SmokeFreeOhio -- Issue 5 on November ballot

[calcm]

The Ohio Secretary of State has announced that SmokeFreeOhio has been certified for the November ballot and will be Issue 5!

SmokeFreeOhio needed 96,870 valid signatures, and was required to meet a certain threshold in 44 counties; SmokeFreeOhio had more than 114,517 valid signatures, and met the standard in 73 counties.

Now that we are on the ballot, we need the support of millions of voters in Ohio to pass Issue 5. To build that support we must get the word out about #5 in newspapers, radio, television and online.

[Smitty]

... we need the support of millions of voters in Ohio to pass Issue 5....

OR... do we need the support of millions of Ohio voters to stop this crap and preserve our personal liberties?

This is America today::treehugger:
It's "illegal" to light-up a cigar in the Statue of Liberty.
Why in the Hell do I have to "press 1 for English"?
Trees & animals have "rights" and protection under the law.
9-11-01 was a "tragedy". (not a f'ing terrorist attack.)

I just might stay in Idaho... where I can smoke in a bar, and do NOT have to take my car to E-check.

[longtimefirsttime]

There are expected to be two "smoking issues" on the ballot.

The one issue is entitled Smoke Free Ohio. It would prohibit smoking in most work environments and most enclosed public places throughout the state. It is sponsored by the American Cancer Society and several other public health agencies.
http://www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/

The other issue is entitled Smoke Less Ohio. It would ban smoking in most businesses with exceptions for places like bowling alleys, bars and other establishments. It's strong supporters include RJ Reynolds and various bar & restaurant owners associations.
http://www.smokelessohio.com/index.htm

[tiger4life]

:iagree: OR... do we need the support of millions of Ohio voters to stop this crap and preserve our personal liberties?

This is America today::treehugger:
It's "illegal" to light-up a cigar in the Statue of Liberty.
Why in the Hell do I have to "press 1 for English"?
Trees & animals have "rights" and protection under the law.
9-11-01 was a "tragedy". (not a f'ing terrorist attack.)

I just might stay in Idaho... where I can smoke in a bar, and do NOT have to take my car to E-check.

[Obie Wan]

The other issue is entitled Smoke Less Ohio. It would ban smoking in most businesses with exceptions for places like bowling alleys, bars and other establishments. It's strong supporters include RJ Reynolds and various bar & restaurant owners associations.
http://www.smokelessohio.com/index.htm

Smoke Less Ohio is actually an industry-sponsored initiative that will amend the state Constution to prohibit smoking bans. It's a deceptive and misleading name, as its intent is to preserve smoking in public.

It's "illegal" to light-up a cigar in the Statue of Liberty.
Good. I don't want some inconsiderate dill-weed lighting up a horse-choker when I'm in the Statue of Liberty.

And let's be clear about one thing: there is no "right" no smoke. If you want to permit smoking in your establishment, go ahead - but there is no earthly reason that the public at large should have to indulge you in your habit.

[calcm]

......but there is no earthly reason that the public at large should have to indulge you in your habit.

Lets hope the majority of voters think this way come November.

[MTown]

I am not a smoker and I never will be...but I do think there has been a bit of a witch hunt against smoking. Some places it is just not appropriate, such as the Statue of Liberty. But, in a place like a bar I just think it's common sense that people are going to smoke. I also think it would help alot if smokers would make a concious effort to properly dispose of their butts when they are finished.

[DAWGH8R]

Common sense ????? What are YOU smoking ?? Ban all smoking !!! :obiefanfire:

[MTown]

Come on, dude.....it's a freaking bar. People smoke in bars. There are lines that this crusade is crossing over. And again, I am a life long non-smoker.

[Al.]

You go to restaurants to eat, bars/taverns to drink, bowling alleys to bowl, etc, etc... so maybe there should be "smoke houses" just for smoking :scratchchin:

[pittbeer]

The only people or person that should decide if there is smoking in an establishment is the owner of that establishment. If he/she wants smoking so be it. If they want a smoking section, great. If I'm a bar owner and I DECIDE to make my bar smoke free then thats my decision.
The public can decide by patronizing or not patronizing that establishment.

Please before someone else is making up YOUR mind VOTE NO on issue 5.

[MTown]

The only people or person that should decide if there is smoking in an establishment is the owner of that establishment. If he/she wants smoking so be it. If they want a smoking section, great. If I'm a bar owner and I DECIDE to make my bar smoke free then thats my decision.
The public can decide by patronizing or not patronizing that establishment.

Please before someone else is making up YOUR mind VOTE NO on issue 5.

Bingo! Pittbeer just stated my position better than I could.

[tubaswinger99]

So once you get rid of smoking...who is going to make up the difference of the money lost to the state due to the loss of revenue brought in by the sin tax on smoking?....Look for your takes to go up....

[tiger4life]

Those that eat Big Macs will be next. A Fat Tax. These "do-gooders" will always have a cause.

Live and let live, people need to chill out.

[Seeker]

Those that eat Big Macs will be next. A Fat Tax. These "do-gooders" will always have a cause.

Live and let live, people need to chill out.

You are correct.
Fat people better look out.

Currently, I am a smoker.
However, I respect the desire of non-smokers to not have to put up with smoke in their face if they don’t want to.

Everybody has “rights” under the constitution.
But, people need to get scared when our legislatures start to make laws to remove people’s rights.

I do not think that people should be allowed to smoke in the stands at football games or on airplanes. I do not think that people should be allowed to smoke near the entrance to any non-smoking establishment as non-smokers should not be forced to walk through a smoke cloud to go in.

But any owner of an individual business should have the right to decide whether or not to allow people to smoke in his establishment.
Any attempt by the government at putting such controls in place is starting us down a very dangerous road.
My guess is that any such law that is passed will ultimately be declared unconstitutional anyway. Then the whole “anti-smoking” group will be right back where they started.


