Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constitutional

BluesCat1980 wrote:

<quoted text>
If the government didn't make regulations pertaining to this particular subject you brought up of a plane, who knows what shape your plane could be in. There's more than just the fact the government makes rules to make rules. With a plane, you have make sure things are up to code, safety precautions are taken in case of flight failure, and most importantly you have to make sure your passengers feel safe, or you're not going to make money at all, because they feel their safety is in jeopardy.

Actually the government has no right to make regulations on any thing. No where in the constitution will you find that right. Article one section 8 lists the jobs the government can do and not on that list not their job. You will find 98% of what they do is not on that list. In fact if there were no regulations there would be plenty of jobs, BUT, people would then have to make their own decisions on what is safe or that meets their needs. How this country ran for the first 150 years. Made us the greatest country in the world. Today we are very close to becoming a third world country. the government has taken all your rights. Today you only have privileges granted to you by your masters which can be taken away at any time.

azmac wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the government has no right to make regulations on any thing. No where in the constitution will you find that right. Article one section 8 lists the jobs the government can do and not on that list not their job. You will find 98% of what they do is not on that list. In fact if there were no regulations there would be plenty of jobs, BUT, people would then have to make their own decisions on what is safe or that meets their needs. How this country ran for the first 150 years. Made us the greatest country in the world. Today we are very close to becoming a third world country. the government has taken all your rights. Today you only have privileges granted to you by your masters which can be taken away at any time.

Look little dummy. Here we go again. Asshcle thinking he is the supreme being that makes the decisions. If your mom was alive today, SHE would be the one shot on the spot for giving a horses ass like you run free in public.

azmac wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the government has no right to make regulations on any thing. No where in the constitution will you find that right. Article one section 8 lists the jobs the government can do and not on that list not their job. You will find 98% of what they do is not on that list. In fact if there were no regulations there would be plenty of jobs, BUT, people would then have to make their own decisions on what is safe or that meets their needs. How this country ran for the first 150 years. Made us the greatest country in the world. Today we are very close to becoming a third world country. the government has taken all your rights. Today you only have privileges granted to you by your masters which can be taken away at any time.

Yeah, and the bars would get their liquor from the local bootlegger instead of the state aprooved agency, and people would die from tainted moonshine. Hell, if it would take your ass out, and shut you the hell up, I AM ALL FOR IT!!!!! You are such an anti-American pig. I would spit in your face. Perhaps You would like to live in Bosnia better, where they have no government. Your mom should be b|tch slapped

Pharma Maims Kills wrote:

<quoted text> Don't have to look far for an example of government/ Corporate collusion than the USA and Pharma. Merck killed 88,000 with Vioxx and its CEO and owners never face criminal charges. They were instead fined a small fraction of Vioxx profits and settled out of court with victim's families. I enjoy how governments are turning on Big Tobacco after decades of promoting them, and protecting them. But again, CEO'S and owners face no prison time.

I know what I am sending to Winipeg and Golden Valley AZ for Christmas!! WOOHOO!!!

HowzBoutDat wrote:

<quoted text>
Your mom was so fugly she paid to be b|tch slapped.

Your moms snatch smells like raw sewage.

azmac wrote:

<quoted text>Actually the government has no right to make regulations on any thing. No where in the constitution will you find that right. Article one section 8 lists the jobs the government can do and not on that list not their job. You will find 98% of what they do is not on that list. In fact if there were no regulations there would be plenty of jobs, BUT, people would then have to make their own decisions on what is safe or that meets their needs. How this country ran for the first 150 years. Made us the greatest country in the world. Today we are very close to becoming a third world country. the government has taken all your rights. Today you only have privileges granted to you by your masters which can be taken away at any time.

But if there weren't some kind of regulations, the workplace could also be potentially dangerous too.

Jerry wrote:

<quoted text>
Your moms snatch smells like raw sewage.

let's cool the personal BS. It is very immature.

HowzBoutDat wrote:

<quoted text>
Your mom was so fugly she paid to be b|tch slapped.

What a childish response. Grow up

HowzBoutDat wrote:

<quoted text>
Your mom was so fugly she paid to be b|tch slapped.

Does any body know if Jerry has ever been (State) aprooved by any State agency or was he only approved by his fugly mom ?

