The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.
Smoking ban may be weakened | Ohio politics
 

Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2008 > November > 20 > Entry

Smoking ban may be weakened

By Laura Bischoff | Thursday, November 20, 2008, 11:12 AM

A new bill up for debate in the Ohio Senate would gut the indoor smoking ban that Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved two years ago.

If Senate Bill 346 were to become law, family-owned businesses, factories, retail stores, bowling alleys and offices as well as private clubs would be allowed to decide whether to permit smoking in their establishments, according to SmokeFreeOhio, a coalition of public health groups.

“I would vote for it if it were to come up for a vote,” said state Sen. Tom Roberts, D-Dayton.

Roberts, who is one of 13 co-sponsors of the bill, said he has heard from members of private clubs who thought smoking would still be allowed in their VFW halls and the like. And family-owned bars and restaurants have complained that the smoking ban is too burdensome, he said.

American Cancer Society chief lobbyist John Hoctor said a recent survey by Midwest Communications shows that 97 percent of voters who favored the new law knew what they were voting for.

Ohio voters passed Issue 5, an indoor smoking ban for all workplaces, by 59 percent. They defeated a proposed constitutional amendment, supported by Big Tobacco and private clubs, that would have allowed for exemptions for clubs, bars, bowling alleys and bingo halls by 64 percent.

Tracy Sabetta, who worked on the 2006 campaign, said the results clearly showed voters wanted a comprehensive smoking ban and did not want one with exemptions.

Sabetta said she doubts most Ohio voters even know that the lawmakers are considering the bill.

It’s unlikely that the bill will pass this year. But it is expected to be re-introduced next year.

“If this passes, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to remain a smoke free state,” Hoctor said.

Ohio is among two dozen states that have smoking bans. Two more states are on the verge of implementing bans.

Sponsors of the bill include: Robert Schuler, R-Cincinnati, Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, Tom Niehaus, R-New Richmond, Steve Buehrer, R-Delta, Capri Cafaro, D-Warren, Gary Cates, R-West Chester, Tim Grendell, R-Chesterland, Larry Mumper, R-Marion, Joy Padgett, R-Cochocton, Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, Shirley Smith, D-Cleveland, Robert Spada, R-North Royalton, and Roberts.

Permalink | Comments (311) | Post your comment |

Comments

By Reverendcrash

December 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

I am sure then that John Hocter will agree the voters KNEW that they were voting for a law that says it is not a violation for an individual to smoke in a public place. Of course he makes a million dollars a year. Guess stupidity is a premium product as opposed to research.

By History Buff

December 6, 2008 6:14 AM | Link to this

It is to bad Ohio has a smoking ban. Business in restaurants and taverns would pick up. Many quit bowling too. Those who promoted the ban never made up the customer loss. I think they owe a lot of people funds for damages.

By kybriar

December 6, 2008 6:13 AM | Link to this

Gracious Ann, B Rogers is really getting to you with the truth and yes, Ohio voted for the plainly stated family owned business & private clubs on the 2006 issue 5 ballot.

By Musician

December 6, 2008 1:35 AM | Link to this

FWIW, Scotsman, the downfall of AMC was the Renault merger in 1983. I still see some Hornets, Ambassadors, Gremlins, original Eagles from time to time driving down the streets with no problem. I have yet to see an Alliance or Encore. Those originals Eagles had a nice straight 6 as I remember. The “AMC” Alliance was tin foil.

By Musician

December 6, 2008 1:31 AM | Link to this

Scotsman, if you think “Birdland” as a song is jazz, you need to do some research. Birdland used to have jazz in the club. Research that. Weather Report’s version is closer to jazz, but I assume you prefer the Manhattan Transfer version. If not, just say so.

By Musician

December 6, 2008 1:22 AM | Link to this

Scotsman, you crack me up. What tartan is your kilt? If it ain’t Scottish, its crap. Just like all the Stanton Glantz..”no heart attacks after smoking ban” yarns. That lobbying grant grubbing so and so should lose tenure and dig some ditches for a living. Bet he wouldn’t last a half hour in that environment. He is no hard body. God forbid if he plays Santa this season. We all know he likes playing “dr” with that lab coat of his.

By big kahuna

December 6, 2008 1:16 AM | Link to this

yes, the voters voted this ban in, however IT WAS PUSHED BY LAWMAKERS ONTO THE BALLOT! the buck stops at lawmakers whe push and support smoking bans. lawmakers pass unjust laws for one reason…THEY DO NOT FEAR A PARTICULAR VOTING BLOC. we registered smoker voters in America number over 20 million strong. the sleeping smoking giant is fast awakening. once we unite as a voting bloc, and once we begin booting out lawmakers who support smoking bans, then and only then will the disease of smoking bans cease to exist…enjoy your offices while you can lawmakers, because the smokevote is coming. exemptions anyone?

By b rogers

December 5, 2008 10:38 PM | Link to this

Ann, this is just the beginning of the story. Too bad you thought you had it all wrapped up.

By Ann

December 4, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

I have read all comments and frankly b rogers is full of it…..I wish he would quit posting. VOTERS VOTED…END OF STORY.

By LuckeeStrike

December 4, 2008 12:13 AM | Link to this

Musicalbuck - the first rule of posting as two differnt’ peeps so as to make it appear that muey grande peeps agree with you is to use differnt syntax, terms and tenor. Rule two is don’t be posting like within 14 minutes at midnight. But seeing as how you have trod upon my areas of expertise - Scotland and music - how can I resist? I am, actually, a Scottish musician. Tha’s a wee bit ta seey abow yer “facts”, lad - If you mean to imply that Scots are having heart attacks after being forced to stop smoking - well, that’s just farty logic, sir. Your point smells like farts. That’s like saying because Big Country charted a Scottish # 1 hit with “Big Country” in 1982 (by the way - did you know the guitar break in that song is “Scotland the Brave”?)and AMC stopped building the Pacer and the Gremlin in 1982. Well, the facts are clear , aren’t they? Scottish Pop Music success caused American Motors to fail, right? Come on - that’s just stupid on stilts and you know it. There is a thing called causation - there is not actual causal relationship between those random facts that happened within proximity of each other. By the way, the Scottish report - shows an overall downward trend in acute myocardial infarctions over the past five years. Probably due as much to the fact that they stopped breading and deep frying Milky Way bars (although they call them Mars bars there) in fish-n-chip batter for take away. That’s Scot for “to go”. No lie - I ate one of those things on the way back from a Celtic football match in Glasgow. Speaking of driving - how do reckon that point? You tell me Angus is in a bar drinking a McEwan’s lager. A lot of ‘em. And then he decides he wants a smoke, so he has to drive. Because he has to leave to smoke. Ergo ipso facto - that causes him to get into a wreck and hurt people. And evidently, that would have been avoided by him staying at the bar and smoking? Check my math here - perfesser, but won’t he still be stewed or probably more so after he smokes, presuming he stays at the bar? Buckmusician - please stop with the psuedo science and the obviously stupid points - ie. Chantix killed people! News flash, Sparky - smoking kills people! A lot of ‘em. Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, Buck - its yer zip code. You don’t have to look to hard either to find working musicians who find it much easier to blow tenor on “Birdland” without you exhaling Marlboro and menthol in their face. You are clinging to idiotic antecdotes that you made up, and it is killing the one good point you have - which is, is it really the state’s job to make individual choices for people?

By b rogers

December 2, 2008 7:33 PM | Link to this

Go to Opponents of Ohio Bans to see their latest press release.

By Fact is:

December 1, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this

FYI: No one EVER said smoking had to be allowed in any business. It was always a business owners choice along with the customer and the employees choice concerning entry. … Beware if some radical group, one day, decides to ban hair in public. You have NO idea what the smoking ban has opened the door to!

By Musician

December 1, 2008 11:43 PM | Link to this

So many pro musicians without regular calendar this holiday season for live engagements. Was the same last year. Wall Street, gas prices, or any other excuse you would like to point to has little to nothing to do with any of this. It was never this way before the smoking ban. Do the math, antis while you listen the canned recorded music culture you helped bring in.

By b rogers

December 1, 2008 11:29 PM | Link to this

Since you are so bored, why not go out and visit one of the establishments that you and your ‘one size fits all’ blanket ban is putting out of business. Please be sure to leave a hefty tip before your bartender or server is put out in the cold to have a cigarette. Ohio isn’t just dumbing down, it is shutting down.