It amuses me that right-wing conservatives are so quick to sign off on something like this initiative. It is a left-wing attempt to control the masses, and is not all that far-off from gun control laws.

This is indeed a witch hunt. If you understand what happens during a witch hunt or the end result of mob psychology, this issue being on the ballot should be of serious concern to you.

When they have burned one witch at the stake, they will start looking for the next one.
It will not stop with smoking.

In case you have forgotten, we had thirteen years of prohibition in this country. They have the legal limit down to .08 now, and someday it is likely to be zero.

Once a public attitude like this gets started, there will be no end to it.

Ultimately they will tell you what to drive, and how many miles per year you may drive.
They will stop you from wearing perfume or cologne.
They will decide if you are too overweight, and if you are you will pay for two seats on an airplane, you will pay more for healthcare insurance, and you will not be allowed to be employed in certain industries.

All you concealed carry guys can expect to lose your guns again.

They will decide how big a house you can live in based on the size of your family. They will tell you how warm you can keep it in the winter and how cool you can keep it in the summer.

Forget home-schooling. They will force your kids into the public system.

I’m sure that most you think that this is taking it a little far.
It’s not.

Once you start putting laws on the ballot based on a signature drive and then letting the “majority” of people who vote decide whether it goes into actual law, you are heading for a world where fifty-one percent of the people can decide just about anything for you.

We need to nip this in the bud, folks.

[Kamd50]

Dear old Seeker, sometimes you drive me nuts! lol, I, for one, definately think that you are going a little overboard on your last post there! I am an ex-smoker, and I never felt comfortable about exposing people to my smoke or that it was my right to do so. If I was around nonsmokers, I always either abstained or left for the outdoors if I needed to smoke that bad. I also felt stupid that I used to use the excuse for smoking that I "enjoyed it", when in reality it was a crutch that I got addicted to when I was a naive teenager.
Quitting was one of the top best 6 things I have done in my lifetime.

Left wing, right wing, why is it that every single issue besides football is turned into a political issue on this website? I will bet my life right here and now that there are just as many people on both political sides that are for this. Did it occur to anyone, that this is just possibly spearheaded by a large group of concerned citizens that are sick and tired of seeing people die from lung cancer and emphazema? And are also trying to protect their rights and their children's rights to not be exposed to poisonous gasses?

A few nights ago, a large group of us were in Bdubs spending a considerable amount of cash on food and drinks. There were 2 guys sitting 2 tables away from us who lit up gigantic cigars and proceeded to puff on them until the entire section was filled with cigar smoke. My oldest daughter happens to have a mild case of asthma, but this was entirely too much for her and she ended up getting quite ill afterwards. Of course, we got carryout containers and left before we were ready to. Now you tell me that people do not have the right to go to eat or drink without fear of the atmosphere affecting their health?

Or that smokers cannot have a good time socializing and eating or drinking in an establishment if they do not have a smoke lit up in their hands? It really is not difficult to go outside to smoke if you really have to have one that badly.

Why not leave it up to the majority to make a law? Seems fair to me.That is how we elect our President isn't it?

[Seeker]

Kamd50,

I agree with everything that you said.
Seriously, you are correct in all areas.

My only issue is with the way we are going about this, and the dangerous precedent that is being set.

[tiger4life]

K, we agree more times than not but Ex-smokers can be the toughest of the anti-smoking craze. I know because I am one too! I'll admit I don't like smoking around my food or in my area either. The main problem I have with this is that there is always an agenda. There are plenty of things that are dangerous to our health, driving, flying, handguns and on and on and on.

It just seems like smokers are treated as lower class and outcasts these days and I resent that. I realize the trend is leaning the other way and I am in the minority these days, but I remember what it was like.

If anti-smoking came from a different group of people maybe it would be different. It just seems like it's the same core group of anti-FREEDOM anything bunch that is shoving stuff down out throats. This is really a divisive issue; there a lot of smokers out there.

I can honestly see the day when you want be able to hunt, fish, smoke, burn bon fires, run gas lawnmowers, own an suv, drink a beer in public, have an outburst at a Tiger game, tailgate, chew gum, spit on the ground.........

What happened to the days when people could just disagree to disagree and co-exist?

[Seeker]

...The main problem I have with this is that there is always an agenda. ...It just seems like it's the same core group of anti-FREEDOM anything bunch that is shoving stuff down out throats...

That’s what mystifies me.

Why can’t people see that in order to start the ball rolling, the radical left has picked something that they can get the far-right on board with them on?

Anybody that enjoys being able to carry a concealed weapon, for instance, should be making every attempt to bury Issue 5.

And so should anyone else that is enjoying a freedom or liberty in which they are the minority.

[tiger4life]

Seeker, what was Plato's response to your tagline? This is exactly what we are dealing with. History repeating itself...

[Seeker]

Seeker, what was Plato's response to your tagline? This is exactly what we are dealing with. History repeating itself...

Plato's response was: "They will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a noble lie. The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or priviledge, they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it."

[calcm]

My guess is that any such law that is passed will ultimately be declared unconstitutional anyway. Then the whole “anti-smoking” group will be right back where they started.

There are a lot of cities and states in this country that have no smoking laws. Getting those laws declared unconstitutional may be just a tad difficult.

Come November, I'll agree with the majority on this issue.

Vote YES on Issue 5 :thumbsup:

[Obie Wan]

There are a lot of cities and states in this country that have no smoking laws. Getting those laws declared unconstitutional may be just a tad difficult.
Not if Smoke Less Ohio passes. That measure will instantly make all smoking bans (including Issue 5) unconstitutional.