Pharma Maims Kills wrote:

<quoted text> Don't have to look far for an example of government/ Corporate collusion than the USA and Pharma. Merck killed 88,000 with Vioxx and its CEO and owners never face criminal charges. They were instead fined a small fraction of Vioxx profits and settled out of court with victim's families. I enjoy how governments are turning on Big Tobacco after decades of promoting them, and protecting them. But again, CEO'S and owners face no prison time.

Actually death guesstimates are 88,000-144,000. Good point. IF someone or some drug company can be proven or convicted of fraud, malfeasence or whatever, they should hang their certain body parts on a fence for the buzzards.
On the other hand, IF it takes years or decades to learn that 1 out of 1000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 after using a certain drug for years & years has side effects, there should be some sort of immunity. After all, even asprin & acetametafin(sp) are over the counter & they have side affects to some people. ALL meds have side affects to some number of people & we all know that.
We can't expect drug companies to 'test' or research something for 10-20 yrs B4 it hits the market.
However, if fraud, deception or malfeasence can be proven....OFF WITH HEADS!!!

Pharma Maims Kills wrote:

<quoted text> Don't have to look far for an example of government/ Corporate collusion than the USA and Pharma. Merck killed 88,000 with Vioxx and its CEO and owners never face criminal charges. They were instead fined a small fraction of Vioxx profits and settled out of court with victim's families. I enjoy how governments are turning on Big Tobacco after decades of promoting them, and protecting them. But again, CEO'S and owners face no prison time.

Well, let's look at your implied analogy. VIOXX was marketed to fight inflammation and reduce pain. It did those things. Unfortunately, it also seems to have made consumers more subject to some heart diseases and strokes.
Tobacco is marketed in order to addict consumers and guarantee a sustainable (and extremely high) level of profit. It does those things. Please note that addiction is a DISEASE STATE. The purpose of the tobacco industry, then, is to CREATE disease. Since that is the case, it can't even be regarded as an "unfortunate" side effect that it makes consumers more subject to a wide range of diseases.

So you would have us castigate the government for not jailing CEOs of a company that was producing a product that HELPED people--but also made them more likely to become sick. And you think it is significant enough to put it into a forum about a company with a product DESIGNED to make people sick that also makes consumers more likely to become sick.

You know what? That's sick.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
As usual, you come back with a generic sour grapes response that is unrelated to the post you "replied" to.

Hmmmm, you were going on about the level of toxins from second hand smoke and I provided a solution for you which was to stay away from SHS altogether. That sure didn't seem "unrelated to the post". But as usual, you liberals like to make things way more complicated than what they are and can't make a decision without having the government step in and make it for you.

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text>
Does any body know if Jerry has ever been (State) aprooved by any State agency or was he only approoved by his fugly mom ?

there's 4 'O's in aproved ! lol But seriously, why mention or attack someone that isn't even posting on here?

Sneaky Pete wrote:

<quoted text>Hmmmm, you were going on about the level of toxins from second hand smoke and I provided a solution for you which was to stay away from SHS altogether. That sure didn't seem "unrelated to the post". But as usual, you liberals like to make things way more complicated than what they are and can't make a decision without having the government step in and make it for you.

It's not as easy as just staying away from second hand smoke. For instance, here where I live, people smoke in their apartments. I live on the 5th floor, and the guy below me smokes all the time. When the smoke rises, it's got nowhere to go but into my apartment. This building was not built with very good ventilation, so no matte what I do, I can get rid if the smoke. In fact one day I was sitting watching TV and the sun was coming through my window, and I could literally see the smoke floating in my apartment because of the sun rays.

It gets so bad that at night I can't even sleep sometimes because I'm gagging and cough with my watering like crazy. And the Housing Authority told me there's nothing they can do about it, because he has the right to smoke in his apartment. At the same time, I'm being exposed to dangerous chemicals in that smoke. I can't move, because I've got no other place to live.

