No smoking exemptions

This is an excellent editorial about the smoking ban in Ohio. It shows a great deal of thought and foresight. An exerpt:

"Bar owners frequently complain that they've lost business due to the smoking ban and that should come as no surprise to an industry that deals in the twin vices of smoking and drinking. But if business is as bad as they claim, perhaps it's because they haven't reached out and promoted their establishments to nonsmokers.

If they would prefer to go out of business rather than adapt to the public's preference for clean air, it's their choice."

get it wrote:

This is an excellent editorial about the smoking ban in Ohio. It shows a great deal of thought and foresight. An exerpt:
"Bar owners frequently complain that they've lost business due to the smoking ban and that should come as no surprise to an industry that deals in the twin vices of smoking and drinking. But if business is as bad as they claim, perhaps it's because they haven't reached out and promoted their establishments to nonsmokers.
If they would prefer to go out of business rather than adapt to the public's preference for clean air, it's their choice."

such a good little socialist, Hitler would be so proud of you

Copied and pasted from actual certified ballot that Ohio voted for is as follows:

Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence), designated smoking rooms in hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities; designated smoking areas for nursing home residents; retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business;

Its time to stop the dishonesty, special interest, and restore honesty to the electoral system. The people spoke, Ohio voted for family owned and operated business, private clubs, and patios to be exempt and I applaud the Senators who have the integrity to take a stand with the senate bill, SB346, to correct the election deceits.

The socialistic views that disregard the private property business owners constitutional right to earn a living on their own property is frightening and I bet our Founders would be equally horrified. We would be wise to remember their own words that has served us well in remaining a free nation:

John Adams "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST"
James Madison "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."
The tyranny is upon the business owners. When in Ohio's history has a health issue been voted on by the public? I do find it curious that Ohio excepts being declared so stupid that they don't have the ability to think for themselves whether to enter or not enter any business property based on their own smoking preference. Only the owner has the right to decide which to offer.
I think the answer lies in the question, why would the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, owned by Johnson & Johnson fund smoking bans through the American Cancer Society, Lung Assoc., & Heart Assoc.? How convenient, JnJ sells smoking cessation products with more on the way. Need I say more? Well, I did fail to mention profits, lies, and deceits!!

Ohio Voters Misled When They Voted for Smoking Ban; Ohio Senator Introduces Common Sense Bill

COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 12 /PRNewswire/-- On Nov. 7, 2006, Ohio voters
passed Issue 5, Ohio's smoking ban, which included exemptions for private
clubs and family-owned businesses. Over a year later, no private clubs are
exempt and no family-owned businesses are exempt as far as we know. Ohio
citizens have serious concerns about Issue 5 and an apparent concerted
effort by special-interests to mislead Ohio voters.

Ballot Language: What voters read when they cast their vote for Issue 5
was "Exempt from the smoking restrictions ... outdoor patios, private
clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business". The ballot
measure language did not define "family-owned and operated". A letter dated
Nov. 28, 2007 by Ohio Department of Health Director Alvin Jackson states,
"Although the entire length of the initiative could not appear on the
ballot itself due to space limitations, the exact and complete wording was
available in the newspapers and on the websites of the Secretary of State,
your county boards of elections, and the initiating organization. The
definition is intended to exclude those businesses that operate from the
home, have little contact with the public, and only employ family members,
thereby limiting exposure to second-hand smoke". There was no definition on
the ballot and that missing definition was intended to exclude businesses
that operate from the home? Six words would have clarified that virtually
no family-owned business would be exempt. Was it really a space issue?
Ohioans who did not subscribe to newspapers or have Internet service
depended on reading the true language when they voted, not a watered down
version that misrepresented the facts.