Smoke Less Ohio is actually a pro-smoking initiative. Again, it's a deceptive marketing ploy that portrays itself as an anti-smoking measure when it actually mandates that people must be allowed to smoke in restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, etc. It's unclear to me why such a deliberately dishonest campaign should be rewarded with a favorable vote.

[Kamd50]

Lol, you may be right to some degree about ex-smokers, t4l, my 23 yr old son smokes, sadly, and I make him leave his smokey smelling coat on the porch when he comes over as well as smoke out back if he "has" to have one. I can't stand to watch my son inhale cancer causing smoke into his lungs. It truely breaks my heart. And I quit smoking before he was ever born.

As far as being concerned about the way "we are going about this". I would suggest that there has been relentless efforts to educate and publicize the ill effects that smoking has not only on oneself, but of others, in order to get smokers to stop knowingly and deliberately exposing their secondhand smoke to others. Just look at all of the public service announcements, health campaigns, etc. that are widely distributed via television, magazines, the web, etc. However, it has largely failed in getting through to people in so far as to getting them to change their habits and be more considerate of others.
Not all, but a lot of smokers just do not care and if you ask them to please not smoke, they usually get mad.

Last year, these 3 guys were smoking right in the stands and my sister-in-law told them they weren't allowed to and to please go downstairs to smoke. They just started saying smart@ss remarks to her and her husband had to step in and almost got into a fight with these jerks until she finally told them that she would just go get security. It would be great if we could count on adults to use common sense instead of having to force them by law.

[tiger4life]

Lol, you may be right to some degree about ex-smokers, t4l, my 23 yr old son smokes, sadly, and I make him leave his smokey smelling coat on the porch when he comes over as well as smoke out back if he "has" to have one. I can't stand to watch my son inhale cancer causing smoke into his lungs. It truely breaks my heart. And I quit smoking before he was ever born.

As far as being concerned about the way "we are going about this". I would suggest that there has been relentless efforts to educate and publicize the ill effects that smoking has not only on oneself, but of others, in order to get smokers to stop knowingly and deliberately exposing their secondhand smoke to others. Just look at all of the public service announcements, health campaigns, etc. that are widely distributed via television, magazines, the web, etc. However, it has largely failed in getting through to people in so far as to getting them to change their habits and be more considerate of others.
Not all, but a lot of smokers just do not care and if you ask them to please not smoke, they usually get mad.

Last year, these 3 guys were smoking right in the stands and my sister-in-law told them they weren't allowed to and to please go downstairs to smoke. They just started saying smart@ss remarks to her and her husband had to step in and almost got into a fight with these jerks until she finally told them that she would just go get security. It would be great if we could count on adults to use common sense instead of having to force them by law.

I can't disagree with a thing you have said here. I just worry about what is next.

[pittbeer]

If this gets passed we will be rolling down a perilous path. Mark my words.

[austinsm11]

Oh my goodness. I can't believe you guys are serious. I better make sure that I vote against any smoking ban. After all, I like chewing gum, and fishing, and driving on road trips. I need to stop this before it gets out of control.:rolleyes:

I can't stand smoking. But if you want to light up a cancer stick, just don't do it around me. It seems like most people are respectful of this.

I actually feel like this should be the decision of the owner. If they want to allow smoking in their establishment, then I just won't go. I am sure that I can find plenty of places that are smoke free. The problem for nonsmokers is that we continue to go to places that allow smoking and then just complain about it. If we quit going, maybe the dent in sales would change the owners mind.

[Seeker]

If this gets passed we will be rolling down a perilous path. Mark my words.

Save your energy. These people are so fired up against smoking that they are missing the point.
Take this for instance:
Come November, I'll agree with the majority on this issue.

How can anyone be so naïve as to think that “majority rule” is a good idea?
Our founding fathers knew better, that’s why they set up a republic instead of a democracy.

In another thread people are lamenting the “poor behavior” that is permeating our society. Yet, they apparently don’t see the danger in having the “majority” of that society begin to make decisions for everyone.

The issue is not whether it should be OK to smoke in a public place or not. You should not be allowed to smoke in a public building or facility. (Except it might be OK to make large parks an exception.)

The issue is whether or not we should pass a law dictating whether or not the owner of a business establishment that is open to the public can be forced to prevent people from smoking in his place of business.

There is a huge difference between a publicly owned facility and a private business that is open to the public.

If you don’t like people smoking at BW3, then stay out of there. The “majority” of people in Ohio does not necessarily represent the potential customers of such an establishment.

In fact, the majority of potential customers already vote with their patronage.

[Seeker]

I actually feel like this should be the decision of the owner. If they want to allow smoking in their establishment, then I just won't go. I am sure that I can find plenty of places that are smoke free. The problem for nonsmokers is that we continue to go to places that allow smoking and then just complain about it. If we quit going, maybe the dent in sales would change the owners mind.

Thank you!
You are on "our side" and should vote against Issue 5!

Can anyone else understand this?

[Obie Wan]

In fact, the majority of potential customers already vote with their patronage.
I don't know that's completely accurate. How do you quantify the number of people that don't patronize a business because of the smoke? For example, I'm quite at home in a smoky bar. I don't like it, but I like sobriety less. And so I go. Nonetheless, I have walked out of bars because they're too smoky, and I have declined to enter others for the same reason. I'm not sure how you'd ever get any of that into a formal study.

More to the point, quantifiable evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion: most bars and restaurants have an increase in business after the implementation of a smoking ban.

It might also be instructive to look at the rationale behind California's smoking ban. It's portrayed as a worker safety issue. The reasoning is that second-hand smoke is a health hazard, and that exposure to said smoke represents a hazardous environment. And so it's treated much like any other toxic substance, with attendant safety mandates.