By beentheredonethat

December 1, 2008 8:07 PM | Link to this

quite frankly b rogers, you bore me(and everyone else on here) You give all kinds of statistics and info but the fact still remains that there IS a smoking ban in place put there by an overwhelming majority of the voting public and no mater what you say or what you do “We are informed and we are smart enough that we as a people DO NOT want you to polute our air with your smoke!!!

By b rogers

November 29, 2008 9:42 PM | Link to this

Quite frankly anti’s, your social engineering, denormalizing fear tactics are wearing thin. Shaming people into compliance (via shs) has become quite a skill for you hasn’t it? Guess what? People are waking up to your tactics and drug pushing. In some circles you are an absolute joke. To some you represent anti-freedom terrorism. To me, you are destroying businesses that are honest and upright. You are unemploying people who then lose their healthcare. There are more fires due to smoking receptacles being taken away. People who step outside to smoke are sometimes robbed, beaten or get date rape drugs in their waiting drinks. Just think about it, would you? The drug Chantix that you so proudly promote has caused death to dozens. There are more drunk driving accidents now due to people driving out of their way to find a place that will accept their lifestyle. You want to save lives? Stop taking money from anti-tobacco.

By b rogers

November 29, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

http://www.pr-inside.com/official-scotland-sees-large-rise-in-r941241.htm Official: Scotland sees large rise in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome in second year of smoking ban

By chet

November 26, 2008 7:18 PM | Link to this

hey MarlboroMan couldn’t have said it any better myself

By Judy

November 26, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

Marlboroman….applause applause…very well said.

By MarlboroMan

November 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Buck, baby, - calm down. Here, have some Nicorette and a patch AND light up - just RELAX! I don’t know from moralisms - I don’t think that’s the issue. I don’t smoke cuz I don’t like it. Doesn’t make me better or worse than anybody. Further, I don’t care if you do. Don’t care if you do in Wal-Mart. I’m just like Dr. Suess - I would not could not care if you smoke upon a plane or on a train, or in a house or with a mouse. If that’s your thing - cool, then get on the horn to your state senator and tell hime if he doesn’t vote for 346 yer gonna empty yer ashtray in his Escalade. And if that’s not good enough, exercise your right as a citizen to draft a petition repealing the ban all together. Get enough like minded citizens to join in signature and vote - and you’ll be lighting up at Bob Evans before you know it. But for the love of Phillip Morris - STOP telling us that the negative effects “have never been proven to exist”. Because they have. Repeatedly. In independent tests. Beyond a doubt. You wanna smoke - live it up. You wanna smoke at Kroger’s - I don’t care. But STOP saying it doesn’t hurt you or those around you. It just makes you sound ill-informed, and discredits the good points you make about individual liberties.

By b rogers

November 25, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this

Kaf, I did not write this article but this is one of the many reasons that I speak out! Before anti-smoker crusaders launched their war against smokers, personal behaviour, whether or not it might be deemed unhealthful, was considered an individual’s private business. Among the personal behavior frowned on was drinking, overeating and smoking. Through the years, these activities have been considered by many to be not only unhealthy, but immoral. But, since they were essentially private indulgences, they were generally accepted by the public as little more than a nuisance; sinful perhaps, but harmful to no one but those who chose to indulge. To be sure, the sale of some legal products has always been controlled to some degree, largely to protect children deemed too young and inexperienced to make responsible decisions on their own. Regulations on the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors are prime examples. Few have opposed these legitimate restrictions. The vast majority of adults understand instinctively the need to shelter children from questionable habits, at least until they can fully appreciate the possible adverse consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, the fanatics have also convinced the public that it’s not only children who need protection, but workers and the general public as well. They’ve managed to escalate a mere nuisance like secondhand smoke to the status of public health hazard. But, the agenda of the anti-smoker fanatics has little to do with protecting anyone; it’s really about punishing smokers for insisting they have a right to consume a legal product and engage in a legal activity. It’s about control. And, the agenda of the fanatics leaves no room for compassion. How else can you interpret efforts by Britain’s NHS (National Health Service) to close smoking rooms for terminally ill patients in Birmingham, England? The Sheldon Unit, a palliative care home for terminally ill patients is one of only two health care facilities in the region with smoking rooms provided on sympathetic grounds. Board members in charge of the unit, on learning of plans to upgrade the smoking room with a new ventilation system, intervened. Dr Chris Spencer-Jones, South Birmingham public health director, ranted against the renovation, determined to deny smokers one of their few remaining pleasures, even at death’s door. “It doesn’t matter if patients might be terminally ill,” said Spencer- Jones, “that is not relevant because there are other units where such patients cannot smoke. The practice at the Sheldon Unit is unacceptable.” The question is why? Why is it unacceptable to allow smokers, at Sheldon Unit or any palliative care facility, to retain a little dignity as they face death? Why is it necessary to denigrate and demean these people to the bitter end; aren’t they suffering enough as it is? What in God’s name have they done to deserve such despicable treatment? Nor can Canadians claim any superiority to the arrogant, outlandish treatment of the elderly and infirm in Great Britain. Jack Lakey, in a Dec 6, 2006 article in the Toronto Star, told the story of Suzanne Penny, diagnosed with cancer, destined to die and forced outside and into the cold to enjoy a smoke. Cigarettes may have been the cause of the cancer that ravaged her body, but they also provided some solace as she awaited death. Dennis Brown, CEO of Grace Hospital, is quoted by Lakey as saying: “When that bill was being enacted, we actually did consult with the ministry (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion) specifically about our palliative care unit. We were told very clearly that there would be no exemptions for palliative care units.” Lakey’s article also points out the hypocrisy of the situation, noting that: “both the University of Toronto and York University recently created rooms for professors who smoke marijuana for medical reasons, but didn’t want to sneak around outside to do it.” Yet, the elderly, the infirm and the terminally ill are herded into parking lots like cattle; deprived of dignity; subjected to callous and inhumane treatment simply because they choose to smoke. And the anti-smoker bigots sit in their cushy offices and pat themselves on the back for their efforts to “save mankind” from a hazard which has never been proven to exist. There’s a name for people like them. As a matter of fact there are several. You can take your pick.

By b rogers

November 25, 2008 9:31 PM | Link to this

Kaf, controlling the lives of others is an addiction even when you think it is to better mankind. It isn’t freedom, it’s a form of slavery and it is stifling! And it’s especially sad when people become addicted as children. Perhaps it is just a personality type with which anti’s are afflicted.

By KAF

November 25, 2008 9:21 PM | Link to this

b rogers, addiction isn’t freedom, it’s a form of slavery. And it’s especially sad when people become addicted as children.

By b rogers

November 25, 2008 9:13 PM | Link to this

KAF, I also I live in a rational world that values learning, especially scientific learning. I also live in a world filled with with big pharma money and an attempt to induce fear. I also live in a world full of joy especially when freedom is involved.

By KAF

November 25, 2008 9:09 PM | Link to this

b rogers, your argument is with science and medicine, not me. I live in a rational world that values learning, especially scientific learning. Your attempts to discredit science and medicine are very sad.

By b rogers

November 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Link to this

Aahh, geez, Kaf. You forgot to mention, toenail fungus, Sids, sexually transmitted diseases and global warming. Once you have eradicated smoking and the scapegoat disappears, what will you blame it on?

By KAF

November 25, 2008 8:34 PM | Link to this

According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 89% of lung cancers,48% of bladder cancers, 24% of brain tumors, 21% of cervical cancers, 87% of cheek and gum cancers, 33% of kidney cancers, 30% of leukemia cases, 30% of pancreatic cancers, 36% of renal cancers, 35% of stomach cancers, and 71% of ureter cancers are caused by tobacco. And the most tragic aspect of all these cancer deaths due to tobacco is the fact that 8 out of 10 smokers begin smoking as children. These children are addicted to nicotine before they can even vote. A moving account of a smoker’s last days dying of lung cancer can be seen on YouTube ( youtube.com/watch?v=u_8BerrJg0M&feature=related).

By b rogers

November 25, 2008 8:14 PM | Link to this

Judy, Judy, Judy, approximately 2,600,000 nonsmokers die every year. Are you suggesting that it is due to second hand smoke?

