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

Hey Stinky, are you married or did you drive your husband away or kill him with your second-hand smoke?

Enzyte Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
After Stinky plugs in her replacement oxygen cannister.

I see you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion

bob how do you take off the ip address? thx

why wrote:

bob how do you take off the ip address? thx

Your IP address doesn't show on this end, just city and state. Sign up and get an account.

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>so was I in replying to your wanting banks to stop lending to businesses that permit smoking.
I'm sure the banks will turn down business that earns them interest because *YOU* don't like smoking, heck the bank owner might even be a smoker. Smokers do come from all walks of life you know..just normal human beings

Smoking is far from "normal." This is nothing ingrained in your DNA.

It has nothing to do with me. You're wrong...banks turn down loans that are a RISK. If a business is at a RISK of failure, why would they loan them money? Would you loan money to someone who opened a retail storefront selling bicycle chains? If you had any common sense the answer would be "no," because it would fail and you would be burdened to take care of that property until sold. That's a lot more money than the interest gained.

Alpha1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking is far from "normal." This is nothing ingrained in your DNA.
It has nothing to do with me. You're wrong...banks turn down loans that are a RISK. If a business is at a RISK of failure, why would they loan them money? Would you loan money to someone who opened a retail storefront selling bicycle chains? If you had any common sense the answer would be "no," because it would fail and you would be burdened to take care of that property until sold. That's a lot more money than the interest gained.

your point was smoking before, not chains. So now you want to control the banks LOL its a non issue for normal people lol

Alpha1 wrote:

I think banks should start putting "no smoking" clauses in their loans to businesses. It would be their risk if a business would default on a loan if they couldn't pay due to fines or shutdown of that business.
Thanks for the inspiration smokers! I'm leaving this forum to draft a letter to the major banks here in Ohio.

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> Its not an appeal
Zeno's sues over constitutionality of state's smoking rules
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/...

It's basically an appeal; however, I'm not certain it's legally named that. Zeno's has sour grapes over fines imposed on them. They are counter-suing over the constitutionality of the ban.

They will certainly lose, because the ban is within the domain of the Constitution.

Alpha1 wrote:

<quoted text>
the ban is within the domain of the Constitution.

I look forward to reading your proof tomorrow

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text>your point was smoking before, not chains. So now you want to control the banks LOL its a non issue for normal people lol
<quoted text>

I'm far from the ability in controlling the banks. I just put something in their suggestion box. That's all, just something for them to think about.

I have no super powers. It's not normal for you to think I do. Maybe you should see a psychologist/psychiatrist and they get your head straight.

Alpha1 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's basically an appeal; however, I'm not certain it's legally named that. Zeno's has sour grapes over fines imposed on them. They are counter-suing over the constitutionality of the ban.
They will certainly lose, because the ban is within the domain of the Constitution.

Hard to predict the outcome of any court case, but you are right about the constitutional issue.

http://cincinnatilaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/ohi...

"Ohio's smoking ban is constitutional

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Nelson last Friday morning upheld the State’s statutory smoking ban, passed in November 2006.

...

Judge Nelson, however, in his decision noted nothing in the U.S. or state constitution recognizes a right to smoke, adding that “a law may be thought ill-advised, paternalistic, and generally obnoxious, and still not be unconstitutional.”"

As you can tell from that last sentence, Fred Nelson (a libertarian) opposed the smoking ban, but still found it to be constitutional.

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Hard to predict the outcome of any court case, but you are right about the constitutional issue.
http://cincinnatilaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/ohi...
"Ohio's smoking ban is constitutional
Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Nelson last Friday morning upheld the State’s statutory smoking ban, passed in November 2006.
...
Judge Nelson, however, in his decision noted nothing in the U.S. or state constitution recognizes a right to smoke, adding that “a law may be thought ill-advised, paternalistic, and generally obnoxious, and still not be unconstitutional.”"
As you can tell from that last sentence, Fred Nelson (a libertarian) opposed the smoking ban, but still found it to be constitutional.

Thank you Sez Who.

The reason I would presume Zeno's will lose is the fact the Constitution reads "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The killer for smokers in the Constitution is "without due process of law." The voters democratically elected the ban. Since the ban is based on common knowledge of the harmful effects by second hand smoke, there is no way this law will be repealed. Any person within its jurisdiction (State of Ohio) has equal protection of the law.

Smokers would have to prove second hand smoke is dandy and not a nuisance or harmful to other people. I don't see how any normal person would even try to prove it's not both a nuisance or harmful without looking like a fool in front of the courts.

