Ohio private clubs can't allow smoking

Judged:

3

3

3

u cannot own me wrote:

Having posting problems so, just in case the Toledo Blade article did not post and I'm only viewing in cookies...
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...

Judged:

1

1

1

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent...
Looks like the antis will have a tough time defending calling private clubs "public" eh?
What a bunch of socialists....

Judged:

2

2

2

Linda wrote:

<quoted text>Thats the truth. Your questions that still have not been answered yet have amazed me. For the antis to answer, they would have to face the truth and admit what they are and or have become. I hope you continue because you have it right. First they came for the smoker but they didn't expect us to dig for the deceits they used and fight back and kick ass with their own documentation LOL

Judged:

2

2

2

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning Linda.
The truth is not difficult to find for those who are not blinded by governmental and corporate propaganda.
When agencies of the State combine with corporate interests...what form of government does this best represent?
Hhhmmmm.
Another question you will never hear from the Robert Woods Johnson foundation is......
What form of government is most likely to declare private clubs "public space".......

Judged:

2

2

2

BIGMO wrote:

I love it! This board is dying! No longer being listed in Topix! Bye Bye Linda and all of the other smoking losers! Just goes to show you that you all are fight a worthless cause! The antis will win! Victory is theirs! No smoking in bars and restaurants! Victory! You have lost! Waaaa Waaaa. Go smoke another! Eat some more ice cream! How about sucking down a Pepsi! Bye Bye Losers! Nobody cares! Puff, Puff, cancer chemo, die!

Judged:

1

1

1

Linda wrote:

A one day, one vote only poll that is now closed and here are the results.
Should some small businesses be exempt from Ohio's smoking ban?
yes 50.9%
NO 47.4%
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/sect...

Judged:

1

1

1

BackHome wrote:

<quoted text>
And this smoker generated one sided poll means what? Stay out of businesses unless you are sweeping up floors. Smoke outside 30 feet away as you should.

Judged:

2

2

2

BackHome wrote:

<quoted text>
And this smoker generated one sided poll means what? Stay out of businesses unless you are sweeping up floors. Smoke outside 30 feet away as you should.

u cannot own me wrote:

The truth, how refreshing
July 15, 2008
Angie T. Huber
Vice President of Government Relations
Smoke Free Ohio
5555 Frantz Road
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Dear Ms. Huber:
Your July 3 letter opposing Senator Schuler’s SB 346 typifies the casual disregard for the truth that we have come to expect from the “Smoke Free Ohio” crowd.
You claim that the initiated statute “treats all businesses with employees the same” and “protects all workers and customers from exposure to second hand smoke”, and that the campaign unswervingly advertised that “fact”. Nothing could be further from the truth. What about hotel workers? 3794.03 (B) of the Act exempts up to 20% of the rooms in any hotel. What about nursing home workers? 3794.03 (D) of the Act allows indoor smoking rooms in nursing homes. What about tobacco retailer workers? 3794.09 (E) of the Act exempts such facilities. This isn’t an argument; it’s plain fact, and you, who wrote the law, should know better than to mislead the General Assembly as you have plainly misled the voters.
Because the misleading just goes on and on. The ballot language (copy attached ) plainly told voters that family-owned businesses and private clubs would be exempt. It did not say,“but only if they have no employees” nor did it include the other limiters that are in the law that you wrote to make these exemptions wholly illusory. To claim, as you now do, that your campaign,“requested as much detail as possible be included” in the ballot language is sheer sophistry. I would like to see where you proposed including in the ballot language the language that in fact limits the scope of the family business and private club exemptions. If you cannot produce that document, I hope you will have the decency to quit claiming that you wanted all the details to be included.
You next claim that 28 states have passed comprehensive smoke free laws (including Ohio). Why don’t you have the intellectual honesty to tell us which ones – so we can then prove that the vast majority of them contain the very kind of real exemptions that Senator Schuler has proposed in SB 346, and why don’t you also concede that no state bordering Ohio has a smoking ban nearly as draconian as Ohio’s? After all, it is these states that we compete against for hospitality business.
Finally, you rely on your own polling. I rather suspect it is as faulty as your purported factual representations, but I, for one, have never assessed proper public policy by a fleeting poll. I would hope my colleagues in the General Assembly feel the same way. My support for SB 346 is instead based on grim and real facts about the devastation that your zealotry had inflicted on the Ohio hospitality industry and the private clubs that have long supported local charities and constituted a vital part of the social fabric of our neighborhoods. I am talking about real businesses and real people who have suffered real losses that show up in the bottom line of Ohio’s grim economy. Like any other statute, an initiated statute is subject to revision by the Ohio General Assembly. We would be remiss in our duty if we fail to revise this one.
Very truly yours,
William J. Seitz
Enclosure

Common Sense wrote:

Nah, the law is here to stay. What is happening is the very same law that these non-smokers fought so hard for is about to back fire in their faces. It is a ploy for counties to get more funding. Who is going to be penalized for the funding? The very same non smokers who screamed and hollered for the law. That is what happens when you have those who jump on ban wagons and don't look clearly at the whole big picture that is being painted! Gotta love it!

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent...
Looks like the antis will have a tough time defending calling private clubs "public" eh?
What a bunch of socialists....

History Buff wrote:

<quoted text>
That was wrote by SENATOR Seitz!!!

Linda wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes it was and more senators have been written in newspaper articles in favor of SB346

History Buff wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't 'public' where the STATE, COUNTY or CITY makes the rules and it is TAX EXEMPT on Property Taxes?

History Buff wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't 'public' where the STATE, COUNTY or CITY makes the rules and it is TAX EXEMPT on Property Taxes?

Judged:

1

1

1

Cancer Stix wrote:

<quoted text>
Clam up HAG!