By Non-Cas Fan

November 25, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

I am a life-long non-smoker and would favor a complete ban on tobacco products, but even I can see that this indoor smoking ban is a bad law. It was, first of all, not necessary. There was already a law on Ohio’s books whereby any business could declare its indoor space a non-smoking area. The new law was not necessary, and still is not. It limits American freedoms and liberties, by prohibiting a business owner from smoking in the privacy of his or her private office, or in their own vehicle if they use it at any time for business purposes. It prohibits a delivery person from smoking in his or her PRIVATE vehicle if their vehicle is used to make company deliveries. One person here pointed out that the vast majority of churches are in violation of the law, and he or she is 100% right, from my own observations. It was, and still is, a bad law. “KAF” listed all of the organizations that supported this forfeiture of personal property rights. Shame on them, and shame on any of you who supported this law. A better law, one which allowed personal property rights to be maintained, should have been written. You who voted in favor of this know darn good and well that you were mostly thinking about how nice it would be to dine out without smelling that nasty smoke. You have effectively sold your neighbor’s rights for a meal. Good going. What’s worse is that your vote has now put smokers outside at nearly every entrance that I, and my family, and you, and your families, have to walk past. We have thus been more exposed to tobacco smoke, courtesy of the ban, than we had been in the years before it. The bill before our legislators will not “overturn” the indoor ban. It will not even “weaken” it. Good grief! Learn some civics, people! The Legislators make changes to the laws all the time. And this bill will ONLY adjust the law to be more in-line with the wording of the ballot. People will not suddenly be smoking in the Applebee’s or indoors at the Mall! In fact, of all the bad parts in this indoor smoking ban, the worst parts are still intact. Take some time this weekend to make sure your church is in full compliance, and have a Happy Thanksgiving, no matter which side of this issue you are on.

By JoeKamel

November 25, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

wait a minute - wait a minute - uuhhhh - virgil k and history buff are telling me that smoking is GOOD for me? Look - I’m a non smoker but don’t go hating on me because of it. If we have a ban or not - I don’t care. Honestly. In fact, I don’t give a single rat dropping if you wanna go down to the VFW or PF Changs or Flying J truck stop and smoke your brains out. But pleeeeze don’t throw some horse hoey at me that sucking down Vantage is GOOD fer me - coz it ain’t.

By Judy

November 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Ok..people die every day for different reasons. The voters voted for no smoking. Leave it be! To B Rogers, perhaps your father, who you say never smoked, died from secondhand smoke that caused his cancer. I think smoking is the most horrible, stinky, disgusting thing I ever saw a person do. Do they even realize how they smell or how dumb they look with smoke pouring out of their mouth??

By Judy

November 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Ok..people die every day for different reasons. The voters voted for no smoking. Leave it be! To B Rogers, perhaps your father, who you say never smoked, died from secondhand smoke that caused his cancer. I think smoking is the most horrible, stinky, disgusting thing I ever saw a person do. Do they even realize how they smell or how dumb they look with smoke pouring out of their mouth??

By b rogers

November 25, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

I hate hamburgers and fries. The toxic noxious smelly cooking oils and fumes get in my hair and clothes. Then I have to shampoo and do laundry. My children are allergic to burgers and fries. It makes their eyes water. The experts say that it causes heart disease and obesity. Study after study clearly shows that the employees exposed to cooking fumes will go to an early grave. A tornado could not remove the greasy fumes and splatters that stick to people, walls and everything else. People ask why I don’t call ahead to see if burgers are served. Why should I? I am too immature. I stomp my foot and insist on my own way for everyone! I also like to harass people who make such hideous decisions with their diet. Making a responsible adult decision to go elsewhere should not be required of me! I also have no respect for business owners or their property rights or their employees choices. If they don’t serve what I want, why should I care if they lose their life savings due to lack of customers? It won’t affect my pocketbook! Do it for the children!!!! I have spoken! Go to Americans for NONBURGER Rights.com and write your legislators.

By Michael J. McFadden

November 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Patty wrote, “This bill gives the smokers a place for smokers only - non-smokers not welcome.” … . . Actually Patty, normal nonsmokers would be VERY welcome and many of them would probably choose to go to those places that allowed smoking. That’s exactly why the Antismokers always scream so loudly for the “level playing field.” They know that the proportion of crazies out there is actually fairly small, even if they do have a loud voice here on the net in organized press-releases… … Most nonsmokers realize that the “risk” they’d take from being in a decently ventilated smoking establishment for a few hours is probably far less than the “risk” they take in driving to and from that establishment. Driving an extra five minutes to a nonsmoking venue is almost certainly “riskier” than simply going to a smoking one even if you believe the Antismokers wacky statistics… … Michael J. McFadden, Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

By Tom

November 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

I guess Tom Roberts and other elected officials for the new law forgot that they represent the majority people and not the special interests. The majority voted for the current bill and people like roberts should not turn against the people.

By Patty

November 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

This bill is not an attempt to take away from the non-smokers. Right now this ban is not what the majority voted for! This bill gives the exemptions that people expected thus making the smoking ban what the people actually voted for. This bill gives the business owner the right to decide what customers he wants to cater too! This bill gives smokers somewhere to go and mingle with each other besides the cold outdoors. This bill gives the smokers a place for smokers only - non-smokers not welcome.

By GERALD TAYLOR

November 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

THE ISSUE HERE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE DEMOCRATIC VOTING PROCESS. ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY THE COURTS ARE TRYING TO OVERTURN THESE TYPE OF ELECTIONS. THE VFW’S SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO OBJECT TO THIS TYPE OF ACTIONS. NO DEMOCRACY HAS LASTED MORE THAN A FEW HUNDRED YEARS AND THEY USUALLY TURNED INTO DICTATORSHIPS. IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, WHY VOTE AT ALL? JUST LET THE LIBERALS DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT AND ASK SOME JUDGE TO MAKE IT LAW. WAKE UP AMERICA

By KAF

November 24, 2008 8:24 PM | Link to this

Go to smokefreeohio.org to send a letter to your Ohio legislators, telling them to protect the right of all Ohio workers and the public to breathe nontoxic, noncarcinogenic air.

By KAF

November 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Link to this

Check out Ann Fisher’s commentary in today’s Columbus Dispatch (columbusdispatch.com). It concerns a veteran who wants clean indoor air at the VFW.

By Michael J. McFadden

November 24, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this

Fritz wrote, ““One person is dead, 10 occupants are temporarily displaced. The fire was caused by improperly handled smoking materials, or smoking in bed”. Any way you look at it, smoking kills. We MUST keep the ban on smoking in public places ! “ Actually Fritz, the reverse is true. Once you have smoking bans you’ve set up the absolutely ideal conditions for fires. Fire-safety devices (ashtrays) are against the law so people who DO break the law have no place safe to put out their cigarettes. They are also far more likely to hastily and improperly dispose of those cigarettes when they hear someone coming, or to smoke in secluded, out-of-the-way corners where poorly disposed of butts develop into real fires before anyone notices. Want less fires? Get rid of the smoking ban, or at least make it more reasonable. If you don’t really care about fires but are just against smoking and were using fires just to justify your hate, then you can ignore what I’ve just said. Michael J. McFadden Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

By aldoit

November 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Link to this

Ohio voters had the chance to decide and the majority voted for a ban on public smoking. It was clear that the majority wanted the right to enjoy a smoke-free environment in public places. What an insult to all of us who voted to try to overide the majority vote with a bill that most voters won’t even be aware of. For years,non-smokers have been subjected to suffering in silence as smokers polluted the air that we breath. I can remember once as a young pregnant mother, coughing up blood because my bronchial tubes were so irritated. The doctor told me it was due to the smoky environment I was in the night before. We now frequent businesses that we avoided before. We enjoy the American Legion,local pubs and restaurants that all fall into the catergory of private clubs and family owned. I am speaking,not just for myself but for my entire extended family….Please,please do not take away our right to breath clean,healthy air again!

