Ohio approves state smoking ban

Since the American Cancer Society put your contributions into a political campaign to pass the No Smoking issue, should they still be a charity organization or a political lobbyist group? I know my cotribution to them is history.

Jerrry-NW Ohio wrote:

Since the American Cancer Society put your contributions into a political campaign to pass the No Smoking issue, should they still be a charity organization or a political lobbyist group? I know my cotribution to them is history.

Bravo!

Daniel John wrote:

Smoking is a disdusting, ignorant habit that is very offensive to me. I think that nonsmokers haven't been as upfront as we could be about how gross and annoying the smoking habit is. Smoke in your own home, the smell is worse than an unbathed hobo. Big Tobacco preys on the weak willed and ignorant, so the rest of us need to vote in legislation to make you people smoke less. The government didn't vote it in, the people did. Maybe you smokers should get together and change the law, but unfortunately for all of you, the ignorance of smoking goes hand in hand with the ignorance of not voting.

And here you show your ignorance.

Smokers only comprise about 20% of the population, even IF we ALL voted, only one-third of non-smokers would need to vote to out vote us. It's like mob rule, we can't win, not by the voting process anyway.

Debi wrote:

I am fighting for the business owners choice.

I'd like to hear your response to this story:

Great Scott! Fired for smoking on his own time
By Jaclyn Fitzgerald and O’Ryan Johnson
Thursday, November 30, 2006 - Updated: 05:08 AM EST

A Buzzards Bay man peed into a cup and lost his job when the Scott Co. discovered he’d been inhaling more than the chemicals he sprayed on lawns - he was allegedly smoking cigarettes - according to a lawsuit he filed.

Debi, do you support the right of business owners to choose to fire employees that smoke at home on their own time?

I don't.

KHartman wrote:

I've been surprised by how many non-smokers in this forum objected to Issue 5. Most of you argued that it limited the freedom of private business owners to run their businesses as they saw fit, and that freedom should not be limited.
So, I'd like to hear your responses to this story:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/vi...
Here's the beginning of the article:
Great Scott! Fired for smoking on his own time
By Jaclyn Fitzgerald and O’Ryan Johnson
Thursday, November 30, 2006 - Updated: 05:08 AM EST
A Buzzards Bay man peed into a cup and lost his job when the Scott Co. discovered he’d been inhaling more than the chemicals he sprayed on lawns - he was allegedly smoking cigarettes - according to a lawsuit he filed.
The employee, Scott Rodrigues, sued the national lawncare company yesterday for wrongful termination, claiming the company violated his civil rights. But company spokesman Jim King said the policy is meant to keep employees healthy and protect their wallets.
“They’re irrefutably doing things that harm themselves and they’re asking us to pay for that,” he said of smokers.“They’re asking us to underwrite the known risks of using tobacco.”
So what do you think? Does the freedom of business owners allow them to fire employees that smoke on their own time?
I'm against it, but then I don't have as strong "absolute freedom of business to set the rules" feelings as some of you do.

It's a sucky way to treat your employees, but if Rodrigues agreed to those as terms of employment, then so be it. I sure wouldn't want to work for a company that treated my co-workers with such disdain. But Mr. Rodrigues is likely employed "at will", which means that either party can terminate the working relationship 'at will', and violating clear and previously agreed-to company policy (no matter HOW much it infringes on that citizen's rights) is construed as terminable.

Whether this company has the legal leg to stand on with the Equal Opportunity laws is a matter for the lawyers.

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd like to hear your response to this story:
Great Scott! Fired for smoking on his own time
By Jaclyn Fitzgerald and O’Ryan Johnson
Thursday, November 30, 2006 - Updated: 05:08 AM EST
A Buzzards Bay man peed into a cup and lost his job when the Scott Co. discovered he’d been inhaling more than the chemicals he sprayed on lawns - he was allegedly smoking cigarettes - according to a lawsuit he filed.
Debi, do you support the right of business owners to choose to fire employees that smoke at home on their own time?
I don't.

I do not support that at all, what I support and will fight for is the right of business owners to choose whether they have smoking or not. I personally only go to places that offer smoking. So as of December 7 I will no longer go anywhere in the State of Ohio to eat or drink, unless "black market" smoking is available. and there will be those. Its sad that smokers now have to either stay home or go somewhere and hide the fact your smoking. Its a sad day in Ohio and the United States. The same thing happened when Prohibition went into effect. Drinkers went underground and made moonshine. Not sure how long it took but that was eventually lifted. I contacted a constitution attorney ( on the advise of a State Representative) to help me and all smokers get something done. It also makes me sad that business will go out of business no matter what anyone says. It happened when the Columbus Ban went into effect. The ones it will hurt the most now are in the suburbs and outer counties.

