Court: Smokers at fault, not bars | The Columbus Dispatch

Funny thing!!! Parts of the country with higher income/education levels, such as Maryland has, have no problem with restrictions on smoking. It seems like most people living in Md. wish to be protected from toxic cigarette smoke.

Get real wrote:

The smoking ban is unconstitutional anyway. My property, my right. If you want to come to my property and enjoy the beverages I serve, so be it. If you don't like the smoke, you can leave. As a bar owner, the owner is not even allowed to smoke on their own property - that's a restriction of his/her liberties. This law should not exist.

That is know as free enterprise which made us the greatest country in the world. Now that free enterprise is gone, look at the shape we are in.

Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because if you have paid employees it becomes a workplace issue.

Wrong Reader volunteers are not paid employees. But see the radical anti smoking cartel blew smoke on issue 5

just candid wrote:

Funny thing!!! Parts of the country with higher income/education levels, such as Maryland has, have no problem with restrictions on smoking. It seems like most people living in Md. wish to be protected from toxic cigarette smoke.

But they love breathing toxic car exhaust which can kill in minutes. They love breathing their 33 pounds of pollution per day or 6 tons a year.
I would rather breath the tiny tiny amount of cigarette smoke. If you were in a smoked filled bar for the whole day you would not breath more than and ounce of pollutants from cigarettes.

just candid wrote:

Funny thing!!! Parts of the country with higher income/education levels, such as Maryland has, have no problem with restrictions on smoking. It seems like most people living in Md. wish to be protected from toxic cigarette smoke.

eastern maryland is a libtards paradise.the ones who want the ban.....western maryland doesnt want the ban....and there are plenty of places there that still have smoking....illegally yes but still there.

The American Cancer Society AKA Smoke Free Ohio spent close to 10 million dollars for this ban according to a West Virginia anit smoking expert.
Think 10 million dollars that could have been used for cancer research of child hood cancers! Shame be upon the American Cancer Society.

Smoking is a personal choice which should be allowed anywhere there is an equal healthy alternative opportunity for a non-smoker. Bars are certainly around for non smokers. If you don't like a smokey bar, don't patronize that establishment.

Nuff Said.

Confederate1989 wrote:

Wheres maze at....I demasculated him on the other thread........poor boy is probably having his scrotum reatached.

Care to point out the source of your delusion?

Seems to me your total incomprehension of the concept of a "confounder"--at the very least--destroys your credibility.

The fantasy world you clearly occupy may very well permit you to preen and boast. Reality does not.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you send that ODH response to your question about smoking as a violation to my email address?

Its on its way, check your email :D

Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because if you have paid employees it becomes a workplace issue.

Reader, the workplace employee issue is a scam for th eanti smoking agenda. Employees of ODH do not wear protective equipment when ODH sends them to inspect a smoking violation so they don't believe the claims. and there are some exemptions such as tobacco shops and motels/hotels, so what about those employees in those workplaces. Its a total scam

In general, I quite agree with the allocation of blame. However, it SHOULD be incumbent on the owners to deny entry to anyone known to routinely break the law on the premises.

Doing less clearly carries culpability.

I am NOT under the illusion that this will happen. I'm just saying that if it doesn't it is obviously because of the owner's lack of respect for the law.

Shortly after noon today I thought I would fall off my chair laughing..Audrey Silk of NYCLASH got mr anti smoking himself (Patrick Reynolds) to admit smoking bans are bad for business on MSNBC

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Care to point out the source of your delusion?
Seems to me your total incomprehension of the concept of a "confounder"--at the very least--destroys your credibility.
The fantasy world you clearly occupy may very well permit you to preen and boast. Reality does not.

mazed you might as well head back to cloverbottom..........the doctors are definatly looking for you.....

If this new "vaccination" approach to curbing nicotine addiction works out (that is to say, proves both effective and safe), the day may be coming when repeat violators of smoking regulations are required to undergo the process.

This would make smoking useless in efforts to relieve withdrawal symptoms, because the stuff attacks nicotine and prevents it from getting to the brain.

The result would be that the lawless smokers would have no choice but to go through "cold turkey" quitting.

A fair number of them would probably be glad afterward to have the monkey off their backs, and the withdrawals would be an appropriate part of the "punishment" for the crime.

http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2009/10/s ...

Mazed wrote:

If this new "vaccination" approach to curbing nicotine addiction works out (that is to say, proves both effective and safe), the day may be coming when repeat violators of smoking regulations are required to undergo the process.
This would make smoking useless in efforts to relieve withdrawal symptoms, because the stuff attacks nicotine and prevents it from getting to the brain.
The result would be that the lawless smokers would have no choice but to go through "cold turkey" quitting.
A fair number of them would probably be glad afterward to have the monkey off their backs, and the withdrawals would be an appropriate part of the "punishment" for the crime.
http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2009/10/s ...

If they come up with a shot for narcissism perhaps we can force it on you.

You are one frightening nutcase.

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> Its on its way, check your email :D

Got it and passed it on. Thanks

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> Reader, the workplace employee issue is a scam for th eanti smoking agenda. Employees of ODH do not wear protective equipment when ODH sends them to inspect a smoking violation so they don't believe the claims. and there are some exemptions such as tobacco shops and motels/hotels, so what about those employees in those workplaces. Its a total scam

Did you know that ODH has been reported for smoking violations.

I'd like to thank the Columbus Dispatch for printing this news. Time after time we see smaller local newspapers print press releases on behalf of the anti smoking cartel. Amazingly they fail to bring notice to this court news. Could it be that some newspapers chose to self serve them selves instead of promoting honesty and integrity?
Perhaps the Columbus Dispatch does try to evaluate what is being said. Like for example the credibility of the anti smoking cartel that said threats were made against them at the Ohio Department of Healths open meeting when the Ohio Highway Patrol went afterwards on record to deny such a outrageous claim made by SMOKE FREE OHIO!

Mazed wrote:

If this new "vaccination" approach to curbing nicotine addiction works out (that is to say, proves both effective and safe), the day may be coming when repeat violators of smoking regulations are required to undergo the process.
This would make smoking useless in efforts to relieve withdrawal symptoms, because the stuff attacks nicotine and prevents it from getting to the brain.
The result would be that the lawless smokers would have no choice but to go through "cold turkey" quitting.
A fair number of them would probably be glad afterward to have the monkey off their backs, and the withdrawals would be an appropriate part of the "punishment" for the crime.
http://www.topix.com/health/smoking/2009/10/s ...

Right....like any responsible parent is going to give their child a vaccine that zaps the ability to feel pleasure. There is no f'n nicotine pleasure zone in the brain specific to just nicotine. YOU go take it...woops, I guess you already did.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you send that ODH response to your question about smoking as a violation to my email address?

BTW, I'll send you a 2nd email with the list of almost half of the counties who are not enforcing the ban as of a few weeks ago :)