Ohio approves state smoking ban

communist state resident wrote:

it's not fair that I have to breathe the dust and paint fumes while repairing the cars that some of you wreck.I have been exposed to second hand smoke since I was born with no problems.I have smoked for 40 years no problems.the volutary workplace ban was fine,I go outside,I don't even smoke inside my home.by the way it does not take 13 minutes to smoke one.try 3 minutes. If everything said was true than why hasn't tobacco been labled an illegal substance.

They have mouth filters and face masks where my brother works.

Jon wrote:

SMOKERS RIGHTS? YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO OUTSIDE AND DESTROY YOUR LUNGS AND LET PEOPLE WHO DONT WANT TO BREATH YOUR BAD HABIT LIVE A LITTLE LONGER, QUIT WHINNING ABOUT THE BAN, WE NON-SMOKERS HAVE HAD TO SMELL THAT NASTY TOXIC SMOKE FROM SMOKERS FOR YEARS, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKE, ITS ABOUT TIME WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BREATH CLEAN AIR, ALL I CAN SAY IS IM GLAD IT PASSED, ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENT WHO PASSED IT, ITS THE PEOPLE WHO PASSED IT, ENJOY YOUR SMOKE IN THE COLD, NOW MY CLOTHES WONT SMELL, MY COAT WONT HAVE TO SIT OUTSIDE AND AIR OUT. SMOKE EM IF U GOT EM, JUST MAKE SURE YOU OUTSIDE!

Thank you!!!

lucinda wrote:

<quoted text>your just jealous that we won. And what about you staying home and cooking?
You poor pathetic excuse of a person...yes , it was a little slice of heaven, not to have the after taste of smoke lingering over my food... thanks again folks!

This pathetic excuse of a person works 6 days a week to support a family of five. I never smoked in restaurants because I think its rude. But this governments solution to every tax problem is to raise the excise tax o n cigs every two years or so. Drunk drivers kill but there are no extra taxes on alcohol. Why? Because we are not a tobacco growing state but we do have large breweries like the Budweiser plant in Columbus. A tax on alcohol would possibly cause the breweries to relocate costing Ohio jobs and tax money. Lets start taxing fairly like taxes on pop, candy, cell phones etc. Why is it the smokers job to pay for everything. I personally don't like listening to people on their cell phones when I'm at my kids school programs. I say we go after cell phone users next. They can only use them at home and outdoors.Then we can go after loud car sterios. The local tavern by my house is still allowing smoking as always and theres nothing anybody can do about it until next summer.

russ davis wrote:

<quoted text> This pathetic excuse of a person works 6 days a week to support a family of five. I never smoked in restaurants because I think its rude. But this governments solution to every tax problem is to raise the excise tax o n cigs every two years or so. Drunk drivers kill but there are no extra taxes on alcohol. Why? Because we are not a tobacco growing state but we do have large breweries like the Budweiser plant in Columbus. A tax on alcohol would possibly cause the breweries to relocate costing Ohio jobs and tax money. Lets start taxing fairly like taxes on pop, candy, cell phones etc. Why is it the smokers job to pay for everything. I personally don't like listening to people on their cell phones when I'm at my kids school programs. I say we go after cell phone users next. They can only use them at home and outdoors.Then we can go after loud car sterios. The local tavern by my house is still allowing smoking as always and theres nothing anybody can do about it until next summer.

Tobacco is grown in southern Ohio.:)

Just a few notes from Representatives and Mayors I received responses from on Issue 5.

I did not vote for issue 5 because I felt it should be the owners of the various businesses that decide if they wish to allow smoking or not. Then it would be up to individual people whether they go to that business or not. That seems to me to be the American way. I do not smoke and I think smoking is dumb, bit issue 5 is overly restrictive of the people who wish to smoke.

Jeff Wagner

Thanks for your email about State Issue 5. As you know this was a voter-approved initiative and had no input from the Ohio Legislature. It does seem ironic that a state which bans smoking is collecting exorbitant taxes from smoking. I voted against this increase in taxes two years ago which were delivered by the Republican majority and I think the state should revisit its tax code because of many inconsistencies.

JOHN BOCCIERI
State Representative 61st District

I am hoping that I am wrong and past experiences will be the
anomaly, but I am concerned that most will experience a negative impact.

Thank you,

Jacob C. Evans

SMOKERS PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!
SMOKERS PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!
SMOKERS PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.smokerstaxrevolt.com/index.html

Steve wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, "This is not a Democracy". Thats all you really needed to say. Next idiot please.:)

Wow, you really know how to debunk a claim of an argument. Your premises all the wat through to your conclusion were solid; a very valid argument you have here. Now had you read the rest or, I don't know, maybe did a Google search or something to find out what form of Government the US actually is (or at least supposed to be), you could have added a little more to your claim instead recanting your point with an insult.

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution

A Democracy as seen by our forefathers and the main reason why our Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4):

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
-James Madison (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, The Federalist on the New Constitution (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p. 53,#10, James Madison.)

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
-John Adams (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol. VI, p. 484, to John Taylor on April 15, 1814.)

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”
-Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809), p. 24, Speech on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.)

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.”
-John Adams (John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, editor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. I, p. 83, from "An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, with the Author's Comment in 1807," written on August 29, 1763, but first published by John Adams in 1807.)

So, before you go around calling people "idiots", Steve; you may want to check to make sure you know what you, yourself, are actually talking about.