By Reverendcrash

November 24, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

I have to appreciate News Paper Writers as they are bound by the Directives of Editors who are reliant on Advertising Dollars.It used to be Big Tobacco, Now it is Big Pharma.As the Law is written it is not a violation for an INDIVIDUAL to smoke in a public place.As a business owner I am required to comply with regulations I AM NOT required to be the enforcemant arm of Government. The rules say there is a $100.00 fine for an individual.WRONG!If all these people are smoking why do they not get fined when Health Dept. Enforcement Investigators walk in and see them and refuse to fine them. The answer from the Health Dept. is .It is not our job.2. Merely Smoking in a Public Place is not a violation for an Individual.As a business owner I do not work for the Government and untill I am Compensated with the same Wage and benifit package as any other Stae Employee I am not going to do their JOB.I don’t have to and BY God that’s a Constitutional Protection I still Have.I do not have to be subject to forced labor with threat of legal action for saying you do your job I’ll do mine.

By Reverendcrash

November 24, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

I don’t believe people realize that as the Law is written it opensor for a law suit against a business owner if they follow the guidelines set down for enforcement.It is not a violation for and INDIVIDUAL to smoke in a public place.There are no fines or penalties for an individual for smoking.Only for refusing to quit doing something that is not a violation. All of the responsibility of ennt rest with the business owner.Untill I am an employee of the Government with the same pay scale and compensation of a Government I am not working for them for free.That By God is a Constitutional protection.

By Fritz

November 24, 2008 3:41 AM | Link to this

Dayton Daily News, Nov. 21: “One person is dead, 10 occupants are temporarily displaced. The fire was caused by improperly handled smoking materials, or smoking in bed”. Any way you look at it, smoking kills. We MUST keep the ban on smoking in public places !

By b rogers

November 23, 2008 11:49 PM | Link to this

Laura wrote “What an insult for the legislators of Ohio to think they are somehow more intelligent and informed than the voting public.” Laura, we vote them into office for a reason. They do the research that we don’t have time for. Although we may disagree with many of them, they are still there for a reason. Please don’t over estimate yourself.

By ichoosefreedom

November 23, 2008 9:52 PM | Link to this

Laura-do you own a hospitality business? I thought not. See, all the people like you who whined about having a smokefree place to go got your way…and you don’t patronize these businesses. There were supposed to be, according to SmokeFree Ohio, “hoards” of new customers. Well, the smokers quit coming and you and your anti friends didn’t take their places. Are hospitality businesses angry? You BET! So why should families who invested their lives and bank accounts, who second mortgaged their homes to own their piece of the American Dream, lose everything because of a law based on lies? These businesses were quite profitable until it catered solely to people who don’t frequent them. Whether you want to believe it or not, people voted for what they read and the exemptions were clearly on the ballot language at the polls. Why put the exemptions in at all if they weren’t going to honor them? TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE YES!!!!!SmokeFree Ohio lied about no harm to business. And they lied about smokers being warned and fined. In fact, the ODH created a policy in direct conflict with the law. The only people who should be allowed to say whether smoking is permitted or not permitted are the people who invested their money into these businesses. And their customers would drive that decision. That’s how free market works. Had all you anti-smokers patronized the bars and private clubs, this wouldn’t even be an issue, would it? Why don’t YOU buy a bar and make it smokefree and see how long you’re in business? These people selling their bars can’t even get what they were worth before the ban and what lender would finance the buyer? A bar a good risk? Not in Ohio. THEIR businesses are not PUBLIC places, they belong to the people financially responsible for them. THEY pay the mortgage, the business loan, property taxes, CAT tax, RITA tax, unemployment, disability tax, FICA, Workers Comp, insurance. THEY DO. NOT YOU and NOT VOTERS. Bar owners cater to the people who patronize them, who are quite obviously the smokers and non smokers. APPARENTLY NOT THE ANTI-SMOKERS. You’re right. People vote with their wallets and if patronizing these places is a vote, let me tell you, smokefree is LOSING. How about asking family owned business owners what they want. Ask their employees what they want. You knock the senators for hearing how devastating this has been for Ohio businesses and their families and how wrong this law has been from the deceitful ballot language to enforcement. I applaud them. They CARE about the businesses in Ohio. It’s their job and it’s their JOB to revise the Ohio Revised Code when it needs to be revised and if ever there was a case, this is it.

By History Buff

November 23, 2008 9:38 PM | Link to this

A reply to ‘null’: Your comment about smoking and your patient leads to false beliefs. It is a very unfortunate circumstance that because one did or did not smoke, IF there is a medical problem, it is automatically ASSUMED ‘smoking did it’. This is not true and not fair for anyone to say such a thing. No one has a complete history of the life for anyone, not even the person with a problem. You and no one can document any radon levels thru a life, diet thru a life, various exposures or heridity factors. … FURTHER, it has been proven that smokers have LESS various illnesses than non-smokers and since smoker rates have dropped, cancers are WAY UP. … Prehaps you are a victim yourself, that being a victim of the those who promote the propaganda to keep the funds flowing into a deceitful industry, that being the medical industry!

By b rogers

November 23, 2008 9:38 PM | Link to this

Billy, I have read that having granite counter tops can produce enough radon to be the equivalent of smoking up to 30 packs of cigarettes a day.

By b rogers

November 23, 2008 9:32 PM | Link to this

Uh, Laura, the language on the ballot stated that private clubs, family owned businesses and patios were exempt. What is it that you don’t understand? By the way, I spoon fed my father too who died of cancer. He was a nonsmoker.

By Billy

November 23, 2008 9:30 PM | Link to this

I hear this smoking cost taxpayers billions in health care cost. Hmm OK then why complain about making profit? Hospitals and the AMA love money! If it were not for illness then I guess we could have starving doctor office call specials? Oh in the name of health we have to have a smoking ban but you allow a baby to breath RADON GAS in Licking County Ohio in the equivalent to 8 packs of cigarettes a day and say nothing? You warn about BIRD FLUE but force smokers outside to be the main course for mosquitoes since we cant even have a shelter to protect us from the skeeters or the weather! Get real, the ban is a punishment conditioning practice! If you threw a kid out of class in a school for bad behavior into the snow they sue ya in a heart beat! Smokers said who is next or what is next and the gays in California can tell you. Gun control coming? Land of the free we need to stop these money hungry power lusting lobbyist!

By virgilk

November 23, 2008 9:26 PM | Link to this

This crusade against smokers uses emotions of the mislead public. Truth has absolutely nothing to do with statements made by the EPA, ACS, RWJF, or any of the agencies supposedly fighting for the lives of the children. They do this for PROFIT nothing more. Their target is control of the Nicotine market worldwide. Not one study has found more than a slight increase in risk. Anything more than this is a lie backed by fraud funded by those who intend to profit. If everything said of SHS were true, very few people over 40 would be alive today. It depends on making people believe their children are in danger. Even OSHA tried to put in perspective by saying; SHS is almost as dangerous as chlorinated drinking water. The World Health Organization, in their largest study said, that children raised in smoking families are 22% less likely to contract Cancer. I would think, by now, our Councils should be aware of how they are being led to false conclusions.

By snowbird

November 23, 2008 9:21 PM | Link to this

No-smoking laws that are passed based on lies, half-truths, innuendos,slanted surveys should be repealled immediately if not sooner

By snowbird

November 23, 2008 9:21 PM | Link to this

No-smoking laws that are passed based on lies, half-truths, innuendos,slanted surveys should be repealled immediately if not sooner

By Laura

November 23, 2008 9:12 PM | Link to this

What an insult for the legislators of Ohio to think they are somehow more intelligent and informed than the voting public. I do not believe that there are that many voting idiots in Ohio that they can not understand the language on a ballot and cannot understand the commercials that run for months prior to an election. I have not heard one person say that they didn’t understand what they were voting for- whichever way they voted. The fact that such a small number of people even bothered to vote does not mean that the will of the people wasn’t heard. It simply means that those who didn’t bother to vote, didn’t really care. As to the comment that “we” nonsmokers didn’t have a concern about second-hand smoke 5,10 or 20 years ago, that simply isn’t true. It just took that long for enough people to realize that non-smokers have rights, too. In the past, anyone who complained about second-hand smoke was laughed at. I have always made my position clear with regards to businesses who allowed smoking by not patronizing them. But, like smokers now claim, that denied ME the opportunity to participate in activities and eat at many restaurants. Kind of puts the shoe on the other foot, doesn’t it? I can remember the employee lounges many years ago that were so dense with smoke you couldn’t see through them. The janitor cleaned the mirrors everyday to remove the black “gunk”. I avoided them, but was told by supervisors that I was being anti-social and was told I had to eat my lunch in there and socialize. Having buried both of my parents from smoking related diseases, one from lung cancer and one from emphysema, COPD and numerous other lung diseases, I find it amazing that people are telling me I should let smokers “have their rights”. I wonder how many of you smokers out there have sat and spoon fed a parent who was too weak from chemo, bathed them and changed their depends because lung cancer had robbed them of all independence? How many of you have sat with someone while they were being intubated as their lungs slowly, slowly give out; watched the terror in their faces because no one can get the oxygen canister opened fast enough? Adult decision? I don’t think so. My father began smoking at age 12- not an adult- but long before the dangers of smoking were known. Before he died, he said he wished they would ban smoking so that no one else would have to go through what he did. The people spoke. Legislators have no right to make any amendments on behalf of any business or the Tobacco industry.