I wonder how Zeno's attorney will keep a straight face when he presents the case. You know the attorney knows he/she can't win, the attorney is just tickled to make the fees! LOL!

I don't doubt all public places in the United States will be smoke free in the not so distant future.

Smokers - Talk about a carbon footprint!

Alpha1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm far from the ability in controlling the banks. I just put something in their suggestion box. That's all, just something for them to think about.
I have no super powers. It's not normal for you to think I do. Maybe you should see a psychologist/psychiatrist and they get your head straight.

Hmm, no smoking clauses in business loans, what other groups would you suggest be discriminated, race, sex, age. disabilities? One would think banks already have their decision making rules in place which is beneficial to their business

Alpha1 wrote:
I think banks should start putting "no smoking" clauses in their loans to businesses. It would be their risk if a business would default on a loan if they couldn't pay due to fines or shutdown of that business.
Thanks for the inspiration smokers! I'm leaving this forum to draft a letter to the major banks here in Ohio.

Sez Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Hard to predict the outcome of any court case, but you are right about the constitutional issue.
http://cincinnatilaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/ohi...
"Ohio's smoking ban is constitutional
Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Nelson last Friday morning upheld the State’s statutory smoking ban, passed in November 2006.
...
Judge Nelson, however, in his decision noted nothing in the U.S. or state constitution recognizes a right to smoke, adding that “a law may be thought ill-advised, paternalistic, and generally obnoxious, and still not be unconstitutional.”"
As you can tell from that last sentence, Fred Nelson (a libertarian) opposed the smoking ban, but still found it to be constitutional.

where do you see smoking ban in what you posted? Funny, the case was not about smoking and that would have been overturned in a higher court, he failed to rule on the actual case lol

Alpha1 wrote:

<quoted text>

Smokers - Talk about a carbon footprint!

did you mean to say ..the human race, talk about a carbon footprint?

Alpha1 wrote:

<quoted text>
the Constitution reads "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The killer for smokers in the Constitution is "without due process of law.

Here is an example of that protection, first guilt must be proven before the state takes a humans life/liberty..the court and that proof was his due process of law

Defiant DC sniper mastermind Muhammad executed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_re_...

You cherry picked that clause to force it to fit your own selfish agenda

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/const...

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Why, is my lipstick smeared?

So you don't know ?

Alpha1 wrote:

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy, who is fighting on behalf of Zeno's, is laughing all the way to the bank...They know they aren't going to win, but hey, anything for a buck!
I think banks should start putting "no smoking" clauses in their loans to businesses. It would be their risk if a business would default on a loan if they couldn't pay due to fines or shutdown of that business.
Thanks for the inspiration smokers! I'm leaving this forum to draft a letter to the major banks here in Ohio.

Great idea!! It would be nice if you shared a copy of the Ltr with the rest of us, or at least some of your ideas about what should be in it. I for one plan to talk with several of my bankers about the idea.

BTW Alpha, the constitution and court did protect the public by preventing him from being released to put the public at real risk and go on another murdering spree. That was real "protecting the public" who had no choice which is quite different from "protectionism" of people from their own choices. Those deaths are proof that the government cannot protect you from harm or death. People were still free to move around publicly or hide in their homes as they saw fit for their own chosen method of self protection from his killing spree

Defiant DC sniper mastermind Muhammad executed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_re_...

Alpha1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking is far from "normal." This is nothing ingrained in your DNA.
It has nothing to do with me. You're wrong...banks turn down loans that are a RISK. If a business is at a RISK of failure, why would they loan them money? Would you loan money to someone who opened a retail storefront selling bicycle chains? If you had any common sense the answer would be "no," because it would fail and you would be burdened to take care of that property until sold. That's a lot more money than the interest gained.

Private and regular banks cater to upper income and large net worth customers. I believe percentage wise you will fine more of that type customers are non-smokers, so it follows banks will be inclined to listen to them. I believe many banks wish to be on the cutting edge, out front of the pack. Like "going green", going "smoke free" with their loans, I believe can be shown to be good for their bottem line.

u cannot own me wrote:

BTW Alpha, the constitution and court did protect the public by preventing him from being released to put the public at real risk and go on another murdering spree. That was real "protecting the public" who had no choice which is quite different from "protectionism" of people from their own choices. Those deaths are proof that the government cannot protect you from harm or death. People were still free to move around publicly or hide in their homes as they saw fit for their own chosen method of self protection from his killing spree
Defiant DC sniper mastermind Muhammad executed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091111/ap_on_re_...

Have you ever heard of quarantines, lock-downs, do not cross lines, areas closed to the public, restricted access, orders to stay in your house, ect?