west to Preble, east to Clark and north to Shelby, there were 645 complaints.

For Dayton bar and restaurant owners, 2007 has been the year of the triple-whammy: the smoking ban, the hike in the minimum wage and increased competition as several new players opened. The business climate has forced restaurant owners to be more creative and reduce staffing levels, owners say.

June 1, 200718 yr

>There are so many leaps of logic in this paragraph that I'm no longer certain of which forum I'm on.

Well there are so many leaps of logic in the rationale behind the smoking ban I'm not sure we're still living in the America that beat back the Krauts.

And yet AGAIN with the Nazis!

June 1, 200718 yr

Oops I did it again.

June 1, 200718 yr

From the 6/1/07 Marion Star:

Smoking ban update Web site problem stalls local enforcement

By JOHN JARVIS

The Marion Star

MARION - Issues with a Web file have slowed enforcement of the statewide smoking ban in Marion County, said local health officials.

The Marion City Health Department as of Wednesday morning had received 31 reports at 16 locations of alleged violations of the ban, which prohibits smoking in enclosed public places, through the Ohio Department of Health.

The Marion County Health Department had received six reports of alleged violations at four locations. Neither the city nor the county has levied any fines, which for businesses are $100 on second violation, $500 on third violation, $1,500 on fourth violation and $2,500 on fifth and subsequent violations. For individuals, the fine is $100 for second and subsequent violations. Offenders receive a warning letter on the first violation and have the right to appeal.

"We've had a little bit of difficulty with the Web file," said Sandy Bridenstine, environmental health director for the city health department, adding that other health departments have run into the same problem. "We've been in contact with the state, and they're working on it."

June 4, 200718 yr

Link contains a photo. From the 6/3/07 Blade:

Complaints pile up since Ohio's smoking-ban enforcement began

Violators to receive warning letters

By JULIE M. McKINNON

BLADE STAFF WRITER

Nick Fall has complied with Ohio’s smoking ban by posting related signs and removing the ashtrays at his New Airport Lounge, but he won’t police customers who light up.

The neighborhood-bar owner doesn’t plan to start prohibiting smoking until the fines associated with the ban start kicking in, a decision that has kept his tobacco-using clientele happy for the last month and has even attracted some new customers.

From the 6/3/07 Stow Sentry:

Smoke 'em (outside of businesses) if ya got 'em

by Mark R. Potter

Regional Editor

Summit County -- They say where there is smoke, there is fire. But while officials say nothing dramatic has occurred since May 3, when the enforcement of Ohio's indoor smoking ban began, not all local bar owners agree.

Gene Nixon, Director of the Summit County Health District, said May 30 there had been 38 violations reported by the agency since enforcement began.

"That's a pretty small amount from what we expected," Nixon said.

However, the violations reported are far fewer than the number of "alleged violations" called in to the Ohio Department of Health says it has received.

According to information provided by ODH, county residents phoned in about 309 violations since the enforcement began. Neighboring Cuyahoga County reported 428, while 41 complaints derived from Portage County.

"I think the enforcement's going pretty well," said Kristopher Weiss, spokesman for the ODH. "We really didn't know what to expect because we've never done this before."

But while health officials iron out the enforcement aspect, area business owners say they are trying not to lose money.

Scott Brewer, president and co-owner of seven Brubaker Pub locations, including one in Stow and Hudson, said he has noticed a decline in sales.

June 4, 200718 yr

From the 6/4/07 Athens News:

So far, smoking ban apparently isn't hurting local businesses

By Nick Claussen

Monday, June 4th, 2007

Before the statewide smoking ban went into effect, several local bar owners and managers were concerned about the impact of the ban on their customers and their employees.

Some worried that it would drive customers away, while others worried about how their employees would handle no longer being able to smoke in the bars. Now that the ban is in place and is being enforced, local bar owners aren't reporting any loss of business, but some are upset about a few of the law's ramifications.