By big kahuna

November 23, 2008 8:52 PM | Link to this

great discussion! the buck stops at lawmakers. hats off to the brave ohio lawmakers willing to take a stand against blanket smoking bans. lawmakers pass unjust laws for one simple reason…THEY DO NOT FEAR A PARTICULAR VOTING BLOC. that is fast changing across the land, as the sleeping smoking giant is fast awakening. american smoker voters are a whopping 20 million strong. once we unite and begin voting these anti tobacco, anti business lawmakers out of office, the disease of blanket draconian smoking bans will cease to exist…just and wise business friendly compromises will quickly be in order…no lawmaker enjoys getting his butt booted out. smokers unite and VOTE…we got two years to prepare and unite as a powerful voting bloc…aloha from the islands!

By ichoosefreedom

November 23, 2008 8:05 PM | Link to this

Gosh, B Rogers, let me take this one. KAF - When you look at the facts, who WOULDN’T believe the “conspiracy theory”. Is it just coincidental that JnJ manufactures drugs and products for the laws for which they pay? A 446 million dollar investment for smoking bans sure didn’t hurt their stock. And 99 million dollars to the ACS, ALA, AHA in grants to get these bans (when grantees didn’t move from education to tobacco CONTROL, their grants were yanked). Yes, they bought Pfizer in the midst of the ban laws. They knew Nicorette was going to be a money maker because they were behind the smoking ban laws. They promised a per share gain to their stockholders for Pfizer’s purchase by 2009 and got there in record time. You talk about Big Tobacco. What about marketing Nicorette to kids? With all JnJ’s “tooth whitening” hype with a nicotine buzz? I find it highly suspect that JnJ (excuse me, the RWJF) pursues LAWS from which they profit. Obesity (half a billion dollar investment)..they own Splenda and one of their family of companies owns the lap band surgery. Get the cure, drug, patch or surgery, then create laws that create the market for your products. Best marketing strategy pharmaceutical money can buy. So, KAF, tell me this. If SHS was really the harm (BTW, read Geoffrey Kabat’s new book “Hyping Health Risks..”) that you claim, why when North Dakota tried to ban the sale of tobacco did the TOBACCO CONTROL GROUPS testify AGAINST it?(Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827172/posts)? Because it’s all about the money, control and power. Tobacco Control is just the beginning “control” du jour and the RWJF is right in the middle of it. Why would people believe it? Look around you. It’s seems as plain as the nose on your face. You want people to believe it’s a conspiracy theory and it’s not about the money? Get the RWJF to dump their JnJ stock if they’re so dedicated to health. Their “sincere desire” would be more believable. Here’s another question. The ACS did a study in 2003 that showed the best success long term for quitting smoking was COLD TURKEY. In fact 91.4%. If not using them is more successful, you have to ask why they push the drugs? http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2003PWSecured.pdf see table 3 page 25 Check mate.

By KAF

November 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this

b rogers, your story about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a canard. This foundation isn’t the “parent” of Johnson & Johnson, but a health and medical philanthropy begun by Johnson & Johnson’s founder. Its work includes fighting childhood obesity, advocating for comprehensive healthcare for all people, ending health disparities for minority groups, and working to end the addiction, disease, and death caused by tobacco. Like the American Cancer Society, whose reputation you also impugn, they have been fighting tobacco addiction and disease for decades. J & J only purchased Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Division, makers of Nicorette, in December 2006. One would have to believe that J & J knew decades in advance that they were going to purchase this division of Pfizer and then were able to force their “evil minions” in the health and medical world to push for smoking bans to drive up their future sales of Nicorette. No rational person would accept such an outlandish conspiracy theory. In any event, J & J makes a host of products whose sales would actually rise with increased cigarette use: Rembrandt toothpaste for the smokers’ yellowed teeth, Listerine for smokers’ bad breath, Band-aids and Neosporin for those wounds that take longer to heal in smokers, Efferdent to clean dentures needed when smoking causes your teeth to rot and gums to recede. Even more lucrative are their line of cancer drugs, prescription pain medications, and treatments for heart disease. J & J would certainly benefit financially from increase rates of smoking-induced cancers, heart attacks, strokes, COPD, etc. But if you have confidential documents from J & J, the American Cancer Society, and other health and medical organizations that demonstrate a conspiracy to hoodwink the American public, by all means send them to 60 Minutes or the New York Times or some other reputable news organization- you know, like what whistleblowers did to Big Tobacco. All those documents showing how Big Tobacco lied and deceived the public about smoking and secondhand smoke are available online at the University of California’s Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. But in reality, smoking bans do not force anyone to stop smoking or use J & J’s brand of nicotine cessation therapy. All you have to do is go outside for a few minutes to smoke.

By b rogers

November 23, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this

Referring to smokers as your “job security” on the cancer ward is quite unappealing and cold. There are a great many nonsmokers on cancer wards as well.

By Kaetlyn

November 23, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

I have a comment for b rogers…what makes you think I would be an unfit nurse for your family members just because I know smoking is hazardous to their health? I’ve spent hours feeling helpless because a patient of mine is suffocating to death and there’s not a single thing I can do to help them except hold their hand and sit at their bedside. Emphysema and other chronic lung diseases are NOT pretty…carrying an oxygen tank around on your shoulder wherever you go would not be fun. If you guys all want to continue supporting your “right” to smoke, that’s the kind of life…and death…you can possibly look forward to…but I’m NOT a bad nurse. Your family would be very lucky to have a nurse as caring and dedicated to my patients as I am.

By DEV

November 23, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

It seems utterly ridiculous to suggest that the voters of Ohio were duped into voting for something that they did not understand. Twice. The facts are that the voters overwhelmingly passed the nonsmoking laws. What’s reprehensible is that legislators, such as state senator Tom Roberts, would even consider softening the laws. How many times must the majority speak before lawmakers understand their desires. I think it is time to move on to more important issues.

By Jim

November 23, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

For years of sitting in the non-smoking section at restaurants, where offensive smoke drifted over our table anyway, I’m pleased Ohio has finally gotten to the 21st century with the current ban. My mother, who was a non-smoker, has COPD and cannot go to the local VFW she used to attend. Why? Because they violate the smoking ban everyday. The smoking ban needs to stay in place just as it is. Smokers can stop being selfish and make the 30 second trip outside if they wish to light up.

By Pope

November 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

Finally a senator is listening. Everyone I talk to was confused on what they were voting for and did not realize in a NON EATING establishment they couldn’t have a smoke with their drink.

By Double

November 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

The un-American cancer society will no doubt use all of its tax exempt millions (in its POLITICAL FUND)to fight against American freedom again.

By b rogers

November 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

I support property rights and freedom of choice. I support our small business owners to make adult educated decisions regarding their own businesses without interference from a bunch of nannies who believe in nothing short of prohibition.

By null

November 23, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this

your in the funeral business…you see it every day and you still promote this???shame on you

By JJ

November 23, 2008 6:59 AM | Link to this

This whole two year ongoing squabble shows that the way that laws are allowed to be passed is flawed. There needs to be more time allowed to look at each of the bills put on a ballot so that there are no grey areas that will cause misunderstanding.