So again as I posted, why am I having to suffer because this guy below me has a nasty habit of smoking? It's fair to him, because he can keep on and on while I have all this issues, not to mention my apartment smells like a friend cigarette factory.

azmac wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the government has no right to make regulations on any thing. No where in the constitution will you find that right. Article one section 8 lists the jobs the government can do and not on that list not their job. You will find 98% of what they do is not on that list. In fact if there were no regulations there would be plenty of jobs, BUT, people would then have to make their own decisions on what is safe or that meets their needs. How this country ran for the first 150 years. Made us the greatest country in the world. Today we are very close to becoming a third world country. the government has taken all your rights. Today you only have privileges granted to you by your masters which can be taken away at any time.

You really are an absolute nutbag,who takes a miniscule bit of truth, mixes it thoroughly with unadulterated bullshiit, and expects others to believe it. Good luck with that.

woof

Sneaky Pete wrote:

But as usual, you liberals like to make things way more complicated than what they are and can't make a decision without having the government step in and make it for you.

Ah, the tired old "the government" trope. PEOPLE voting is not 'the government'. It's 'the PEOPLE'. Do you also think that 'the government' elected our President?

Is 'the government' opposing health care in Ohio? http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/08/ohio...

Let me guess, when the vote is something YOU support, it's a grass-roots mandate from the people. When the vote is something you oppose, it's "the government".

xxxrayted, you don't know what you're talking about with this smoking thing. The nanny-state government will not expand because of our smoking ban or any other nanny-state initiative going on against smokers right now. You are wrong. The nanny-state government will stop right here now that we have a smoking ban:

NYC soda ban could another blow for drink makers

By CANDICE CHOI

NEW YORK

Is the Big Gulp to blame for obesity in the Big Apple? New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks so.

But Bloomberg's proposal Thursday that the city ban restaurants, delis and movie theaters from serving large cups of sodas and other sugary drinks is a bitter twist for companies that make beverages like Coke, Dr Pepper and Pepsi. The ban, which would be the first of its kind in the nation, comes at a time when soda consumption has been declining.

The industry has struggled in recent years as more health-conscious Americans have shifted away from sugary sodas toward bottled water and sports drinks like Gatorade. That's led to a 20 percent reduction in the calories consumed per capita through carbonated beverages over the last decade, according industry tracker Beverage Digest. Under Bloomberg's proposed ban, soda consumption could slip further.

The ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on any sugary bottled or fountain drinks that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. It would not affect diet soda and any drink that is at least half milk or milk substitute would be exempt. The proposal requires the approval of the city's Board of Health -- considered likely because its members are all appointed by Bloomberg.

It's difficult to estimate the potential financial impact of the proposed ban because there's no breakdown of what percentage of drinks sold are over the proposed the size limit or how consumers and retailers would adjust if the ban were in place.

But Mark Kalinowski, an analyst with Janney Capital Markets who covers companies including McDonald's, said that sodas carry high margins for beverage companies. Any successful effort by the government to ban large drinks, he said, would be bad for the industry.

Kalinowski said he doesn't think the ban will pass. But he joked that if it did, customers would revolt.

"Folks who want to buy Big Gulps and Frappuccinos, a lot of those customers, you're only going to be able to take it away from them by prying it out of their cold, dead hands," he said. "What are you going to do? Post a guard making sure that no patrons order no more than two or more beverages? Maybe the mayor can outlaw all soft drinks and outlaw all fun while he's at it."

PepsiCo Inc., the nation's second largest soda maker, declined to comment on the proposal, referring questions to the New York City Beverage Association. But Coca-Cola Co., the largest U.S. soda maker, on Thursday blasted the move.

"The people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes," the Atlanta-based company said in a statement. "New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase. We hope New Yorkers loudly voice their disapproval about this arbitrary mandate."

This certainly is not the first time the industry has had to defend itself from those blaming sodas for America's expanding waistline.

In announcing the proposal, Bloomberg's office said the single largest driver of rising obesity rates is sugary drinks, which have grown in size over the years. The mayor's office noted that the size of a large drink at fast food chains has doubled to 64 ounces. The Center for Science in the Public Interest said sugary soft drinks are "nutritionally worthless products" in applauding the proposal.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9V3UF...

Nah, that could never happen in the state of Ohio.

xxxrayted, you don't know what you're talking about with this smoking thing. The nanny-state government will not expand because of our smoking ban or any other nanny-state initiative going on against smokers right now. You are wrong. The nanny-state government will stop right here now that we have a smoking ban:

NYC soda ban could another blow for drink makers

By CANDICE CHOI

NEW YORK

Is the Big Gulp to blame for obesity in the Big Apple? New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks so.

