Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court

Apr 8, 2011 Full story: Business First of Columbus 21,294

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a Columbus-based case that challenges the constitutionality of the state's indoor smoking ban, the Dayton Daily News reports .

Full Story
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22840 Apr 16, 2012
I DO NOT SMOKE wrote:
On Thursday, it will be 6 months since the Ohio Supreme Court has heard the arguments regarding the smoking ban. Still no word. If they found the arguments against the ban to be valid, you would think they would have returned an opinion by now. As it is, bars in OH are beginning to lose their liquor licenses because of unpaid fines. The court obviously feels that those bars going out of business is a positive for OH.
The bar-owners who refuse to pay the fines must feel that losing their liquor licenses is a positive. Obeying the law is, after all, an option.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#22841 Apr 17, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
The bar-owners who refuse to pay the fines must feel that losing their liquor licenses is a positive. Obeying the law is, after all, an option.
Really?

Can you name one other forms of smoke that is regulated with the preposterous notion of there being "no safe level" that has been used as a justification for closing a business down?

Please...name even so much as one.

I'll be waiting....

Now come to thing of it...just what other forms of smoke are even regulated with the "magical" standard of there being "no safe level"?

Got a list?

No?

*chuckles under breath*

Who in their right mind would obey a law that is based on a HUGE set of double standards?

There is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#22842 Apr 17, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
The ashtray exists, and therefore it IS provided. The CONVENIENCE provided is at a low level, but that does NOT absolve you of responsibility for your own trash. Do you really believe your own statements? That has got to be one of the most self-serving--no, I take that back. You have provided many worse that that.
An ashtray on the dark side of the moon may very well exist as well...eh?

You fanatical control freaks would be funny...if you weren't so fanatically dangerous.

Tell us...are you this hard on the gum chewers and the fast food addicts?

If so...please provide us with a link to your self righteous rants....
Freedom

Niles, MI

#22843 Apr 17, 2012
I DO NOT SMOKE wrote:
On Thursday, it will be 6 months since the Ohio Supreme Court has heard the arguments regarding the smoking ban. Still no word. If they found the arguments against the ban to be valid, you would think they would have returned an opinion by now. As it is, bars in OH are beginning to lose their liquor licenses because of unpaid fines. The court obviously feels that those bars going out of business is a positive for OH.
One would have to figure that these Fascistic bans will be tossed out right around the same time as the NDAA, the so called Patriot act...and the molesters at the TSA...eh?

Does the term "useful idiot" mean anything to you?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#22844 Apr 17, 2012
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>

Does the term "useful idiot" mean anything to you?
Actually, it does. It describes you to a "T".
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22845 Apr 18, 2012
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Can you name one other forms of smoke that is regulated with the preposterous notion of there being "no safe level" that has been used as a justification for closing a business down?
Please...name even so much as one.
Oh, let's see, now, how to respond to that line of BS...Maybe,

"Really? Can you name an argument that has anything to do with the subject at hand?"

Or maybe,
"Really? Can you name one other public health violation you think the owners should be able to refuse to pay fines for?"

Or, possibly,

"Really? Can you name one other forms [sic] of smoke that has consistently topped virtually every list of preventable causes of death in country after country the world over, year after year?
Please...Name even so much as one."

Nah, maybe I should just ignore it as the same dismal pretense of rationality that appears now and then under that user name and say,

"You're a bore, boor." Yeah, I think I'll do that.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22846 Apr 18, 2012
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
An ashtray on the dark side of the moon may very well exist as well...eh?
Highly doubtful. If one did, however, would that somehow qualify as an excuse for not dealing with your own trash?
You're a boor, bore.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22847 Apr 18, 2012
Freedom wrote:
One would have to figure that these Fascistic bans will be tossed out right around the same time as the NDAA,
Let's see, now, for YOU that would mean, "Need for Drastic Attitude Adjustment", right? You aren't likely to shed THAT any time soon.

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

#22848 Apr 19, 2012
I DO NOT SMOKE wrote:
On Thursday, it will be 6 months since the Ohio Supreme Court has heard the arguments regarding the smoking ban. Still no word. If they found the arguments against the ban to be valid, you would think they would have returned an opinion by now. As it is, bars in OH are beginning to lose their liquor licenses because of unpaid fines. The court obviously feels that those bars going out of business is a positive for OH.
These bans are the easieast way to close these places of sin and degredation. Onward Christian soldiers.
chicken little

Richmond, VA

#22849 Apr 19, 2012
generalsn1234567 wrote:
<quoted text>These bans are the easieast way to close these places of sin and degredation. Onward Christian soldiers.
If the only people who hang there are filthy, vile smokers, then they should close. Let the places that cater to decent nonsmokers stay open.open.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#22851 Apr 19, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
Oh, let's see, now, how to respond to that line of BS...Maybe,
"Really? Can you name an argument that has anything to do with the subject at hand?"
BS eh?

Eeerrrrr, your entire Fascistic ban is based on the notion of there being such a thing as "no safe level" of ETS, so this is certainly on topic.

Without this ridiculous notion, your bans would not exist as they are written...now would they?

Now once again...just what other forms of smoke are regulated with the "magical" standard of there being "no safe level"?

You can't find any, can you....for obvious reasons such as your entire "religion" is based on shear hypocrisy, disproven theories, and outright lies.
Hugh Jass wrote:
Or maybe,
"Really? Can you name one other public health violation you think the owners should be able to refuse to pay fines for?"
Sure, Happy Meal bans are downright Fascistically stupid as well, and I would praise and support any establishment for breaking that ridiculous law.

