Ohio ban called key in war on smoking

The war on terror. The war in Iraq. The war in Afganistan. The war on drugs. The war on poverty.
Now a war on smoking. We people of the United states love to fight wars. When are we going to win one?

When we're all dead apparently.

what tax producing vice will the idiots go after next?i need LESS government in my life.

robert blanc wrote:

what tax producing vice will the idiots go after next?i need LESS government in my life.

Sadly, you're in the minority. Seems like most sheeple want more government, not less. Saves them from having to take responsibility or, god forbid, actually think.

Bluff Eversmoke wrote:

<quoted text>
Sadly, you're in the minority. Seems like most sheeple want more government, not less. Saves them from having to take responsibility or, god forbid, actually think.

Very sad, but unfortuanely very true.

"Bluff Eversmoke"
Sadly, you're in the minority. Seems like most sheeple want more government, not less. Saves them from having to take responsibility or, god forbid, actually think

yeah you basically said it....sad isn't it?

American's love war.

That $5.4M would have been better spent educating the voters about exactly the ramifications of Issue 5, rather than try to push Issue 4.

They gave Ohioans a "False Choice". Maybe I need to clear up the concept of 'false choice' for some readers out there.

In logic, it is possible to be presented with two choices, neither one being a correct choice, but the presentation is such that one must choose one over the other.

In sales, the savvy salesperson will offer two possible times for an appointment, in hopes that the prospect will select one of them. She will say "Which time is better for you, One O'Clock, or Three-Thirty?" The choice not presented is "not at all, thank you."

In tests at school, and in an obscure Richard Pryor movie, there is the "None of the Above" choice.

By injecting Issue 4 into the ballot landscape, voters were given the "false choice" of "choose either 4, or choose 5".

Any adverts against 5 were automatically categorizable as "pro 4", and could then be ignored as more political ballyhoo.

The pro-smoking group screwed themselves from the get-go.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

That $5.4M would have been better spent educating the voters about exactly the ramifications of Issue 5, rather than try to push Issue 4.
They gave Ohioans a "False Choice". Maybe I need to clear up the concept of 'false choice' for some readers out there.
In logic, it is possible to be presented with two choices, neither one being a correct choice, but the presentation is such that one must choose one over the other.
In sales, the savvy salesperson will offer two possible times for an appointment, in hopes that the prospect will select one of them. She will say "Which time is better for you, One O'Clock, or Three-Thirty?" The choice not presented is "not at all, thank you."
In tests at school, and in an obscure Richard Pryor movie, there is the "None of the Above" choice.
By injecting Issue 4 into the ballot landscape, voters were given the "false choice" of "choose either 4, or choose 5".
Any adverts against 5 were automatically categorizable as "pro 4", and could then be ignored as more political ballyhoo.
The pro-smoking group screwed themselves from the get-go.

You still are pretending that voters didn't know what they were voting for. I admit that the tobacco companies screwed themselves with issue 4. But they knew that the majority of voters are against smoking. That's why they tried to confuse the voters by giving their Issue a sound alike title "Smoke Less Ohio." (Of course, f they would have honest and called it "Right to Smoke" they would have lost by even more.) They were also caught misrepresenting their petitions, pretending to be SmokeFree Ohio and denying they were funded by tobacco companies. Their miscalculation was that mass media caught on to their deceptions, and educated the public. Most of the major papers in Ohio (who studied these issues) suggested that their readers "Vote No on 4 and Yes on 5." Do you think they were confused too?

Efforts to overturn Issue 5 will FAIL because the majority want this new law.

But you are certainly welcome to try...

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
You still are pretending that voters didn't know what they were voting for. I admit that the tobacco companies screwed themselves with issue 4. But they knew that the majority of voters are against smoking. That's why they tried to confuse the voters by giving their Issue a sound alike title "Smoke Less Ohio." (Of course, f they would have honest and called it "Right to Smoke" they would have lost by even more.) They were also caught misrepresenting their petitions, pretending to be SmokeFree Ohio and denying they were funded by tobacco companies. Their miscalculation was that mass media caught on to their deceptions, and educated the public. Most of the major papers in Ohio (who studied these issues) suggested that their readers "Vote No on 4 and Yes on 5." Do you think they were confused too?
Efforts to overturn Issue 5 will FAIL because the majority want this new law.
But you are certainly welcome to try...