KHartman wrote:

I've been surprised by how many non-smokers in this forum objected to Issue 5. Most of you argued that it limited the freedom of private business owners to run their businesses as they saw fit, and that freedom should not be limited.

By the by, businesses do not strictly have the freedom to run things as they see fit. A place of business cannot exclude persons on a basis of race, religion, national origin, &c, &c. A business cannot run a gambling outfit, nor can they sell alcohol without a permit, or to minors ever! The list of restrictions goes on and on. They are already quite limited.

However, an adult smoking a cigarette is legal, in and of itself. And that hasn't changed.(Yet.)

What the business owners lost was the freedom to decide if they should go 'non-smoking' or not. The standard business is there in order to make a profit. And each owner of a business will eigh the options to determine whether or not a course of action will make more profit, cut into the profit, or keep things level.

Most bars and like that have determined (however unscientifically, by gut feeling or show of hands, or whatever) that they would lose profit by going 'non-smoking'. So there it is. Or was.

Now, I realize that there are more than just bars affected here, but that and restaurants seem to be all that really drove this issue, especially if this thread is any indication.

As I mentioned before, the three-man architectural firm, where they were all smokers is affected. The small machine shop which just finished building a seperated Smoking Room, so its employees don't have to smoke outside exposed to the elements -- money wasted, now; the small metal-stamping company that always had ashtray business to fall back on during 'slow' times; the ventilation systems salesmen for the Ohio region. The list goes on and on.

No, I'm not a smoker, and these changes will barely touch me personally, except when I dine out without having to experience someone's 'after-dinner' smoke.

But this law will drastically change the world for our neighbors. I hope your consciences can bear it.

"And each owner of a business will eigh the options"?

I should proof-read better. That should have been "weigh".

(this keyboard's never been the same since the Kool-Aid incident.)

MRab2 wrote:

And what about fat people?

jackie wrote:

this is becoming a dictatorship, what's next? no drinking? are they going to control everything we do?

Spite wrote:

Whats the next sin to be outlawed or taxed to death.. Alcohol?

And Lynda FTW!

Lynda wrote:

<quoted text>
No fat, they are picking up speed on fat and obesity now. They tried alcohol once and failed that will be the last thing to go, trust me.

Here's what's happening in New York right now:
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php...

Trans fat ban.

The government wriggles its tentacles into yet another aspect of American business. It won't be long before it comes to Ohio. New York City, then New York State, California, Flordia, then all the "me too" states, like Ohio.

Many of you would like to think that passing Issue 5 was a "will of the people" thing, but keep watching as more and more encroachment occurs as the government tries to tighten its grip using the willing voters as unwitting accomplices.

Frog in the water, doesn't know it's boiling.

Sorry. props to MRab2, also. In my enthusiasm, I forgot to congratulate him by name.

MRab2 and Lynda called it on November 8th.

But I'm pretty sure the next Ohio "sin", as Spite put it, to be voted on by the tools of Direct Democracy, will be the strip clubs and nudie bars. The petition is already going around, gathering signatures to get it on the 2007 ballot. 2007 being an "off" year, you can expect that maybe the same 3.5 Million voters statewide as voted on the smoking issue will be the ones voting again.

Hospital neighbors: We don’t want your smokers

ASHLAND — Two months after Ashland enacted an ordinance designating King’s Daughters Medical Center’s campus a smoke-free area, residents say they are fed up with smokers using their neighborhood as an ashtray.

The ordinance, approved in August and enacted with Ashland’s citywide smoke-free ordinance, created a 20-foot no-smoking perimeter around all of KDMC’s buildings in the city. As a result, residents complain, smokers have invaded their sidewalks, yards, and alleys to comply with the measure.

And they are leaving their cigarette butts — hundreds of them.

The problem has gotten so bad, residents say, it has changed the very character of the neighborhood.

“It was a nice quiet little neighborhood and now it’s not,” said Clay Wills, a resident of the 2300 block of Lexington Avenue.“It’s crazy how many cigarette butts are out there.”

At all hours of the day and night, he said, hospital staff, visitors and patients can be found lining the sidewalks of 23rd Street and Hilton Avenue and in the alley between 23rd and 24th streets.