The voter-approved statewide law went into effect in December, and its enforcement began in May. As of Friday, the Athens City/County Health Department had only received eight complaints involving smoking at seven businesses. Ironically, one of those businesses was a health-care agency.

Most businesses seem to be complying with the new law, though there is still some confusion about it.

June 6, 200718 yr

From the 6/5/07 Enquirer:

Smoking ban faces challenge

Group: Bar sales down since enforcement began

BY JON NEWBERRY | [email protected]

A Cincinnati-based trade group that represents hundreds of bar owners is proposing to roll back Ohio's smoking ban and allow smoking in certain bars and other establishments.

Representatives of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association submitted a proposed constitutional amendment along with 1,417 signatures to the state's attorney general Monday, said Patrick Carroll, the group's president. The attorney general's office is expected to take about 10 days to review the language, he said.

Once that happens, the group intends to circulate petitions in bars across the state to gather the 140,000 signatures needed to have the proposal introduced in the legislature before the current session ends this month, Carroll said.

June 8, 200718 yr

Link contains a video. From the 6/7/07 Sandusky Register:

SMOKE SIGNALS: Health commissioner follows up on complaints

By TOM JACKSON | Thursday June 07 2007, 11:15am

SANDUSKY Erie County Health Commissioner Pete Schade parked his pickup truck Tuesday morning at the Hy-Miler on west Venice Road in Sandusky and hurried into the store ahead of the rest of his group, hoping to catch a smoker.

As he walked inside, he found a store employee puffing on a cigarette, confirming complaints telephoned to the health department that employees at the store have been smoking after the statewide smoking ban went into effect.

"He had the door open," Schade said. "He was blowing it outside the door."

"If you want to smoke, you have to go completely outside," Schade told the employee.

From the 6/7/07 Celina Daily Standard:

Mercer County to check on illegal smoking at night

Complaints about tobacco use above average for state; Auglaize County complaints lower

By Shelley Grieshop

Local health officials soon will be checking out the nightlife as they investigate an above-average number of complaints about violators of the new smoking ban.

Chris Miller, sanitarian for the Mercer County-Celina City Health Department, said on-site checks to investigate possible violators have taken health officials to businesses and private clubs during daytime hours on seven occasions. But he has learned some establishments - particularly private clubs like VFWs, American Legions and Fraternal Order of Eagles Lodges - are banning smoking only during daytime business hours.

June 8, 200718 yr

From the 6/8/07 Marietta Times:

Amendment sought for smoking ban

By Brad Bauer, [email protected]

A bar owners association is seeking an exemption to the state’s smoking ban for some taverns, saying voters didn’t understand how restrictive the ban would be and businesses are losing too many smoking customers.

The proposal would allow smoking at bowling alleys after 6 p.m., at bars where no more than 10 percent of sales are food and at private clubs, such as Veterans of Foreign War posts. A group of about 300 bar owners will try to take the plan to lawmakers first and then to voters on the November ballot if rejected in the Legislature.

Cindy Lanning, owner of North Hills Lanes in Marietta, said she thought the presence of two smoking-related issues on last November’s election ballot was confusing for many.

June 12, 200718 yr

Link contains photos. From the 6/11/07 Hillsboro Times-Gazette:

Smoking ban opposed

Proposal would allow tavern owners to apply for smoking permit

By KATIE WRIGHT

The Times-Gazette

A statewide proposal that would exempt some taverns from the Ohio Smoking Ban has local bar owners chomping at the bit to sign their names onto it, in hopes of restoring smoking privileges to their flagging businesses.

The proposal, which comes eight months after the statewide ban on smoking that was approved overwhelmingly by voters last fall, would enable taverns to apply for a smoking license if their food sales do not exceed 10 percent of their overall income.

Several Highland County bar owners are gearing up to campaign for the proposal, saying the majority of their customers would support it in a moment.