Transfat bans also fall into this category as it's none of your ilks business as to what someone decides to eat.
Hugh Jass wrote:
Or, possibly,
"Really? Can you name one other forms [sic] of smoke that has consistently topped virtually every list of preventable causes of death in country after country the world over, year after year?
Please...Name even so much as one."
You and your merry band of fanatics can make up any statistic you please, and we all know it's nothing but junk science used to push an agenda.

Go spew your ridiculous rhetoric to Al Gore and his band of "useful idiots".

Here's the actual form of smoke that is by far the most responsible for the toxins you breath.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cholesterol:+up...

Cass and his co-workers quantified 29 different sources of tiny organic particles in Los Angeles' air. In the April ES&T, they reported that meat smoke appears to account for more than one-fifth of these particles, substantially exceeding any other single source--including fireplaces, gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, dust raised during road paving, forest fires, organic chemical processing, metallurgical processing, jet aircraft and cigarettes.
Hugh Jass wrote:
Nah, maybe I should just ignore it as the same dismal pretense of rationality that appears now and then under that user name and say,
"You're a bore, boor." Yeah, I think I'll do that.
Well ain' that the pot calling the kettle black! LOL

Like I've told you before...you are simply educated beyond your level of intelligence.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#22852 Apr 19, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see, now, for YOU that would mean, "Need for Drastic Attitude Adjustment", right? You aren't likely to shed THAT any time soon.
Or in your case...Narcissitic Dominering A$$&ole Association.
Bobby V

San Jose, CA

#22856 Apr 19, 2012
generalsn1234567 wrote:
<quoted text>These bans are the easieast way to close these places of sin and degredation. Onward Christian soldiers.
What a tool
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22857 Apr 19, 2012
generalsn1234567 wrote:
<quoted text>These bans are the easieast way to close these places of sin and degredation. Onward Christian soldiers.
Yeah, right. Christian right. ya think?

Personally, I think you must be getting really low on attention if THAT is the best you can come up with and you STILL think it merits posting.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22858 Apr 19, 2012
Freedom wrote:
Cass and his co-workers quantified 29 different sources of tiny organic particles in Los Angeles' air. In the April ES&T, they reported that meat smoke appears to account for more than one-fifth of these particles, substantially exceeding any other single source--including fireplaces, gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, dust raised during road paving, forest fires, organic chemical processing, metallurgical processing, jet aircraft and cigarettes.
Ah, so, after they are fully dispersed, the background levels of smoking-related particulates are not the greatest quantity. Fine.

Before-and-after studies done on fine particulate levels IN THE PLACES COVERED BY THESE LAWS consistently show that going smoke-free results in a precipitous drop.

You're a disinformationist bore, boor.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22859 Apr 19, 2012
Freedom wrote:
Like I've told you before...you are simply educated beyond your level of intelligence.
Did the threat of that stop you from finishing kindergarten?
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

#22863 Apr 20, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. 25% of fire deaths are attributable to smoking. But that's a hazard mostly to the smoker (and their family.) The non-smoker is not at risk from that aspect of smoking. SHS gets the non-smoker's attention because it puts THEM (and their family) at risk.(At least that's what all of the US Surgeons General since 1964 say. I know there are some folks here that still dispute the point.)
What about a fire in an apartment building or a hotel? A fire in such a place caused by a smoker could cause the death of many non-smokers.
No Smoking Sign

Fort Collins, CO

#22864 Apr 20, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>What about a fire in an apartment building or a hotel? A fire in such a place caused by a smoker could cause the death of many non-smokers.
Don't you know? it's the non-smokers fault for entering the premises where smokers are enjoying a legal product on their personal private property!!! Can't they read the signs? geez........
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

#22865 Apr 20, 2012
No Smoking Sign wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you know? it's the non-smokers fault for entering the premises where smokers are enjoying a legal product on their personal private property!!! Can't they read the signs? geez........
Smokers have a responsibility to be careful so that their smoking does not cause a fire. Landlords have a responsibility to ventilate and fireproof their buildings properly, so that both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy their lifestyles without bothering each other.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22866 Apr 20, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>Smokers have a responsibility to be careful so that their smoking does not cause a fire. Landlords have a responsibility to ventilate and fireproof their buildings properly, so that both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy their lifestyles without bothering each other.
Landlords who are not owners arguably have the responsibility for making apartment buildings smoke-free, to maximize profitability and minimize chance of fires (for the owners), and prevent careless smokers from impacting the lives of tenants.

A smoker in an apartment building is going to step out into the common hallway to leave or step in from it on coming home. At the very least, smoke from inside the apartment gets into the hallway. Others using the hallway have to walk through that and/or open the doors to their own homes when coming or going, letting the smoke enter there.

Few apartment buildings have hermetically sealed units. Smoke spreads from one unit to another by a number of different pathways. If owners have to do expensive and extensive remodeling to make nonsmokers' units anywhere close to smoke-free when they share walls and/or halls with smokers' units--AND they can save a few hundred dollars a pop on preparing apartments for new tenants by NOT having smokers--what do you suppose the reasonable step would be?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pizza chain sued over healthcare for gay couples (Aug '14) 14 min Cat Lover 41
Three area schools fall below suggested minimum... 52 min Whinny the Pooh 3
Wakefield is not a fraud - His study linking MM... 58 min friend 49
Male Impotence Treatment and Male Performance E... (Mar '10) 1 hr paul8 27
Got Herpes? You're More Likely to Get HIV; CBCD... (Jul '14) 1 hr John2223 16
problem with ribs 2 hr ericalei5 1
Growing e-cigarette trend raises safety concerns (Jul '13) 2 hr Ronald 140
Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 6 hr Robin 6,179
More from around the web