[austinsm11]

Thank you!
You are on "our side" and should vote against Issue 5!

LOL. Might be hard to due since I am in NC.

In all honesty I am fine at places that have a well defined smoking/nonsmoking area. I realize that there will be small amounts of smoke that could drift my way....I just hate it when I get stuck at a table that is right beside a smoking section. My wife and I usually ask to be seated somewhere else.

To be honest though, I think those of you taking this as in this is the first step to losing our rights of chewing gum, fishing, road trips, etc. are taking it a little bit to the extreme...be honest now.

Also, Let me say thankyou to those who are considerate of us who do not smoke and do not light up around us at places like ball games, etc.

One more thing. Aside from the fact that I think it is a joke that employees at many jobs get smoke breaks....If the business is going to allow it please make them go out back away from the customers. I hate walking into a dining establishment or department store and having to walk by an employee at the front door smoking a cigarette. That just looks really bad in my opinion.

[Kamd50]

Let me tell you something. In Bdubs there were 2 full tables, ours had 8 and the other had even more, as they came from a wedding (aprox) 15; all non-smokers. The table after theirs, had a total of 3 guys, 2 of them constantly puffing on monster cigars. Besides us leaving, the people in the wedding party were also getting up and going outside for air and complaining about their eyes hurting. Now out of these 3 tables, the smokers were the only ones not ordering food along with their beer. Who do you think the establishment made more money off of? And my point was more to the fact, that many smokers could care less if they are endangering others' health or not. And for what it's worth, there are many times we have left bars or moved our seats in restaurants because of a smokey atmosphere. And often is the reason we choose carryout. Some places are much worse than others.

It also is reasonable to assume that it does not hamper one's health or ruin their capability of enjoying some food or a drink just because they are asked to smoke outside by non-smokers. It does, however, hamper someone else's health and ruin their dinner if someone is constantly blowing smoke their way during their visit.

[Kamd50]

"How can anyone be so naïve as to think that “majority rule” is a good idea?"
Then please tell me why we elect our President by voting? If you think I am naive, then you are equallly naive (or at least suffering from the chicken little "the sky is falling" syndrome) to think that if this passes that it is the beginning of the end, so to speak, as far as all of that other nonsense is concerned.

[Seeker]

Let me tell you something. In Bdubs there were 2 full tables, ours had 8 and the other had even more, as they came from a wedding (aprox) 15; all non-smokers. The table after theirs, had a total of 3 guys, 2 of them constantly puffing on monster cigars. Besides us leaving, the people in the wedding party were also getting up and going outside for air and complaining about their eyes hurting. Now out of these 3 tables, the smokers were the only ones not ordering food along with their beer. Who do you think the establishment made more money off of? And my point was more to the fact, that many smokers could care less if they are endangering others' health or not. And for what it's worth, there are many times we have left bars or moved our seats in restaurants because of a smokey atmosphere. And often is the reason we choose carryout. Some places are much worse than others.

It also is reasonable to assume that it does not hamper one's health or ruin their capability of enjoying some food or a drink just because they are asked to smoke outside by non-smokers. It does, however, hamper someone else's health and ruin their dinner if someone is constantly blowing smoke their way during their visit.

Again...I totally agree with everything you have said.

But is has nothing to do with Issue 5.

That's the biggest problem, and the source of the confusion that the Issue 5 people are counting on.
People think that if they don't like smoking in bars and restaurants, it means they should vote for Issue 5.

That could not be farther from the truth.

[Obie Wan]

Let me tell you something. In Bdubs there were 2 full tables, ours had 8 and the other had even more, as they came from a wedding (aprox) 15; all non-smokers. The table after theirs, had a total of 3 guys, 2 of them constantly puffing on monster cigars. Besides us leaving, the people in the wedding party were also getting up and going outside for air and complaining about their eyes hurting. Now out of these 3 tables, the smokers were the only ones not ordering food along with their beer. Who do you think the establishment made more money off of?
Did you ask the guys to put out the cigars? I've found that people will sometimes comply with a reasonable request. Did you talk with the manager? Bob can do the math - he may ask them to either put out the cigars or move to a different table. It's just business: "Would you mind moving to a different table? You'll get a dozen wings on the house if you do." If he refuses to do anything, you have two choices: deal with it or leave. If you take the latter choice, make sure that he knows why. It won't help you out in the short run, but sooner or later he'll (hopefully) get the message.

And for the record, Bdubs is one of the places I've walked out of recently because of the smoke. Well, that and the bad, loud music and undisciplined kids running everywhere.

[Seeker]

"How can anyone be so naïve as to think that “majority rule” is a good idea?"
Then please tell me why we elect our President by voting? If you think I am naive, then you are equallly naive (or at least suffering from the chicken little "the sky is falling" syndrome) to think that if this passes that it is the beginning of the end, so to speak, as far as all of that other nonsense is concerned.

We elect our leaders and decision makers by majority vote.
We do not run the country by majority rule.
That's what makes us a republic instead of a democracy.

[Obie Wan]

"How can anyone be so naïve as to think that “majority rule” is a good idea?"
Then please tell me why we elect our President by voting?
Well, it's not by majority rule. If it were, we'd talking about President Gore.

People think that if they don't like smoking in bars and restaurants, it means they should vote for Issue 5.
Why is that not correct? Would the passage of Issue 5 not prohibit smoking in bars? Seems to me that the passage of Issue 5 would be quite effective at solving that "problem".

[Seeker]

Well, it's not by majority rule. If it were, we'd talking about President Gore.
Sorry...you're right to point that out. The president is the one leader that is not elected by the majority of voters in the US.