Michael in OHIO wrote:

That is true you can go out in the sun without me being affected, however u cannot drive a car without putting toxins in the air and adversly affecting others...

i am going to keep saying this until it sinks in:

car exhaust is an unfortunate trade-off of our use of vehicle transportation, something our economy *cannot survive without*. would you advocate the mass ban of automobiles and support the use of bicycles instead just to support your argument -- just so you can smoke indoors?

besides, you know that smoking doesn't serve a purpose. you are free to say otherwise, but it doesn't.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

In other words, your "moment at hand" is someone panicked over being around someone who's smoking too close to an entrance? Or is it when someone sees that Wal-Mart has a non-compliant sign in its entrance? Or is it when...?

why are you digging into this so hard? moment at hand: the moment when one acquires eligibility to inform one of another's *general* actions.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

Yes, but there's no other example that I have been able to find where such 'snitching' by John Q. Public is not only requested by the posted signage, but written into the text of the law.

i won't debate you anymore for this reason: you have a separate agenda from the smokers. i can't argue what drives you because, believe it or not, i respect it. you're all about fighting for business rights and not relying on the citizens to become informants. that's noble... even though i personally see nothing wrong with it. the day you argue with smoker mentallity is the day i will truly disagree with you.

Bill Hannegan wrote:

I think a big part of out disagreement is in this one post. Can someone please show me the illegality of arbitrarily and capriciously throwing someone out of my bar. Can't I bar you for having long or short hair or being an antismoker. I don't feel I have any right to be in any private business and that I can be shown the door without cause. Antismokers, on the other hand, feel they have a right to enter a business as long as they don't misbehave.

so basically, if you're a private bar owner you can ban someone from your bar because they're black, gay, or don't have all four limbs?

Bill Hannegan wrote:

Antismokers, on the other hand, feel they have a right to enter a business as long as they don't misbehave.

also, can you please explain why this applies strictly to antis? thx.

also... DEBI:

go back a few pages and see my long response to your request for a logical solution to the smoking issue.

Greven wrote:

<quoted text>WOW!!!
You are selfish you had places to go that were non-smoking.
What do we have nothing> you had a choice we dont.
Sorry it dont fly Its people like you that make all the freedoms (WE ALL ENJOY) go away. Believe me i dont care Quote me all of us have a vice your will be asulted to

you obviously are ignorant of Dayton, there are not many non smoking establishments here, I know of two... big whoop... go get a better habit...

Smokin in Ohio wrote:

Let's have a call in number where we can snitch if someone dares come into a restaurant with a cold or doesn't wash their hands after visiting the restroom.

loaded comment.

you can't catch someone's cold by merely being in their vicinity. you catch it through microbial contact (if they're sneezing and coughing all over you or objects that you will touch and ingest). furthermore, you don't have twenty people with colds at the same time in each public restaurant all year round. and you don't choose to have a cold, unlike smoking which you do choose to do. colds also aren't deadly, unlike SHS. there are vaccines for flus, but there are no vaccines against SHS.

as far as the washing of hands comment, the threat of dirty hands is easily solved by common disinfectant which, hopefully, every restaurant -- public or private -- has. as well, if you voluntarily suck on someone's fingers after they just touched their junk in the bathroom then you have a serious problem.

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
i am going to keep saying this until it sinks in:
car exhaust is an unfortunate trade-off of our use of vehicle transportation, something our economy *cannot survive without*. would you advocate the mass ban of automobiles and support the use of bicycles instead just to support your argument -- just so you can smoke indoors?
besides, you know that smoking doesn't serve a purpose. you are free to say otherwise, but it doesn't.

I guess it just hasn't "sunk in". Smoking serves the purpose of pleasure and of tolerating people like you. You don't have to smell smoke if you don't go to or work in a smoking establishment. If you do happen to catch a "whiff" your health will not be compromised regardless of what BS they are trying to sell us in the media. You have a better chance of catching an airborne illness from a fellow patron who is sick. Let's all be sprayed with disinfectent prior to going out anywhere!

I left Ohio in the very early 80's to finish my military career. I spent most of my time in California ( you know , that Land of Fruits and Nuts as so many have called it, because of their zealous Ultra liberal ways of thinking, among other thing). California has more laws against doing things than any other state in the Union. Most of them become felonies, sooner or later. Controlled to death is what the average person sees in California yet such a small group of wackos spread ideas that have become Banner calls for other wackos in this country.
On my numerous return visits to my beloved Ohio, I found that it is not the once great state that I used to be proud of. The Legislators and Governor have done whatever they wanted to, helping themselves and and a few greesy lawyers. Business has been driven away, the total tax burden has become the 3Rd highest in the United States, your bureaucrats have decided 'you do for them, they don't do for you' unless they want to. Now the few have decided that there will be a new class of criminal in Ohio. What next? Canyou ban the backyard barbecues there? How will you deal with those horrible cows that pollute the air with their flatulence, "Destroying The Ozone" etc. etc. etc.
STUPID PEOPLE, WAKE UP! STAND UP! Get off your butts and get active in your state; VOTE! Run For Office, Write your representatives, get rid of your representaives, DO SOMETHING to make Ohio a good place to live without interference from these little groups that push you over.
California , the land of Fruits and Nuts?
Huh!

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
so basically, if you're a private bar owner you can ban someone from your bar because they're black, gay, or don't have all four limbs?

Blacks have special laws that protect them from such treatment. Lady's night is discrimination based on sex. Why shouldn't a gay bar refuse to serve Christian rightwingers?

If a bar owner can't exclude whomever he wants for whatever reason, then people have in some sense a right to be there and the bar is really more of a public place than I thought. I believe a lot of the smoking ban argument is really about the metaphysical status of bars and restaurants.

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
so basically, if you're a private bar owner you can ban someone from your bar because they're black, gay, or don't have all four limbs?

Sure, I will field that one...

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.
In addition to protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

So basically, if it is not violating one of the above “Civil Rights”, then yes, you as a business owner have the right to “refuse service”.