"The smoking ban affected us very negatively," said Kyle Handlin, who runs Ye Old Tavern in Hillsboro. "We're a small business and food is a very small percentage of our sales. I can understand banning smoking in restaurants, but to ban it in places like ours is crazy."

June 12, 200718 yr

Again, perhaps the voters deserve a slap in the face for being busybodies, much as they did when Prohibition came about. The "science" behind the smoking bans is so politically charged that this vote was the equivalent of voting pi equal to 3.0. There is no toxin in existence which is hazardous at even the smallest concentrations.

A sensible compromise would have been obvious:

1) Require all businesses allowing smoking to post signs on each entrance advising potential entrants of this fact.

2) Mandate that the ambient smoke concentration be kept below a certain level on an eight hour "weighted average" basis. (This is the way workplace chemical exposure is regulated in just about every other industry).

The law as written is clearly not about protecting employees. It's government telling business owners what otherwise legal activities they may allow on their own property. That's overreach, no matter how many non-involved people can be conned into voting for it.

June 12, 200718 yr

There is no toxin in existence which is hazardous at even the smallest concentrations.

What in thee hell are you talking about?

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hazardoustoxicsubstances/recognition.html

With all due respect, give it up, crybaby.

June 12, 200718 yr

I find KOOW hazardous even when he doesn't post

June 12, 200718 yr

There is no toxin in existence which is hazardous at even the smallest concentrations.

I seriously hope you took some basic science course.

Seriously though, the naysayers will continue to cry about the smoking ban. As if that is the most important value in their life, to be able to smoke in a bar or restaurant. Get a life.

June 12, 200718 yr

There is no toxin in existence which is hazardous at even the smallest concentrations.

What in thee hell are you talking about?

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hazardoustoxicsubstances/recognition.html

I've worked with those standards on a professional basis. You'll note that they all reference something called a Permissable Exposure Limit. Toxic chemicals are regulated on this basis.

For example, http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/hydrogencyanide/recognition.html (off your link)

Hydrogen Cyanide has a PEL of 10 ppm (11 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m(3))) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration.

Let's keep talking about OSHA, since that's what you linked.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=19955&p_table=INTERPRETATIONS

In 1990, some anti-smoking groups lobbied OSHA to ban smoking in workplaces. The problem was that OSHA has a rigorous system for determining the levels of occupational chemical exposure in the workplace. They applied that system, and here's what they said:

Thank you for your letter of February 7, to the U.S. Department of Labor in which you inquired about workplace standards establishing what concentration of tobacco smoke is "too much." The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the agency charged with assuring worker safety and health; therefore, your inquiry was referred to OSHA for a response.

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Currently, OSHA has no regulation which specifically addresses tobacco smoke as a whole because it is such a complex mixture. OSHA does, however, have standards which limit employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. Some of OSHA's permissible exposure limits (PELs) and short term exposure limits (STELs) for major components of tobacco smoke are listed below. OSHA's PEL's are 8-hour time weighted averages of the contaminant concentration in air while STELs are averaged over a 15-minute time period. Concentrations are measured in volumetric parts of contaminant per million parts of air (ppm) or by weight of contaminant per volume of air (mg/m3).

Contaminant PEL STEL

Carbon Monoxide 35 ppm 200 ppm

Nicotine 0.5 mg/m3

Sulfur Dioxide 2 ppm 5 ppm

Ammonia 35 ppm

Nitric Oxide 25 ppm

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 ppm

Vinyl Chloride 1 ppm 5 ppm

Hydrogen Cyanide 4.7 ppm

Formaldehyde 1 ppm 2 ppm

Benzene 1 ppm 5 ppm

Arsenic 0.1 mg/m3

If the PEL or STEL for any of these air contaminants is exceeded, corrective action must be taken by the employer to reduce employee exposure to the contaminant. It is rare, however, that an overexposure occurs simply as a result of indoor air contaminants generated solely by smoking of cigarettes.