But Bloomberg's proposal Thursday that the city ban restaurants, delis and movie theaters from serving large cups of sodas and other sugary drinks is a bitter twist for companies that make beverages like Coke, Dr Pepper and Pepsi. The ban, which would be the first of its kind in the nation, comes at a time when soda consumption has been declining.

The industry has struggled in recent years as more health-conscious Americans have shifted away from sugary sodas toward bottled water and sports drinks like Gatorade. That's led to a 20 percent reduction in the calories consumed per capita through carbonated beverages over the last decade, according industry tracker Beverage Digest. Under Bloomberg's proposed ban, soda consumption could slip further.

The ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on any sugary bottled or fountain drinks that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. It would not affect diet soda and any drink that is at least half milk or milk substitute would be exempt. The proposal requires the approval of the city's Board of Health -- considered likely because its members are all appointed by Bloomberg.

It's difficult to estimate the potential financial impact of the proposed ban because there's no breakdown of what percentage of drinks sold are over the proposed the size limit or how consumers and retailers would adjust if the ban were in place.

But Mark Kalinowski, an analyst with Janney Capital Markets who covers companies including McDonald's, said that sodas carry high margins for beverage companies. Any successful effort by the government to ban large drinks, he said, would be bad for the industry.

Kalinowski said he doesn't think the ban will pass. But he joked that if it did, customers would revolt.

"Folks who want to buy Big Gulps and Frappuccinos, a lot of those customers, you're only going to be able to take it away from them by prying it out of their cold, dead hands," he said. "What are you going to do? Post a guard making sure that no patrons order no more than two or more beverages? Maybe the mayor can outlaw all soft drinks and outlaw all fun while he's at it."

PepsiCo Inc., the nation's second largest soda maker, declined to comment on the proposal, referring questions to the New York City Beverage Association. But Coca-Cola Co., the largest U.S. soda maker, on Thursday blasted the move.

"The people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes," the Atlanta-based company said in a statement. "New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices about the beverages they purchase. We hope New Yorkers loudly voice their disapproval about this arbitrary mandate."

This certainly is not the first time the industry has had to defend itself from those blaming sodas for America's expanding waistline.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9V3UF...

Nah, that could never happen in the state of Ohio. We are way too smart to allow government to dictate something like this.

Frisbee wrote:

<quoted text>Ah, the tired old "the government" trope. PEOPLE voting is not 'the government'. It's 'the PEOPLE'. Do you also think that 'the government' elected our President?
Is 'the government' opposing health care in Ohio? http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/08/ohio...
Let me guess, when the vote is something YOU support, it's a grass-roots mandate from the people. When the vote is something you oppose, it's "the government".

Now here's a really kick-ass anti gubmint song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

woof

BluesCat1980 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not as easy as just staying away from second hand smoke. For instance, here where I live, people smoke in their apartments. I live on the 5th floor, and the guy below me smokes all the time. When the smoke rises, it's got nowhere to go but into my apartment. This building was not built with very good ventilation, so no matte what I do, I can get rid if the smoke. In fact one day I was sitting watching TV and the sun was coming through my window, and I could literally see the smoke floating in my apartment because of the sun rays.
It gets so bad that at night I can't even sleep sometimes because I'm gagging and cough with my watering like crazy. And the Housing Authority told me there's nothing they can do about it, because he has the right to smoke in his apartment. At the same time, I'm being exposed to dangerous chemicals in that smoke. I can't move, because I've got no other place to live.
So again as I posted, why am I having to suffer because this guy below me has a nasty habit of smoking? It's fair to him, because he can keep on and on while I have all this issues, not to mention my apartment smells like a friend cigarette factory.

Not intending to be mean BUT only direct & clear & plain....IF you can't live there ...you need to move at the end of your lease. I do NOT accept that you can NOT move. That's whining B.S.
I am sympathetic that you are being violated so to speak get an air filter, a mask a fan, a new home or something but the problem is YOURS. YOU solve it without limiting someone elses legal rights...whimp. Do you have a crying towel? Use it.