Why is that not correct? Would the passage of Issue 5 not prohibit smoking in bars? Seems to me that the passage of Issue 5 would be quite effective at solving that "problem".
I realize that I went a little far in making that statement. Yes, indeed, the passage of Issue 5 will be very effective in solving that "problem".
It is not, however the solution that I think is in the best interest of citizenry of Ohio.

[fyrewood]

Seeker,

I do enjoy my right to be able to carry a concealed handgun, but I don't see the connection between that and banning smoking in a public place. (bar, restaurant etc.)

My legally carrying a concealed handgun doesn't infringe on other people's health (unless you're a bad guy LOL) their ability to breath, or even something as minor as being able to go out and come home without smelling like an ashtray.

Yes, smoking is legal, but it is not a right mentioned or given in the Constitution to be able to do it in public and blow smoke into the clean air that others are trying to breath.

I am 100% for gun rights of all kind, but if this smoking issue does make it to the ballot I will for sure be voting for it. I don't think it will effect gun rights one way or the other.

[Obie Wan]

My legally carrying a concealed handgun doesn't infringe on other people's health (unless you're a bad guy LOL) their ability to breath, or even something as minor as being able to go out and come home without smelling like an ashtray.
As they say, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

[Seeker]

Fyrewood,

The comparison that I (and others) am making in this thread is not between smoking and concealed carry. There is certainly not much that they have in common.

The comparison is between the fact that the same scenario can (and likely will eventually) be carried out against gun owners.

96,870 signatures and a 51% vote of the public can take your priviledge to have a gun in your pocket away.

Our point is just that it's a dangerous way to start doing things.

[Obie Wan]

96,870 signatures and a 51% vote of the public can take your priviledge to have a gun in your pocket away.
I dunno. There are constitutional issues (e.g. the 2nd Amendment) that make onerous regulation of firearms a much tricker proposition. And on the flip side, 96,870 signatures and a 51% vote of the public could restore that priviledge again.

[calcm]

96,870 signatures and a 51% vote of the public can take your priviledge to have a gun in your pocket away.

I must not understand this quote ...... Am I being naive in thinking that the majority rules?

[shortbev]

what about my freedom to just breathe??? there is a difference between what one must do, and what one can do...i cannot go through life without breathing...i will die...fact!...smokers can go through an hour or so without smoking and they will not die...

the sad reason that it has come to the point where it takes a law to give the majority their right to breathe freely is that the other side doesn't think of anyone other than themselves...it is "their right" to smoke...and it doesn't matter who they hurt...

and they don't care where they discard the nasty butts of their cigerettes...

the sad reason for any legislation...like seat belt laws...helmets...guns...and now no smoking is the lack of common sense...people in general, these days, just don't seem to have any...especially when it comes to considering anyone but themselves

[Seeker]

shortbev,

You're not getting it.
The issue is not about smoker's rights or non-smokers' rights.
No one with half a brain would suggest that a non-smoker should be forced to put up with second-hand smoke.

The issue is about whether or not the government has the right to tell an independent business person that they have to enforce a no smoking rule in their place of business, in particular a bar or restaurant.

If a restaurant choses to allow smoking, non-smokers have a choice whether to patronize that establishment or take their business to a restaurant that doesn't (And the number of the ones that don't is growing every day.)

Simple economics should rule here, not legislation.

[Seeker]

I must not understand this quote ...... Am I being naive in thinking that the majority rules?

In America the majority does not rule.

I think though, that it is a separate issue from the questions surrounding Issue 5.
The majority of people do not smoke. It may even be a majority that wants smoking banned everywhere but in cars and houses.
Issue 5 is about whether or not some bars and restaurants can continue to allow smoking if they want to.

My comments about the majority rule question have little to do with the discussion about Issue 5.

America is a republic, not a democracy. In a true democracy the majority rules.
Majority rule is a scary thing.
One example of this is school funding. The local taxpayers "by majority" have the ability to fund schools to the level that they desire. It may not be what's best for the kids, the community or society, but they will make the decision.
Our founding fathers wisely set up a system where the majority choses who will make the decisions for them (the President being the exception).

My political theory professor used an interesting example of what a true democracy in America might be like.
Picture this: All TV sets in America have a button that allows instant voting. It would be programmed so that every adult would have one vote on any given issue.
We would then all watch a debate for a specified period, and then the people would vote by hitting the button.
Think about it for awhile.
Think about all the things that the polls show the majority of Americans are against that are in place or happening now.
Think about all the things that the majority of Americans are for that are not in place or happening now.
Now think about who all the people are who would have this vote.
Would you really like to have everything decided by the majority?

America would be a huge mess in just a couple of years.
The courts would be a quagmire as all the unconstitutional laws that the people passed were sorted through.
Taxes would be cut, spending would increase and the people would demand a balanced budget.


:usflag:

[pittbeer]

Seeker, you seem to be the only one getting the big picture here. Again this is not about smoking or not smoking. It's about a owner of an establishment being told how to run his business.

[Obie Wan]

Again this is not about smoking or not smoking. It's about a owner of an establishment being told how to run his business.
Might we also assume that you are opposed to minimum wage laws, OSHA safety regulations, the Clean Air Act, and FDA drug approval?

[calcm]

Well ....................... I and a bunch of others still say "VOTE FOR ISSUE 5" :gasp:

[DAWGH8R]

Seeker, you seem to be the only one getting the big picture here. Again this is not about smoking or not smoking. It's about a owner of an establishment being told how to run his business.


From the ATF, health dept, fire codes, dept. of labor, IRS, corp hqrs, and local gov't, (i.e. zoning ,etc), a business owner doesn't make many decisions about how his/her business is run!!