No, not "pretending". Merely offering anecdotal evidence that had the public been offered the option of merely banning smoking from restaurants and such, and allowing other areas of business to decide for their own, versus this current broadly sweeping ban, they would have chosen the more narrow one.

Anecdotally, of course.

I don't know that the smokers who will be disgusted at the second-class treatment they will get will be idle. They may fail, of course. But I'd like to see the decision back in the hands of the owners of the businesses.
And as likely as not, most restaurants just may stick with the No Smoking policy. That would be good for all of us -- even the smokers -- because that will also allow venues to be notably Smoking, or Smoker-Friendly. Their choice to pursue a free-market niche, then.

What kind of misrepresentation do you call the Surgeon General's report and claims by Ohio antismoking groups that less than 30 minutes of exposure to ETS can kill! But the press never catches on to those sort of lies.

Some SmokeFreeOhio lies that helped sway the vote:
http://www.pkblogs.com/tobaccoanalysis/2006/0...

Smoke 'em if you got 'em --- just 5 days left. Today is the last Saturday for smoking in a bar here in Ohio. The end of an era.

Last Call wrote:

Smoke 'em if you got 'em --- just 5 days left. Today is the last Saturday for smoking in a bar here in Ohio. The end of an era.

I hope Ohio citizens are brave enough to insist on their property rights and freedoms no matter what silly law got passed. An election would not stop me from smoking in my favorite Ohio bar. Only the owner's wishes could do that.

Sadly, I think this law will cause many young people will take up smoking as a sign of disrespect for a fascist older generation. Young people rightly like their freedom. My own sons want to smoke as a gesture of hostility to the antismoking movement.

Bill Hannegan wrote:

Sadly, I think this law will cause many young people will take up smoking as a sign of disrespect for a fascist older generation. Young people rightly like their freedom. My own sons want to smoke as a gesture of hostility to the antismoking movement.

Bill
You are absolutely right. The anti-smoking movement fail to take into account human nature. The more you push, the more resistance you get. I don't like violence of any kind, but I can foresee this issue getting very ugly in the not too distant future.

Bill Hannegan wrote:

Sadly, I think this law will cause many young people will take up smoking as a sign of disrespect for a fascist older generation. Young people rightly like their freedom. My own sons want to smoke as a gesture of hostility to the antismoking movement.

Interesting thought, Bill. I you would also suggest that we legalize all narcotics, to keep young people from taking them up as a sign of disrespect for a fascist older generation. Will you help me to get recreational heroin use legalized? I'm sure you'll approve...

And maybe your sons want to smoke because they have you as a dad. You've set a wonderful example, Bill!

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting thought, Bill. I you would also suggest that we legalize all narcotics, to keep young people from taking them up as a sign of disrespect for a fascist older generation. Will you help me to get recreational heroin use legalized? I'm sure you'll approve...
And maybe your sons want to smoke because they have you as a dad. You've set a wonderful example, Bill!

Interesting that you equate distinctly ILLEGAL substances with the quite LEGAL one.

Small wonder that the law passed, if that's a common thought process.

Seriously, Ken... more hyperbole?

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting thought, Bill. I you would also suggest that we legalize all narcotics, to keep young people from taking them up as a sign of disrespect for a fascist older generation. Will you help me to get recreational heroin use legalized? I'm sure you'll approve...
And maybe your sons want to smoke because they have you as a dad. You've set a wonderful example, Bill!

They are just mad that their city's freedom is under siege:
http://stlouis.lpmo.org/index.html

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting that you equate distinctly ILLEGAL substances with the quite LEGAL one.
Small wonder that the law passed, if that's a common thought process.
Seriously, Ken... more hyperbole?

While I believe that both substances are bad for you, I believe that tobacco is actually worse in terms of health effects than heroin. That one is legal and one is not seems to a historical curiosity to me.

Personally, I don't use either one.