Explanation and Argument for Issue 5 -- Surgeon General Carmona's
Report: Those who could access the Secretary of State's website saw five
bullet items in the Explanation and Argument for Issue 5 from the U.S.
Surgeon General's Report. After the five bullet items, it then summarized
"For these reasons...urge a YES vote on Issue 5." The fact is Issue 5 was
based solely on Surgeon General Carmona's report. Issue 5 petition language
was certified April 2005. The Surgeon General's Report wasn't issued until
June 2006. FORCES, Inc., a non-profit educational corporation dedicated to
scientific research integrity, has filed a complaint with the Health and
Human Services, Office of Research Integrity against Surgeon General
Carmona's report. The complaint alleges the "deplorable act of scientific
misconduct on the part of the U.S. Surgeon General" and the "conscious use
of fraudulent epidemiologic studies by that Office, with the intent of
sustaining statements and policies that are just as fraudulent as the
underlying epidemiologic studies adduced as justification." "People need to
be able to confidently rely on experts, such as the Surgeon General. That's
what makes this such a serious matter," said Stephanie Stahl, President of
Forces, Inc. "The report fails to relate dose with SHS/ETS. Biological
metabolism is virtually ignored. Confounders, such as socio-economic
status, are also belittled. The surveys used to collect data are very
vague, imprecise and unreliable. We hope the ORI will conduct a full
investigation soon."

The fifth bullet item in the Explanation and Argument -- "Smoke-free
policies do not harm business" -- is also from Carmona's report. This
statement is an already proven lie. The smoking ban in Ohio is hurting
businesses. During the first 12 months of the smoking ban 5,400 jobs were
lost in the hospitality and leisure industry. Permit holders lost a
potential of $67.44 million in 2007 sales. One large beer distributor
reports a 5 percent decline in sales. The coin machine industry is down 25
to 35 percent in liquor pouring establishments. The trickle down affect
includes the loss of income to musicians, karaoke vendors, snack vendors
and more. Families invested their money and their lives into owning their
piece of the American Dream. After Issue 5, if they can sell their
businesses it's for a fraction of the money, blood, sweat and tears they've
invested. Due to loss of revenues, private clubs are no longer able to
support charities at previous levels. "If the economic studies in Carmona's
report are any indication of the credibility and validity of the remainder
of his report, I don't wonder that a complaint has been filed" said Debi
Kistner, Opponents of Ohio Bans. Dr. Jackson's Nov. 28, 2007 letter closed
concluding smoke-free benefits to Ohio "outweigh the need for some business
adjustments." Adjustments should not mean reducing business income 25 to 35
percent, nor should it include closing businesses. A question to Dr.
Jackson would be, "What other health laws have been imposed by more than
$2.6 million of private special-interest pharmaceutical support?" $2.1
million (80 percent) of that sum was contributed by the American Cancer
Society and its divisions. The Society receives direct financial support
for its smoking ban advocacy from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which
as of Dec. 31, 2007 owned $3.0 billion in common stock of NicoDerm CQ patch
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson.
American Cancer Society spokesperson Tracy Sabetta will once again
display her Karmak the Magnificent skills, to proclaim the intent of voters
about Issue 5. Like most psychics, however, she accomplishes her feats of
legerdemain through misdirection from reality. Even many who support
smoking bans acknowledge that, "Qualifying an initiative for the statewide
ballot is thus no longer a measure of general citizen interest as it is a
test of general fundraising ability," as quoted in a recent Yale Law School
scholarship paper. Prowess at raising special-interest funding must not be
substituted for the genuine will of the people. Ms. Sabetta will, no doubt,
retort with her now famous line that Ohio voters "overwhelmingly" voted for
Issue 5. Ohio voters voted for a ban with exemptions. They voted to have
private clubs and family-owned businesses exempted. The smoking ban we have
now does not represent what the voters approved nor does it represent the
will of the people.
Issue 5 was fraught with misleading and missing language and was based
on a report against which serious allegations of scientific misconduct have
been alleged. If Carmona's report wasn't released until 14 months after the
petition certification, what proof of necessity was given for enacting such
restrictive legislation? No evidence was provided to the Ohio Attorney
General to show whether or not the declarations made within the text of the
Issue 5 petition were fair or truthful as the law requires.
Although Opponents of Ohio Bans believes that all private business
owners should be allowed to make their own policies on smoking, several
Ohio Senators have seen the devastating damage to family-owned businesses
and private clubs and agree that at least they should be spared from this
all too restrictive law. Senator Robert Schuler-R has introduced SB 346 to
again exempt private clubs and family-owned businesses, as the law passed

Who Really Profits From Smoking Bans?

Opponents of Ohio Bans say "Just follow the money."