By Pat

November 23, 2008 1:02 AM | Link to this

I have never made any comments before but as an adult and age 67, I feel I want to comment for the first time on this smoking ban. I have always been very nice when it has come to smoking in front of ANYONE and I never say anything about what other people do, say, or THEIR bad habits. But, I was one that did vote to have a ban but it was stated that some of the private clubs and etc. would be exempt or I would have voted no. As an adult as most adults know that smoking is not healthy but it is still THEIR choice. The bussiness that have lost so many patrons have never been considered by all these no smokers, especially, the clubs and bars and privately own bussiness. Do any of you care where the people that have lost their place of business because of this. I don’t think so. When you consider the VFW clubs and others and ones that play music, no matter what, if you smoke and have a couple of drinks, it just goes hand in hand. The thing about it is that before this was passed, there was no smoking in almost all places like business, malls, and a lot of rest. plus work places, so really other then a few resturants and bowling allys, you really only ruined places that serve drinks and I think that is totally wrong. All the people that wanted this ban, all you had to do was stay away from the places that serve drinks. I can see not smoking in resturants but you are acting like you have the right to make us feel like we are commiting a crime. I do not smoke in front of others that don’t smoke and I am very aware of other people’s feelings but cannot say the same for all of you. So not only myself, but a lot of friends I have, we do not go to the clubs anymore and won’t unless it is changed. I feel bad for the owners but I am not a big drinker but if I go listen to a band or want to go to the club and can’t even have a cig. while I have a drink, then they can thank all of you.

By b rogers

November 22, 2008 11:36 PM | Link to this

Null, excuse me, but in the funeral business we accept that challenge everyday.

By null

November 22, 2008 10:34 PM | Link to this

frankly I don’t think any of us could handle that challange….or would even want to…

By b rogers

November 22, 2008 8:38 PM | Link to this

Kaetlyn, if you are in the Dayton area, I accept your challenge!

By b rogers

November 22, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this

Kaetlyn, I definitely hope you will NEVER be the nurse that tends to my families needs.

By b rogers

November 22, 2008 7:20 PM | Link to this

There is mounting evidence that doctors and drug interactions are the leading cause of death. Unfortunately, I cannot post hotmail here.

By Kaetlyn

November 22, 2008 6:16 PM | Link to this

I’m a cancer nurse of 25 years, and to begin with, any Dr that writes on this column in favor of smokers doesn’t deserve to even be called a physician. I would challenge any one of you to take a walk with me down the hallway of my cancer unit any day of the week, and take a look at all the cancer patients suffering with lung cancers…and chronic lung diseases…many of them self-pay which means you and I pay with our tax dollars for their treatments and in higher insurance costs for us. If you think your habit doesn’t affect anyone else but you, think again. Either you’re delusional, or just plain choose to stick your head in the sand, and keep handing over those bucks for those cigarettes. However…there is a plus to all of this…job security for me ;)

By Kaetlyn

November 22, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this

I’m a cancer nurse of 25 years, and to begin with, any Dr that writes on this column in favor of smokers doesn’t deserve to even be called a physician. I would challenge any one of you to take a walk with me down the hallway of my cancer unit any day of the week, and take a look at all the cancer patients suffering with lung cancers…and chronic lung diseases…many of them self-pay which means you and I pay with our tax dollars for their treatments and in higher insurance costs for us. If you think your habit doesn’t affect anyone else but you, think again. Either you’re delusional, or just plain choose to stick your head in the sand, and keep handing over those bucks for those cigarettes. However…there is a plus to all of this…job security for me ;)

By Billy

November 22, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

If you will recall the State of Ohio had a drinking age of 18 for 3.2% beer. The people voted down the increase of age to 21 but the Feds threatened to cut off highway safety money to the state, result the legislature voted against the will of the people!

By b rogers

November 22, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Kaf, I would like you to know that the organizations you mentioned and thanked have received millions in grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Fdtn. who is the parent of Johnson and Johnson who makes nicotine cessation products. They are earning huge profits as a result! Follow the money!!!!!!!!

By Michael J. McFadden

November 22, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

It’s always interesting to see how people like KAF (two posts below) are completely incapable of answering any of the actual arguments against smoking bans and turn instead to mudslinging. Call your opponents “Big Tobacco” or “nicotine addicts” and suddenly I guess you don’t have to pay attention to the facts or the science at all eh? Just parrot the line “All the responsible authorities agree…” without ever noting that of course they’ll all agree to ANYthing that they think will reduce smoking - whether it’s true or not. Michael J. McFadden Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

By MR A

November 22, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Bill. Powerful factual examples of the truth, but I feel you are wasting your breath on that idiot, ” NULL “. That person is to much a coward to see the truth, the ACS hasn’t provided him/her with the proper propeganda to offer a logical reply. He/She is just following the piper, not strong enough to know much.

By KAF

November 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

I would like to thank the following health groups for protecting the rights of Ohioans to breathe clean indoor air: the American Cancer Society, the Ohio State Medical Association, the Ohio Hospital Association, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American College of Surgeons, the Association of Ohio Health Commissioners, the March of Dimes, the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians, the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association, the Ohio Dental Association, the Ohio Nurses Association, the Ohio Public Health Association, the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and many, many, others. You can either trust these respected health professionals or you can believe the lies of Big Tobacco and their fiercely loyal nicotine addicts. But if you choose to believe the lies of Big Tobacco, please be consistent and consult a witch doctor or faith healer for all your medical needs. Remember, according to Big Tobacco and nicotine addicts, doctors, dentists, surgeons, nurses, hospitals, pediatricians, and all other health professionals don’t know what they’re talking about.

By b rogers

November 22, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

Null, you continue to ignore the fact that the Issue 5 ballot language stated that private clubs and family owned businesses would be exempt. I posted the language on the ballot yesterday.

By Reverendcrash

November 22, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Hocter and Sabetta are cordially invited to enforce the Law.1st it is not a violation for an individual to smoke in a public place.2nd I do not work for the Government and I absolutely refuse to support the efforts of grave robbing theives like Sabetta and Hocter who make money from other peoples misery and do all they can to allow peolpe to continue to suufer and die.I’ll support Bin Laden bfore Isupport the American Cancer Society. He is not as big a threat to freedom as they are.

By null

November 22, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

you guys all seem like pretty smart,educated and informed people….so why are you still smoking ? I know, I know..because it’s your choice…well ok it’s my choice to vote for the anti smoking bill

By Bill

November 22, 2008 6:58 AM | Link to this

Null,…you are acting as a perfect example of the uninformed useful idiot, one of the pitchfork bearing angry villagers out to kill the monster because your ring leader (The American Cancer Society) has lied to you, and you don’t care to doubt them because they are after-all, they’re The American Cancer Society, ….why would such a “charitable organization” ever lie, ….right? The angry villagers, the poor stupid townsfolk, the useful idiots are particularly susceptible to a Mob Rule mentality, especially when rallied into action by such an altruistic oragnization as the ACS. The villagers have been convinced that I, as a business owner, should not be allowed to make my own choices, and as a result suffer terribly from a “groupthink” that is suffocating their individuality because they desperately want to be on the side of “right”, WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT, and the ACS spends whatever it takes to ensure that you think exactly the way they want you to. People that p**s and moan, and whine, and complain about second hand smoke, didn’t have such complaints just 20 years ago, not 10 years ago, and not even 24 months ago before the Smoking Ban in this state was approved by the oft repeated “overwhelming majority” of what actually amounted to just 30% of registered voters in the state that bothered to vote at all. Individual liberty requires civility from everyone if it is to be allowed to exist at all, but the Anti-Smoking Mafia has funded a crusade worthy of envy from the targets of that assault by demonizing citizens that smoke at every single opportunity, in every conceivable form of available media, and by never straying to far from the central message that “smokers” are somehow simply not worthy of the civility that non-smokers currently INCORRECTLY imagine that they extend to themselves. Creating a monster for the angry villagers to destroy is the motivation required for the pitchfork bearing mob to shout for legislation to put an end to the scourge. Focusing their distain on the monster, temporarily alleviates their need to have a look in the mirror, and distracts them from a closer examination of their leader. You should take a minute or two and do both.