At this point, the effort to promote a ban through the PEL system was abandoned and a more direct approach was taken. However, the advocates still claimed to be "protecting workers". Since workplace chemical protection is based so heavily on the PEL, this amounted to claiming to be an electrician while ignoring the concept of voltage.

To claim that "no level of exposure" is to claim that even the lowest measurable levels are unsafe, which is ridiculous on its very face. It's effectively claiming that ETS is more toxic than cyanide.

Unfortunately, the debate has become highly politicized and science itself has become disturbingly vulnerable to politics. However, this link belonging to a Minnesota state senator provides a rather thorough refutation of some of the studies used by the ban proponents.

http://tomneuville.com/archives/category/smoking-ban/

Give it up? Nope. This is politics, not science, and therefore entirely reversible. Just like Prohibition

June 12, 200718 yr

I've been involved in politics long enough to recognize an evasive non-reply from a government agency. OSHA's letter is hardly the be-all end-all.

Though, there's something particularly telling about cigarette smoke being too complex a cocktail of chemicals for an agency concerned with dangerous compounds to comprehend. However, let's take the compounds OSHA DOES know about and multiply them by 20 (20 folks lit up at any given time in the confines of a bar) in the presence of a chemical that drives oxygen out of blood cells (alcohol) and sustain the exposure over the course of 4-5 hours (a good night out drinking) and see what happens.

Here's what happens: employees (and patrons) get stinky and tired and sick. There are before-the-ban / after-the-ban studies from Scotland that prove this already (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012190032.htm). Surely there are American studies that do the same.

Yes, there are politics here. If you haven't noticed there are politics everywhere, even (and especially) on the Pro-Smoker side. Let's not forget the level of savvy employed by the authors of the intentionally confusing SmokeLess Ohio ballot proposal. Thankfully, the voters were not fooled.

Good for you, voters!

Here was a (GASP! Political) OP ED piece from one of the unconfusable:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061028/OPINION04/610280306

The only true smoking ban: Issue 5

By PATRICK REYNOLDS

AS A grandson of R.J. Reynolds, I have seen the wealth the tobacco business can create. I have also seen the harm tobacco does. My own father, R.J. Reynolds, Jr., my eldest brother, R.J. Reynolds III, and other family members died of cancer, heart disease, and emphysema caused by smoking the brands that made our family wealthy.

My grandfather didn't know the health effects when he founded his company in 1875. By now, however, there is an undeniable body of scientific and medical evidence proving that smoking causes cancer, heart diseas

June 13, 200718 yr

Seicer: Is there any push for a statewide smoking ban in the Kentucky legislature? My county here in PA (Allegheny) passed a countywide ban last year... but it was struck down by the state courts... which has been the impetus for our current statewide ban initiative.

June 13, 200718 yr

Yes there have been, but it has failed. Given that our Governor (Fletcher) is a medical doctor, he supports letting the cities and counties make up the individual decisions. The list is only growing as more are putting it to vote soon, but here is a list --

1. Ashland (2006) bans smoking in all enclosed public places and employment, as well as outdoor arenas, venues, patios, etc. It is considered one of the most strict in the state.

2. Daviess County (2006) banned it in any public establishment open to people under the age of 18. Excepts include private businesses and bars.

3. Frankfort (2006) banned it in any public building.

4. Georgetown (2005) banned it in most public buildings, although select hotel rooms is still okay.

5. Letcher County (2006) banned it in all public buildings and restaurants, with the exception of private clubs and buildings.

6. Lexington (2004) banned it in all public buildings.

7. Louisville (2005) banned it in public buildings, except for bars and taverns, and restaurants with profits from bars at least 25%, and Churchhill Downs.

8. Madison County (2007) is the newest on the list, and will ban it from all workplaces, restaurants, and bars.

9. Paducah (2007) banned it in all workplaces, bars, and restaurants.

This coming from a state that was once known for its tobacco. The sheer irony has made it on many news stations.