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 23 /PRNewswire/-- "Smoking bans in the U.S. have
been funded by those who directly profit from the sales of Nicotine
Replacement Therapies (NRT)," said Debi Kistner with Opponents of Ohio
Bans. Robert Wood Johnson, the late CEO of Johnson & Johnson, established
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) tax exempt non-profit 501(c)(3)
in the early 1970s. According to their November 2005 publication, "Taking
on tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Assault on Smoking", from
1991 to 2005 the foundation paid $446,398,054 in tobacco-control grants.
Grantees that did not move from tobacco education to tobacco control became
ineligible for further grants.

As of March 31, 2008 the foundation owns 35,435,189 shares of Johnson &
Johnson (JNJ) common stock (valued at nearly 2.3 billion dollars) and is
one of the company's largest institutional holders. As a tax exempt
foundation RWJF pays 1 percent tax on realized capital gains and dividends
from its investments, while other investors pay 15 percent. Johnson &
Johnson profits from the sales of Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette products. The
foundation therefore directly profits from cigarette tax and smoking ban
laws they've provided grants to create. In January 2008, 1,000,000 boxes of
the company's nicotine replacement products were reportedly sold and
Nicoderm CQ is touted as the "best selling smoking cessation patch in
history". April 15, 2008, Forbes reported that Johnson & Johnson profit
jumped 40% during the first quarter of 2008.

The foundation created the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids and
has provided more than $84,000,000 in grants to fund that advocacy group.
As a non-profit the foundation can't legally lobby but the center can. The
center aggressively promotes increased taxation on tobacco products.

The foundation sponsors conferences on "how to identify ways to
increase the use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments" and
awarded the American Cancer Society a nearly $1,000,000 grant to "expand
the use of tobacco cessation treatments". It's about the money, profits for
stockholders and control. Tobacco control is the best marketing strategy
that pharmaceutical dollars can buy.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has been warning
the government for over a decade of the RWJF's desire to control the health
care policies of this country. Following the pattern for tobacco control,
the foundation has pledged $500,000,000 in grants for anti-obesity. Johnson
& Johnson will profit once again from anti-obesity public policy advocacy
through its Splenda brand of artificial sweetener.

Follow the money behind any ban, study, survey or poll. Questions are
written and asked to solicit the responses desired by those who pay for the
results. Do independent research. Don't believe everything you read. For
example, the results of a survey released April 29, 2008 of 607 Ohio voters
(hardly a sampling of Ohio citizens) showed 65% of respondents supported a
75 cents per pack cigarette tax increase to fund the economic stimulus
package and fully fund more smoking cessation. The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation funded that survey.

Among those who lose under the foundation's advocacy are Ohio families
who have invested their life savings, hard work and futures in owning their
piece of the American Dream. In addition, charities no longer benefit from
generous donations by private clubs. Smoking bans as draconian as Ohio's
ban do harm businesses. The debate is over. The introduction of SB 346 is a
welcome relief to these family owned businesses and private clubs who have
lost billions in potential income (reference: Opponents of Ohio Bans press
release of June 12, 2008). We owe a debt of gratitude to Senators Schuler,
Seitz, Cates, Niehaus and the other co-sponsors of the bill. We strongly
urge the House to quickly pass this legislation as many businesses are
barely holding on.

"Why is it legal for a non-profit foundation to directly profit from
stock that is driven by the sales of products coerced by a law that their
grants create? Where are those, such as state attorneys general, who are
supposed to protect consumers' interests? Why should a pharmaceutical
company and their private foundation be profiting while Ohio's businesses
fold? We believe these questions raise important issues that must be
addressed by Ohio legislators," said Pam Parker with Opponents of Ohio
Bans.

u cannot own me wrote:

I bet our Founders would be equally horrified.

Hell yeah, they would be horrified.
WOMEN voted!!!!!!
African Americans voted!!!!!!!
Native Americans voted!!!!!!
Non-property owners voted!!!!!

Damn, what is the world coming to????????

The founders did not see fit to give women the right to vote. African Americans were property. Native Americans were not citizens.

Women did not have the right to sue, and in most cases did not have the right to own property - Hows THAT for property rights??????

Private property was a government creation and therfore could be regulated by government:
http://tinyurl.com/6nfbc7

So, don't wish for what the founders wanted. YOU would be disenfranchised, the property of your husband and out on your ass if he died and the hiers to the estate did not like you.