By MR A

November 22, 2008 5:49 AM | Link to this

There is more than enough room to cater to both groups and come out with a better since of what our country was founded upon, ( rights, and freedoms ). The idiotic ideology of people who seem to believe that taking away a businesses main source of revenue is good for all is not only harmful, it has shown through the last year just how much damage it has caused. Look at the numbers, the bottom line you simple minded idiots, businesses are closing, restaurants are cutting their labor by 20 percent or hiring fewer people, lowering their menu prices, lowering quality control etc. And you continue to feed the snake that bites you? To the politicians who support changing this to accommodate the suffering businesses I applaud you, to the people who support this I also applaud you. To the people who do not smoke but are in favor of a simple compromise I applaud you and your intelligence to know the difference. To the hard line simple minded drones who are still hooked up to the anti groups IV line, I feel sorry for you.

By null

November 21, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this

First I want to thank Laura Bischoff for writing this article regarding the smoking ban. I’m very concerned that this is the first time the majority of Ohio voters have been informed that the lawmakers are considering this bill! Two years ago Ohio voters took a giant step forward by overwhelmingly approving the indoor smoking ban! This was the best thing to happen for all Ohioans in a long time and we should be proud to be a part of the many smoke-free states. Second-hand smoke is a life or death environment for many Ohioans with allergies, asthma and other health issues. Healthy people young and old will become ill with exposure to second-hand smoke. With the cost of health care and medicine so expensive, our economy is in meltdown mode, we have excessive unemployment and many Ohioans can not afford healthcare insurance —— how could a few legislators, who are apparently out of touch with the majority of the people they represent, put together a Senate Bill 346 that would totally destroy all the good we Ohioans voted into law two years ago? State Senator, Tom Roberts appears to be very proud of being one of the 13 co-sponsors of this bill. He stated that he spoke with people who attend VFW halls and family-owned bars and restaurants - I suggest that he should speak with the majority of the people whom he represents before making a decision as serious as the one he has make by co-sponsoring Senate Bill 346. Thanks for identifying the other 12 co-sponsors of this Bill 346. Elections are coming up soon and any legislator so out of touch with the majority of the people he represents should not be reelected. The indoor smoking ban is fair for both smoker and non-smoker. Those who wish to smoke may continue to do so but not in public places where they are exposing others to their second-hand smoke.

By null

November 21, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this

First I want to thank Laura Bischoff for writing this article regarding the smoking ban. I’m very concerned that this is the first time the majority of Ohio voters have been informed that the lawmakers are considering this bill! Two years ago Ohio voters took a giant step forward by overwhelmingly approving the indoor smoking ban! This was the best thing to happen for all Ohioans in a long time and we should be proud to be a part of the many smoke-free states. Second-hand smoke is a life or death environment for many Ohioans with allergies, asthma and other health issues. Healthy people young and old will become ill with exposure to second-hand smoke. With the cost of health care and medicine so expensive, our economy is in meltdown mode, we have excessive unemployment and many Ohioans can not afford healthcare insurance —— how could a few legislators, who are apparently out of touch with the majority of the people they represent, put together a Senate Bill 346 that would totally destroy all the good we Ohioans voted into law two years ago? State Senator, Tom Roberts appears to be very proud of being one of the 13 co-sponsors of this bill. He stated that he spoke with people who attend VFW halls and family-owned bars and restaurants - I suggest that he should speak with the majority of the people whom he represents before making a decision as serious as the one he has make by co-sponsoring Senate Bill 346. Thanks for identifying the other 12 co-sponsors of this Bill 346. Elections are coming up soon and any legislator so out of touch with the majority of the people he represents should not be reelected. The indoor smoking ban is fair for both smoker and non-smoker. Those who wish to smoke may continue to do so but not in public places where they are exposing others to their second-hand smoke.

By null

November 21, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this

First I want to thank Laura Bischoff for writing this article regarding the smoking ban. I’m very concerned that this is the first time the majority of Ohio voters have been informed that the lawmakers are considering this bill! Two years ago Ohio voters took a giant step forward by overwhelmingly approving the indoor smoking ban! This was the best thing to happen for all Ohioans in a long time and we should be proud to be a part of the many smoke-free states. Second-hand smoke is a life or death environment for many Ohioans with allergies, asthma and other health issues. Healthy people young and old will become ill with exposure to second-hand smoke. With the cost of health care and medicine so expensive, our economy is in meltdown mode, we have excessive unemployment and many Ohioans can not afford healthcare insurance —— how could a few legislators, who are apparently out of touch with the majority of the people they represent, put together a Senate Bill 346 that would totally destroy all the good we Ohioans voted into law two years ago? State Senator, Tom Roberts appears to be very proud of being one of the 13 co-sponsors of this bill. He stated that he spoke with people who attend VFW halls and family-owned bars and restaurants - I suggest that he should speak with the majority of the people whom he represents before making a decision as serious as the one he has make by co-sponsoring Senate Bill 346. Thanks for identifying the other 12 co-sponsors of this Bill 346. Elections are coming up soon and any legislator so out of touch with the majority of the people he represents should not be reelected. The indoor smoking ban is fair for both smoker and non-smoker. Those who wish to smoke may continue to do so but not in public places where they are exposing others to their second-hand smoke.

By Firecracker

November 21, 2008 11:45 PM | Link to this

Dear Null, Just as you feel you want a smoke free place to take your kids, the smokers want a place to smoke. Take your kids to a place that doesn’t permit smoking. Smokers don’t have the choice- non smokers have the entire deck of cards. It’s a violation of private run business and personal choice. You can choose to go to a non-smoking establishment. I cannot choose to go to a smoking establishment. So why are you as a non-smoker due the value and right to go anywhere and “enjoy” smoke free air when I am not afforded the choice to smoke in an establishment as a smoker? Are you considered more important? The bottom line here is the government has taken private business and hit them with a law that’s putting them OUT of business. All the non-smokers promised to “step up” and take care of businesses. They didn’t. The non-smokers lied and the smokers now stay home. It’s not about YOUR rights as a non-smoker; your right is to go somewhere that satisfies you. I don’t have that right as a smoker and I am JUST as important as you are and I should have the choice to go to an establishment that wants smoker’s business. And FYI- the ban didn’t pass by 59%. The numbers are fudged. A friend worked the numbers- it was 33%. Smoking is a personal choice and I make the choice to smoke. You can make the choice to go where I don’t go.

By History Buff

November 21, 2008 11:17 PM | Link to this

To Null: If you will take the time to think, you will remember that prior to the Ohio smoking ban, NO ONE forced any business to have smoking. Each business owner could decide what they wanted in their business and there was no smoking establishments available. ALSO, no one is saying now that anyone is asking that ‘smoking allowed’ is being demanded. Choice for the businesses owner and the individual person is being demanded and it is the American way, like it or not. … You know, you can always open your own business and set any darn rules you choose. I hope some numb nut doesn’t come along and demand that you only allow hair-less heads in. Think it can’t happen? You have no idea what the doors the smoking ban has opened up.

By History Buff

November 21, 2008 10:52 PM | Link to this

We now know that the bans across this country were bought by a pharmaceutical foundation. The other end is that they own at 250 pharmaceutical companies and they make the no smoke products. We also know they want to OWN tobacco for the good it DOES do medically. We also know that tobacco is in the same FOOD group as cauliflower, potato, tomato, green pepper and other foods. They ALL contain nicotine. Are those the next bans? ‘We the People’ do not have the millions of dollars as the big business that bought the smoking ban. It WILL TAKE each of us to restore the right of choice before NO BAR or VETERAN CLUB can be found in Ohio and there are more restaurant closings. The State of Ohio financial stats have proven that the leisure industry in Ohio is dying SINCE the DAY the ban went in. Those that do not understand why their ancestors came to this country need to visit those homelands and then ask themself, why did their ancestors come here. In case you don’t get it, it is FREEDOM and choice and that applies to business owners also who invested their bucks and sweat into opening a family business on PRIVATE property.

By b rogers

November 21, 2008 10:48 PM | Link to this

Cean air is plentiful with proper ventilation. Null, supposedly 400,000 people die every year from smoking related diseases, right? Guess how many die from nonsmoking related diseases? 2 million 600,000! The anti’s don’t want you to know about that. Secondary smoke should be the very least of your concerns.

By null

November 21, 2008 10:21 PM | Link to this

Senate Bill 346 should not be allowed. We take our kids to a private club to eat and I don’t want them around the second hand smoke. I have seen my best friend die of emphaseyma and my sisters father-in-law die of the same. Both of them smoked. Another friend I knew had never smoked but worked around cigarette smoke every day and died of lung cancer. I believe the non smokers have the right to go into places without the smoking. It has been proven that second hand smoke is bad as smoking. The smokers can go outside or wait to get in there home or car to smoke.The government wants to have clean air then lets have it. Thank you.