“It’s not just the smoking issue; it’s the privacy issue. We have no privacy now. I’m not able to let my daughter go out and ride her bicycle up and down the alley without there being a bunch of strangers smoking,” Wills said.

Neighbor Doug Davis of the 2300 block of Hilton Avenue agreed.“There are so many doing it it’s not a private neighborhood like it used to be. It’s not as quiet as it used to be.”

It is also not as clean.

Both Davis and Wills said they frequently sweep up butts only to find them quickly replaced.

Davis said Wednesday he swept in front of his home at 8 a.m. At 2:30 p.m., dozens of fresh butts could be seen littering the sidewalk and spilling into his driveway.

“Their policy is all about protecting their employees and the general public from secondhand smoke,” Wills said.“There is a way for the hospital to handle their problem without shoving it onto us. They’ve taken their problem and put it in my back yard.”

“I think the hospital ought to provide a place or give their employees an ultimatum,” Davis said.

Wills suggested KDMC reinstate its policy of allowing smoking at kiosks inside the hospital’s Lexington Avenue and 23rd Street parking facilities.

KDMC spokesman Tom Dearing said the hospital will work in conjunction with the city to address neighbors’ concerns.

“We want to be good neighbors and we’re looking at how we can look at this concern. We’re proud to promote a tobacco-free environment at KDMC and in the City of Ashland. Since going tobacco-free at the end of September we’ve had very few problems and everyone is understanding of why we’re taking this stand,” he said.

Dearing added the hospital also changed its policy so that employees are no longer allowed to go off-site to smoke.“So we know it’s not them,” he said.“We’re sure it’s not the employees. Even when we see visitors going over there we strongly encourage them to remain on public property.”

At the other end of the hospital’s campus, Central Park is also experiencing some side effects from an influx of smokers.

Sean Murray, director of parks and recreation, said the volume of smokers and the trash they create is causing some safety concerns.“We’re going out to pick up the trash as much as possible, to clean up the receptacles and the butts on the ground,” he said.

“We’re looking at options to help alleviate the problem to find a mutually beneficial solution for everyone involved.”

Lulu wrote:

Hospital neighbors: We don’t want your smokers
ASHLAND — Two months after Ashland enacted an ordinance designating King’s Daughters Medical Center’s campus a smoke-free area, residents say they are fed up with smokers using their neighborhood as an ashtray.
The ordinance, approved in August and enacted with Ashland’s citywide smoke-free ordinance, created a 20-foot no-smoking perimeter around all of KDMC’s buildings in the city. As a result, residents complain, smokers have invaded their sidewalks, yards, and alleys to comply with the measure.
And they are leaving their cigarette butts — hundreds of them.
The problem has gotten so bad, residents say, it has changed the very character of the neighborhood.
“It was a nice quiet little neighborhood and now it’s not,” said Clay Wills, a resident of the 2300 block of Lexington Avenue.“It’s crazy how many cigarette butts are out there.”
At all hours of the day and night, he said, hospital staff, visitors and patients can be found lining the sidewalks of 23rd Street and Hilton Avenue and in the alley between 23rd and 24th streets.
“It’s not just the smoking issue; it’s the privacy issue. We have no privacy now. I’m not able to let my daughter go out and ride her bicycle up and down the alley without there being a bunch of strangers smoking,” Wills said.
Neighbor Doug Davis of the 2300 block of Hilton Avenue agreed.“There are so many doing it it’s not a private neighborhood like it used to be. It’s not as quiet as it used to be.”
It is also not as clean.
Both Davis and Wills said they frequently sweep up butts only to find them quickly replaced.
Davis said Wednesday he swept in front of his home at 8 a.m. At 2:30 p.m., dozens of fresh butts could be seen littering the sidewalk and spilling into his driveway.
“Their policy is all about protecting their employees and the general public from secondhand smoke,” Wills said.“There is a way for the hospital to handle their problem without shoving it onto us. They’ve taken their problem and put it in my back yard.”
“I think the hospital ought to provide a place or give their employees an ultimatum,” Davis said.
Wills suggested KDMC reinstate its policy of allowing smoking at kiosks inside the hospital’s Lexington Avenue and 23rd Street parking facilities.
KDMC spokesman Tom Dearing said the hospital will work in conjunction with the city to address neighbors’ concerns.
“We want to be good neighbors and we’re looking at how we can look at this concern. We’re proud to promote a tobacco-free environment at KDMC and in the City of Ashland. Since going tobacco-free at the end of September we’ve had very few problems and everyone is understanding of why we’re taking this stand,” he said.
Dearing added the hospital also changed its policy so that employees are no longer allowed to go off-site to smoke.“So we know it’s not them,” he said.“We’re sure it’s not the employees. Even when we see visitors going over there we strongly encourage them to remain on public property.”
At the other end of the hospital’s campus, Central Park is also experiencing some side effects from an influx of smokers.
Sean Murray, director of parks and recreation, said the volume of smokers and the trash they create is causing some safety concerns.“We’re going out to pick up the trash as much as possible, to clean up the receptacles and the butts on the ground,” he said.
“We’re looking at options to help alleviate the problem to find a mutually beneficial solution for everyone involved.”