This is an excellent editorial about the smoking ban in Ohio. It shows a great deal of thought and foresight. An exerpt:

"Bar owners frequently complain that they've lost business due to the smoking ban and that should come as no surprise to an industry that deals in the twin vices of smoking and drinking. But if business is as bad as they claim, perhaps it's because they haven't reached out and promoted their establishments to nonsmokers.

If they would prefer to go out of business rather than adapt to the public's preference for clean air, it's their choice."

Ah, some chicken chit wrote a letter and to chicken chit to add their name...but hey, doesn't change the facts that it will be up to the Ohio legislators and they have a bill LOL aaaaaaaaaaah

get it wrote:

This is an excellent editorial about the smoking ban in Ohio.

You can always tell when something upsets Linda. She tries to bury it by spamming the thread with old news more to her liking.

Here's the part of the editorial that I liked the best:

"Contrary to the mewling of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, this important public health question has been settled - in unmistakable fashion.

Voters in the 2006 general election showed great discernment in defeating the tobacco industry's bogus "smoke less" issue by more than 1 million votes while handily approving the foundation for the broad "smoke free" statute we have today.

There was no mistake, and no confusion. Ohioans wanted to be free of the tyranny of secondhand smoke, and nothing has changed."

One excuse for spending the Democrats say,is the tax on cigarettes will pay for their programs. Yet,they are involved in the effort to reduce,or eliminate smoking! This of course effects those expected tax's. That is, no revenue from cigarettes!

Does that mean non smokers now are now obliged to pick up the costs??...Of course it is!!

Democratic Flim, Flam at its best!!!

The reasons and basis for bans does not exist. there is no harm done by breathing second hand smoke.These ans are not about health but about hate and control,the entries by antis on this forum more than prove that point. They also prove the point that constitutional rights mean nothing to them,wheteher it be private property or guaranteed constitutional rights and civil liberties.It has indeed become apparent the leftwing progressives are out to destroy america, her constitution,economy and private property rights.........let alone the complete and utter domination of individual liberty to bow to the power of big govmnt..........read what they say and its a sad day for america when COMMUNISTS run it.

Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com

All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.

US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...

A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.

So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.

BEAN51 wrote:

One excuse for spending the Democrats say,is the tax on cigarettes will pay for their programs. Yet,they are involved in the effort to reduce,or eliminate smoking! This of course effects those expected tax's. That is, no revenue from cigarettes!
Does that mean non smokers now are now obliged to pick up the costs??...Of course it is!!
Democratic Flim, Flam at its best!!!

Since you obviously have not read any of the thread, this thread is about BANS and not about TAXES. The toxic smoke must have gone to your brain.

BEAN51 wrote:

One excuse for spending the Democrats say,is the tax on cigarettes will pay for their programs. Yet,they are involved in the effort to reduce,or eliminate smoking! This of course effects those expected tax's. That is, no revenue from cigarettes!
Does that mean non smokers now are now obliged to pick up the costs??...Of course it is!!
Democratic Flim, Flam at its best!!!

Wait til the antis get that tax bill LOL

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>Ohioans wanted to be free of the tyranny of secondhand smoke, and nothing has changed."

you're a hootK, don't you realize the tyranny is forced upon the private property business owner who paid for their rights? BTW, if you don't like what they have to offer, stay out, do not enter!! simple isn't it

harleyrider1978 wrote:

The reasons and basis for bans does not exist.

YOU may not believe the reasons for bans do not exist, but the rest of us do. That is why the Ohio ban was approved by the oters. Thaty is why the majority of states have bans and more bans are on the way. That is why taxes on cigarettes are going higher.

There is nothing we can say or do to convince you that second hand smoke is harmless. Believe what you want to believe. Just know that you are being left in the dust as far as the bans and higher cigarette taxes go.

harleyrider1978 wrote:

Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal...

Do you ever have an original thought? why do you persist in spamming Topix with this same message OVER AND OVER again?

Why not comment on the article being discussed IN YOUR OWN WORDS rather than spamming Topix with cut and paste?

Poor antis, not enough brain power to think before entering private property that does not belong to them. Poor Antis, they confuse thinking and deciding with force and kidnapping