Been there/done that !!!:sour:

[Tiger2001]

In my lifetime(23 years) ive yet to see a smoker think about me first. Even my friends! A friend blows smoke in my face, i give a little cough, and they do nothing. Ive had drunk people bump into me at the bar and burn a hole in my shirt. Ive been forced to eat in smoking sections because the wait in non-smoking was an hour. I shouldnt have to be uncomfortable because someone else wants to kill themselves. BAN smoking and smokers EVERYWHERE. I'll think about changing my position if someone would actualy put out a cig or not light one up because they know it will bother me, and i dont see that happening anytime soon!

[Drayzee]

Smoking will kill you, period. There are NO benifits from smoking at all, just a slow death by suffocation when your lungs can no longer process air for your body.

Why do smokers all think that non-smokers don't mind breathing in their stinking second hand smoke, we can't help it that your noses are burnt out and you can't smell it, but the rest of us can. It might be different if the average smoker had the least bit of respect for the non smoker, but we all have a first hand knowledge of how much respect they have. After all, if they are willing to kill themselves with tobacco, why would we expect them to consider the lives of non-smokers? Smokers are no better than suicide bombers, their bombs just take longer, and they pay taxes on them.

BAN IT ALL! - If you wanna smoke and kill yourself, do it in your own home, not in public places.

[pittbeer]

Ban it all? Stop everyone from smoking? Didn't we try this once in our countries history? That worked out real well.:doh:

[Obie Wan]

Ban it all? Stop everyone from smoking? Didn't we try this once in our countries history? That worked out real well.:doh:
I don't recall that it was ever illegal for anyone in the country to smoke. Care to tell us when that was?

[pittbeer]

O.W., I don't know if you are a High schooler an adult or what. So I'm going to be nice. It was called Prohibition, it lasted from 1920 to 1933. The great social experiment. It failed miserably. They tried to ban all alcohol. God I'm glad I wasn't alive during that time. You can't take away freedoms that people have had all there lives. Not in this country anyway.

[fyrewood]

Post Deleted, pittbeer already answered for himself.

[CarlE]

O.W., I don't know if you are a High schooler an adult or what. So I'm going to be nice. It was called Prohibition, it lasted from 1920 to 1933. The great social experiment. It failed miserably. They tried to ban all alcohol. God I'm glad I wasn't alive during that time. You can't take away freedoms that people have had all there lives. Not in this country anyway.

Um, I believe we were talking about smoking, which is what Obiewan was asking about. So I guess my question to YOU is what are YOU talking about? We all know about Prohibition so if all you are doing is making a comparison that is fine but it's not how it is being presented. I do understand the comparison, although I sure don't think they are the same thing.

[pittbeer]

Come on Wood I know you have an opinion, and I can't believe, you of all people , would vote yes on this issue.

[fyrewood]

LOL Sorry pittbeer, you KNOW I like to go out and drink a few,
(or is that a few too many?) but, I absolutely HATE coming home after a night of partying with friends and smelling like a well used ashtray or smokier than the last fire I was in.

I know you see it as an infringement on a bar or restaurant owners rights and you're probably right, it is, but I think people's health and their right NOT to stink and breathe others smoke is more important.....At least it is to me....I'll be voting to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

[pittbeer]

I'm going to agree to disagree with you brother, no further comments because there's a football game to get ready for. How does one get ready for a Mon. Night Football game. One more IC Light BABY!

[fyrewood]

There's a game on tonight???? :rock: LOL

[pittbeer]

OK Wood we're going to get yelled at for being off topic so that will be enough of that.

But remember vote NO on issue 5 and GO STEELERS!:rockin:

[Obie Wan]

O.W., I don't know if you are a High schooler an adult or what. So I'm going to be nice. It was called Prohibition, it lasted from 1920 to 1933. The great social experiment. It failed miserably. They tried to ban all alcohol.
Let's recap, shall we?

You asked, "Ban it all? Stop everyone from smoking? Didn't we try this once in our countries history?"

To which I responded: "I don't recall that it was ever illegal for anyone in the country to smoke. Care to tell us when that was?"

Again, when was there a blanket prohibition against smoking?

[calcm]

But remember vote NO on issue 5 and GO STEELERS!:rockin:

Looks like you're losing on both of these issues. :smile:

[Zoner]

If you want to permit smoking in your establishment, go ahead -
Exactly! If I own a bar why can't I decide if it's smoke free or not. It's MY bar!

[pittbeer]

Yes, I'm making a comparison of banning smoking to prohibition. Someone on this thread said ban it all. We tried that once, prohibition, and it didn't work.

[Obie Wan]

Yes, I'm making a comparison of banning smoking to prohibition. Someone on this thread said ban it all. We tried that once, prohibition, and it didn't work.
We also made murder illegal, yet people still kill each other every day. You think we should take those laws off the books?

[Smitty]

... the sad reason for any legislation...like seat belt laws...helmets...guns...and now no smoking is the lack of common sense...people in general, these days, just don't seem to have any...especially when it comes to considering anyone but themselves

It's not the government's job to initiate common sense through legislation. IF your parent's couldn't teach you common sense, the government certainly doesn't stand a chance.

Might we also assume that you are opposed to minimum wage laws, OSHA safety regulations, the Clean Air Act, and FDA drug approval?

Speaking strictly for myself: Yes (they don't work), yes (ditto), yes (you like $3.00 gasoline?), and yes (I won't even take an aspirin!).

[pittbeer]

OW that doesn't make sense. Murdering someone has been against the law since the begining of civilization. The US banned alcohol once. No other industrialized country in the world ever tried this. Alcohol is a vice just like smoking. So it does make sense to compare prohibition with banning smoking.

And again if an owner of a restaurant, bar or business doesn't want smoking in their establishment great. But they should be the ones making the decision.