June 13, 200718 yr

A statewide smoking ban bill has reached the Senate floor in Pennsylvania... hopefully we follow Ohio's progressive lead... but I worry it won't be passed due to powerful special interests and corrupt politicos... or at least it will have so many exemptions to render it ineffective. Currently every state bordering Pennsylvania has a statewide smoking ban (except WV, which allows its counties to enact smoking bans)

emphasis on the bold:

You just made my day.

June 13, 200718 yr

http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/124446.html

Ohio smokers jumping across state line to light up

By JOHN SEEWER - Associated Press Writer

TOLEDO, Ohio --Bartender Tracy Smith quit her job in Ohio after voters banned smoking inside most public places so she could find work in Michigan.

It was a smart move.

Her tips are up and the bar where she now works is looking for more help now that smokers are crossing the state line to light up.

"We are getting new faces every day," she said.

Link unavailable.

June 13, 200718 yr

It's sad that a bar or eatery was dependent on cigarettes and smoking. You would think that the drinks, or... *gasp* food, might be the best seller.

June 13, 200718 yr

It's sad that a bar or eatery was dependent on cigarettes and smoking. You would think that the drinks, or... *gasp* food, might be the best seller.

not when your liquor permit depends on % of sales from Alcohol

June 13, 200718 yr

Must be different than here. Local laws vary, so that the case you provided is not true universally (thankfully).

June 13, 200718 yr

Must be different than here. Local laws vary, so that the case you provided is not true universally (thankfully).

a) I doubt liquor licenses vary within one state. (but I'm not a doctor)

b) on another level, maybe: with the vast array of liquor licenses available many of them have a "% of revenue from alcohol" stipulation.

As far as I can tell its mostly to differentiate an Applebee's (low % of liquor sales relative to total revenue) versus Joe's Beer and Shot Joint (high % of liquor sales relative to total revenue). Michigan Does this to prevent a city being full of too many "Bar-Bars", and allowing room for "restaurant-bars"

June 13, 200718 yr

I could really care less about smoking, the only concern that I have is that this government baby sitting will go further and further. These articles always bring up kids and families, I completely agree that in a restaurant where families are trying to enjoy a meal, they have the right to not breathe smelly air. However, I have never seen a child in a bar. If you are so concerned about your personal health you probably shouldnt really even be in a bar. If you are concerned about the health of smokers, that is a choice that they have made and that they will have to live with, just as with many of the risky behaviors all people engage in daily.

June 13, 200718 yr

I could really care less about smoking, the only concern that I have is that this government baby sitting will go further and further. These articles always bring up kids and families, I completely agree that in a restaurant where families are trying to enjoy a meal, they have the right to not breathe smelly air. However, I have never seen a child in a bar. If you are so concerned about your personal health you probably shouldnt really even be in a bar. If you are concerned about the health of smokers, that is a choice that they have made and that they will have to live with, just as with many of the risky behaviors all people engage in daily.

Ha, the Michigan one was announced with an asthmatic child who can not enjoy his favorite food, coney dogs.

June 13, 200718 yr

^ ^

I'm from Kentucky, not Ohio. Local ordinances are the game here for controlling liquor it seems. Boyd County passed an ordnance a few weeks ago permitting that a restaurant can have a bar and serve liquor only if 75% of their sales comes from food.

June 13, 200718 yr

I could really care less about smoking, the only concern that I have is that this government baby sitting will go further and further. These articles always bring up kids and families, I completely agree that in a restaurant where families are trying to enjoy a meal, they have the right to not breathe smelly air. However, I have never seen a child in a bar. If you are so concerned about your personal health you probably shouldnt really even be in a bar. If you are concerned about the health of smokers, that is a choice that they have made and that they will have to live with, just as with many of the risky behaviors all people engage in daily.

What if I am in the bar for my daily 2 beers as recommended by my doctor to help prevent cardiovascular disease? 8-)

Sign In

Ohio Smoking Ban

Featured Replies

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Recently Browsing 0

Account

Navigation

Search