Unintended consequences. There is no forethought to what will happen when these laws, rules and regulations are enacted. If I were the neighbors, I'd be taking the hospital and everyone else involved in the smoking issue to court. This whole issue is going to get very ugly, if not violent.

If you don't want to be around smokers then don't go into any place that allows it! No! You want to be able to go anywhere don't you? Everyone else has to bow to your wishes! I own a business and think that I ought to be able to have a say in how I run my business. I pay plenty of taxes, etc and should have a say. Just stay out of the places that allow smokers and we won't miss you.

Lulu wrote:

Dearing added the hospital also changed its policy so that employees are no longer allowed to go off-site to smoke. So we know it's not them, he said. We're sure it's not the employees.

I wonder how that works exactly? How far beyond their own property does the hospital's influence extend? Are they monitoring the actions of employees that are off-site (but still within view of the hospital's external video cameras?)

Unless there's a union, the hospital COULD fire those that smoke, even though it's not on their propery.

But I really think this is a litter issue. You shouldn't drop your trash ANYWHERE but in a proper container. Why should a stranger have to clean up your mess? Courteous smokers don't drop their cigarette butts in the streets.

About the Ashland story:
I hope the people that voted for this smoking ban live close by a place like that, and have all the trouble with the butts and strangers walking around their property.
Get your broom and dust pan out, Cas.

suzyq wrote:

I own a business and think that I ought to be able to have a say in how I run my business.

SuzyQ, what do you think about this guy:

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/vi...

Should a business owner be allowed to fire employees who smoke away from work? Are they also entitled to have "have a say" in how they run their business, even if it makes life more difficult for smokers?

Joyce wrote:

Get your broom and dust pan out, Cas.

Cas said "goodbye" and I think he meant it. You'll have to find a new nemesis now...

NW Ohio wrote:

I think it's great!!!! Smokers cry what about our rights?? well what about non-smokers rights to be able to take their family to a resturant and eat without having cancer causing smoke in the air??? Who ever designed the smoking and non-smoking areas apparently failed physics. The invisible wall does not stop the smoke from creeping over to the non-smoking section.. DUH!!!!
If you want to smoke and die from cancer.. Hey go for it!!! Just don't drag me and my family into your miserable death..

so where do you live because i want to go there i dont know of a city that is safe to breath in do you drive a car if so stop your killing my kids by doing so with acid that come out of it if i farted would you and there and smell it or walk away

revlee wrote:

Unintended consequences. There is no forethought to what will happen when these laws, rules and regulations are enacted. If I were the neighbors, I'd be taking the hospital and everyone else involved in the smoking issue to court. This whole issue is going to get very ugly, if not violent.

You may be right. Depriving addicts of their drugs can lead to violent behavior. When they banned smoking on planes, some smokers went bonkers and had to be removed by force. Others started to smoke in the restrooms (which was a big no-no even when you could smoke on the rest of the plane), which is why there are now smoke detectors in the restrooms and a big fine for messing with them.

But after an initial period of arrests and fines, the smokers finally gave up trying to smoke on planes, and accepted the new reality. That's what will probably happen this time, too.

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
You may be right. Depriving addicts of their drugs can lead to violent behavior. When they banned smoking on planes, some smokers went bonkers and had to be removed by force. Others started to smoke in the restrooms (which was a big no-no even when you could smoke on the rest of the plane), which is why there are now smoke detectors in the restrooms and a big fine for messing with them.
But after an initial period of arrests and fines, the smokers finally gave up trying to smoke on planes, and accepted the new reality. That's what will probably happen this time, too.

I hope people can be taught not to be so submissive in the near future.