[Obie Wan]

OW that doesn't make sense. Murdering someone has been against the law since the begining of civilization.
It makes perfect sense in the context of your argument, which was that we shouldn't do it because we wouldn't have 100% compliance. That's a fallacious argument and an unreachable standard.

The US banned alcohol once.
There are still vestiges of Prohibition. For instance, some parts of Canton are dry.

And again if an owner of a restaurant, bar or business doesn't want smoking in their establishment great. But they should be the ones making the decision.
I suppose that depends on whether you think smoke is an annoyance (like crappy, loud music) or a health hazard (like noxious chemical fumes). It's already been well established that a business owner does not have the final say with regard to exposure to toxins in his business.

[longtimefirsttime]

There are still vestiges of Prohibition. For instance, some parts of Canton are dry.


Just another reason (on a long list) why I hate that place! :wink:

[fyrewood]

pittbeer stated:The US banned alcohol once. No other industrialized country in the world ever tried this. Alcohol is a vice just like smoking. So it does make sense to compare prohibition with banning smoking.


Actually pittbeer, that's where you're wrong. Besides the U.S., there have been periods of Alcohol Prohibition in Canada, Russia, Iceland, Norway and Finland. LOL Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition#Prohibition_in_other_countries

Also, while I agree with you that it does make sense to compare the two and that alcohol is a vice like smoking, breathing or being in someone else's alcohol fumes won't effect your health or make you smell like a dog turd rolled in a dirty ashtray either. :poke:

[DAWGH8R]

pittbeer stated:


Also, while I agree with you that it does make sense to compare the two and that alcohol is a vice like smoking, breathing or being in someone else's alcohol fumes won't effect your health or make you smell like a dog turd rolled in a dirty ashtray either. :poke:



It's all about health. That's why you can drink, but not drink and drive. So let them smoke, but not in enclosed areas !!:cool2:

[pittbeer]

Thanks for the correction Wood. Did it work in those other countries? Obviously not Canada.

[CarlE]

Damn, I'm screwed. I only smoke when I drink. Now we're going to ban them all and I'm going to have to find another vice, like oh I don't know.....gambling.

[Obie Wan]

Damn, I'm screwed. I only smoke when I drink.
I got friends like that - they only smoke when they drink. Trouble is, they're alcoholics. :tonguewave:

[CarlE]

I got friends like that - they only smoke when they drink. Trouble is, they're alcoholics. :tonguewave:

And your point smart-guy??? :drinkem:

[pittbeer]

CarlE what we have to do is get an Indian casino. Now I know that was a whole other thread awhile ago. But if its an Indian casino people can smoke, drink, and gamble. God bless America and the Indians.

[MTizzle60]

you know else would be crazy, speaking of personnal rights, a state admendment that makes it illegal for two people living together for most their lives not to be able to use the others health benefits or have legal rights when the person is sick..................oh wait, we have one of those here in the state of Ohio, people everywhere dont care about others rights they just care about getting rid of things that scare them or different.

As far as a smoking ban goes, resturants should be the only places that do this, BUT sports bars should have better ventalation(sp?), mostly because i hate leaving B-Dubs and other establishments and reeking of smoke. its your right to smoke and really dont care. if your so forceful in this issue, you should be forceful in supports other peoples choices.

[Smitty]

CarlE what we have to do is get an Indian casino... people can smoke, drink, and gamble. God bless America and the Indians.

Another one of the many reasons I'm staying PUT in Idaho!!

(NO E-check is also high on the list!)

[jeroe]

I want it on the ballot that all SUVs are to be banned as personally owned vehicles. They are hazardous to my environment and those who have them are not being courteous to me. In addition I want fireworks to be banned including those displayed during football games as they also pollute my environment. I want all golf courses to no longer be allowed to use fertilizers, as well as those who use chemicals on their lawns. These chemicals pollute my water supply and should immediately be banned. In addition all personal watercraft should be confiscated as they also pollute my water supply! I want all plastic material to be immediately banned as they pollute my environment. I also want a law to be passed any one carrying any virus or bacteria must be quarantined as they are putting my personal health at risk.

YOU PEOPLE ARE REDICULAS!

[Kamd50]

Stand by a loved family member and watch them die a slow agonizing horrific death from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke once in yourtime and see if you still think it is ridiculous. And if you do, you must not have much compassion for other human beings or respect for life.

[Obie Wan]

Stand by a loved family member and watch them die a slow agonizing horrific death from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke once in yourtime and see if you still think it is ridiculous. And if you do, you must not have much compassion for other human beings or respect for life.
I've got a couple of impolitic observations about that:
- Can you prove that secondhand smoke was the cause, or is that just a convenient bogeyman that's being used as a scapegoat in your grief?
- If it's a cut and dried as you make it out to be, it seems that your real complaint is with the people whose smoke killed him/her.

[Kamd50]

Let's just say the chances are great that secondhand smoke had a lot to do with it according to doctors. I will not get into personal details about the person's exposure and circumstances. The point is someone else's bad habit can have real life-altering affects on other's when there truely is no need, other than to satisfy one's nicotine addiction.

[calcm]

Again ................. I say "VOTE FOR ISSUE 5" :gasp: :gasp:

[calcm]

Issue 5 ... SmokeFreeOhio is still on the November ballot despite the dirty tricks played by the tobacco companies and their lackeys at "Less"

Just a reminder to all who want a SmokeFree atmosphere .... Vote for Issue 5.

[pittbeer]

Hey everyone just vote yes on both of them.:gogogo:

[calcm]

Hey everyone just vote yes on both of them.:gogogo:

This November, voters in Ohio will be voting on smokefree workplace legislation. Unfortunately, tobacco interests have intentionally added similar sounding but drastically different initiatives to the ballot in each state. RJ Reynolds has already committed $40 million to pass the misleading, fake, weak, proposals.

Here's a more precise explanation...

Voters will cast their ballots on Issue 5 (sponsored by health groups) and Issue 4 (sponsored by tobacco interests. Issue 5 (called SmokeFREE Ohio) would provide virtually all workers with a safe, healthy, smokefree workplace. Issue 4 (called SmokeLESS Ohio) would allow smoking in many locations and preempt localities from passing stronger legislation. If voters pass both Issue 5 and Issue 4, the weak Issue 4 becomes law because it is actually a constitutional amendment.

Therefore, it is very important that Ohioans vote Yes on Issue 5 and NO on Issue 4.

[Kamd50]

Thanks for clearing that up calcm.

[calcm]

Issue 4 tobacco interests won't detail petition funding source

The Toledo Blade, September 13, 2006

COLUMBUS - The coalition of bars, restaurants, and tobacco companies pushing an exemption-laden smoking ban is refusing to detail where it got the $1.5 million spent to gather half a million signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

Smoke Less Ohio is (Issue 4) the only one of five initiatives seeking a place on the Nov. 7 ballot to refuse to reveal who paid for the circulation of its petitions.

Without giving specifics, Smoke Less Ohio spokesman Jacob Evans said yesterday that tobacco firms, particularly North Carolina-based R.J. Reynolds, have been the major source of funding. State law requires those who file petitions for a proposed constitutional amendment to file a report with the secretary of state detailing "all persons who contributed anything of value to be used in circulating the petitions, and the amounts of those contributions."

[Smitty]

It seems that whoever started this initiative is the one "hiding" somewhere... and RJReynolds Co is standing right up front & center.

Hmmmm.

Who's doing the misleading??

[calcm]

It appears that Lewiston, and all of Idaho is waking up to the fact that smoking is bad for all of us.

Soon, hopefully, RJ is going to go broke financing all the ballot issues.

Here's what's happening in Idaho:

http://www.unfilteredtv.com/learn/one_true_story.php?id=2136

[Obie Wan]

Here's what's happening in Idaho:

http://www.unfilteredtv.com/learn/one_true_story.php?id=2136
I'm no proponent of smoking, but I find this to be a very factually tenuous statement: "They had three children, one of them was born mentally retarded because of the addiction they shared."

A closer examination lessens the evidentiary value of this story even further. According to the narrative, "My grandpa had been smoking ever since he was ten years old ... He smoked for about 60 years ... My grandfather battled cancer for a total of two years ... When he first found out that he had lung cancer, he and my grandma quit immediately ... he passed away at 7:52 a.m. on January 24, 2002."

If he started smoking at age 10, smoked for 60 years, and quit two years before he died, then he was around 72 when he died. He died in 2002, which means that he was born around 1930. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf), the life expectancy of a white male born in 1930 was 59.7 years. This guy lived to 72. From that perspective, it's hard to see what the complaint is.

[Smitty]

The "rednecks" in Jeff Foxworthy's stand-up routine are HI-CLASS in comparison to an Idaho redneck.

Of course it's the cigarette company's fault that "grandpa" started smoking at age 10... and it's my pencil's fault that I mis-spell words.

Die-hard liberals love to stretch the statistics and exaggerate about misery and suffering... all so they can pass laws which take away our personal liberties.

I love this country, but fear the government.

[calcm]

OMG :gasp: If any of my friends or family knew that I was being compared to a liberal :puke: they'd die laughing. This hard headed German is about as conservative as they come.

Ain't a Liberal or Conservative issue.

[SuperBran]

It's about a owner of an establishment being told how to run his business.

there is only one (that i can think of offhand) constitutional right that is absolute, and that's the right to your religious beliefs. other than that, the government must take the public good into consideration. just b/c someone owns a business, it doesn't mean he has an absolute right to do what he wants. if he opens it up to the public, the government will balance the owner's rights with the best insterests of the public.

if i owned a strip club or a porn shop, do you think i'd be able to move it right next door to an elementary school and tell the government that it's my business and i can do what i want with it? see how that works out.

the government is not banning smoking. they are simply using their time/place/manner powers, which they are allowed to use.

i have a friend who has really bad asthma. i find it ridiculous that people feel that he should have to avoid going to bars or restaurants instead of having smokers just go outside to smoke. banning smoking in buildings is the best solution...it still allows people to smoke, but allows those with health problems to frequent businesses.

[calcm]

:iagree:

But walking through the stink from the smokers hanging around outside the door is pretty bad.

However, I look forward to being able to enjoy a smoke free meal or beer wherever I choose to spend my money, so I'll be satisfied with the new rules when they're enacted.

[SuperBran]

i just don't see why there can't be a compromise.

people want to go to restaurants and bars without smelling like smoke and/or having their allergies act up. some people have health problems which prevent them from going into places that allow smoking. some people don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke, as it truly is a health hazard.

on the other hand, people want to smoke.

why can't people compromise so that everyone can enjoy the places. just b/c you can't smoke in the building doesn't mean you can't go to the place.

[obie7661]

:i agree:

But walking through the stink from the smokers hanging around outside the door is pretty bad.

However, I look forward to being able to enjoy a smoke free meal or beer wherever I choose to spend my money, so I'll be satisfied with the new rules when they're enacted.

I Agree. Let's put the kibosh to smoke filled public establishments in Ohio.

Easy to remember at ballot box:

Issue 5 = Keeps you (and your kids) alive.

Issue 4 = Another victory 4 BIG TOBACCO companies.

[pittbeer]

Apoll was taken that I read in a paper. Can't remember which one but Smokefree was behind in passing and Smokeless was ahead. If I see it again I'll pay closer attention on who took the pole and what paper.