By b rogers

November 21, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this

Subject: THE TRUTH FROM A PHYSICIAN JOHN DALE DUNN..HEARTLAND INSTITUTE Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:04:54 -0500 I am a Texan for 22 years, a 36 year physician, specializing in emergency medicine. I am familiar with the public health science on second hand smoke. I can say with confidence that second hand smoke may irritate some, but it does not kill. Those claiming thousands of deaths from second hand smoke to the public are deceitful for a political goal. Public Health Studies cited by the Cancer Society and the Surgeon General that claim thousands of deaths from second hand smoke are weak, cherry-picked studies. Their supporters compound their perfidy by ignoring studies by the World Health Organization (Buffetta 1998 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), Stranges, 2006 in Archives of Internal Medicine and Enstrom 2003 in The British Medical Journal, that show no second hand smoke effect. In science, one study that disproves a scientific theory is more important than a pile of studies that are slightly positive. Anti- smoking advocates and fanatics ignore that basic rule and ignore any study they don’t like. They are propagandists, not scientists. The crusaders are willing to do anything and say anything about second hand smoke, including making public statements about thousands of deaths from second hand smoke. Those claims are multifarious and duplicitous—they are lies. Second hand smoking, even for the spouse of a smoker is one cigarette or less per day—which has no effect. The second hand smoke scare is a phantom menace conjured up by the High Holy Church of Smoke Haters to support the anti smoking crusade… Smoking Bans violate the Ohio tradition of mind your own business. If the Ohio General Assembly thinks it has a role in telling people how to live, they should get a Divinity Degree and find a congregation. Folks in Ohio can easily avoid second hand smoke, and employment in a bar or restaurant is voluntary. Smoking is legal. Avoiding smoke is easy. John Dale Dunn MD JD Policy Advisor American Council on Science and Health, NYC, and the Heartland Institute, Chicago.

By hey null!

November 21, 2008 9:39 PM | Link to this

btw, smoking is NOT the leading cause of lung disease, I work in a cardiopulmonary unit, and half of my pt’s were non-smokers, but were those who worked in factories, and exposed to aspestos and other chemical inhalents, You ppl serioulsy need to get a life and quit picking on ppl for what they do, The law is in effect now, so the smokers aren’t bothering you, SO SHUT UP! you people are just bigots who have nothing better else to do but pick on people just cause they smoke, there is no smoking indoors, so WHAT are you guys complaining about? You are just bored lonely people have no life and want to make others miserable by posting these comments to make yourselves feel better, GROW UP, you don’t smoke good for you, let others live their life! SO be it! its our lives! Not yours, so move on, shut up, shut up!! igorant people kill me!!!

By null

November 21, 2008 9:31 PM | Link to this

I would like to know if the golden cash cow also pays for finding a cure for emphysema, lung cancer and heart disease?

By SHUT UP!!!!

November 21, 2008 9:20 PM | Link to this

Geez, we have our own opinions, you ppl who whine and moan about second hand smoke are just babies!, I smoke but have always done so outside, Cause I respect other ppl. BUT its just “our rights”, I have terrible allergies to perfumes, and I go into breathing fits, but is perfume banned? NOOOO, Next they’ll be banning fat ppl from buffets, its all about our rights as americans, People who use their cell phones in resturants annoy the hell outta me, but is cell phones banned in resturants.NOOO My point is everyone has habits, and these holy rolling health professionals just want to pick on our habit, I feel it should be up to private businesses if smoking is allowed, like I said, I def agree w/No smoking in bowling alleys and resturants because children go there, but I’m sooo sick of you non-smokers picking on us, and you need to stick your nose elsewhere, I don’t go sticking my nose in your habits!!! I’m sick of your comments, I’m sick of bigotry, and blame games, I respect non-smokers and smoke outdoors, so please just shut up and mind your own business!!!!! ps, most of non-smoker are probably morbid obese ppl who eat all the food at the buffets!

By what about...

November 21, 2008 9:17 PM | Link to this

What about people who work in bars/restaurants? Owners should have to guarantee a safe working environment in which they don’t have to breathe second-hand smoke. And they should not have to just “go work somewhere else.” If a factory has equipment that can take your hand off, do you have to just go work somewhere else? No! The factory owner has to improve the unsafe working environment.

By b rogers

November 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Link to this

Don’t mean to criticize but anti’s are totally ignorant or shameless. They need to stop kicking the golden cash cow in the face. Tobacco taxes not only pay anti’s via the MSA agreement to promote their deceitful cause, they also have paid for roads, bridges, golf courses, schools, stadiums, entertainment centers etc., etc. How ungrateful and abusive can you anti’s be to those who have given you a free ride? You have banned the very people and source of revenue that floats your boat. Shame on you! Now is the time to grant the voted upon exemptions to those who pay your way.

By tim mergler

November 21, 2008 8:34 PM | Link to this

The voters have voted.Politicans must think we are all stupid. We know who’s behind this new attack. hack,hack

By tim mergler

November 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this

The voters have voted.Politicans must think we are all stupid. We know who’s behind this new attack. hack,hack

By tim mergler

November 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this

The voters have voted.Politicans must think we are all stupid. We know who’s behind this new attack. hack,hack

By tim mergler

November 21, 2008 8:32 PM | Link to this

The voters have voted.Politicans must think we are all stupid. We know who’s behind this new attack. hack,hack

By ac 3

November 21, 2008 8:09 PM | Link to this

ten years ago I had open heart surgery…I smoked for 40 years…I wish now that I wouldn’t have smoked at all. I feel really sorry for the people that have to stand outside to smoke, not because there outside smoking but because they can’t quit the habit. Not only the physical but the mental part also. So when I walk by you outside and my step quickens it’s not because I don’t like you it’s because I can’t handle the smoke anymore. Good luck to all of you…don’t wait untill you have to have your chest cracked open to quit..

By Chuck

November 21, 2008 8:01 PM | Link to this

Hey Bonnie, Just wait to see what ends up being forced on you with the justification of affordable health care. Smokers already pay more than their fair share.

By Chuck

November 21, 2008 7:55 PM | Link to this

It sure would be nice to have a few places in Ohio to. Instead of walking a couple blocks to one of the three neighborhood bars, I end up driving to Kentucky for a few drinks & to socialize.

By Bonnie

November 21, 2008 7:50 PM | Link to this

Since everyone is concerned about affordable healthcare, banning smoking EVERYWHERE is the correct thing to do for health and economic reasons!

By ichoosefreedom

November 21, 2008 7:38 PM | Link to this

Gosh, Sue, thanks for the reminder. Anyone who FAVORS or VOTED FOR THESE EXEMPTIONS can go to www.opponentsofohiobans.com and sign a petition.

By Me

November 21, 2008 7:37 PM | Link to this

If an owner of an establishment wants to ban smoking…..so be it. If another owner wants to permit smoking…..so be it. This whole issue should NEVER have been a voting issue at all. If you don’t want to frequent establishments that allow smoking, then go somewhere else. You, “Mr. and Ms. I’m More Important Than Anyone Else”, need to learn how to play well with other children. The world is not your private playground. Other people have rights too. I intend to call my Congressman and Senator to urge them to put the power back into the hands of the owners and not a hand full of smoking bigots.

By jayk

November 21, 2008 6:56 PM | Link to this

I think busness’ should be allowed to have smoking if they want it and why not have a alcohol ban too, since there are more deaths that are directly related to alcohol than smoking

By ac 3

November 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe it, the people have voted on it and now someone decides that this is not really what the people want…what is the use in voting????

By Bill

November 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

I’m not actually defending smoking of here, so get over yourself if that’s what you think) because I could care less if you or anyone else smokes or not. So long as you’re an adult, at least 18 years old and not deliberately trying to be rude to some poor, obviously defenseless non-smoker by doing it, I seriously don’t care,…no really, I (I believe) like most other people, really, really don’t care. As long as you offer me the same courtesy and restrain yourself from preaching about the alleged dangers of smoking, or refrain from reciting the latest tortured statistics from the American Cancer Society, we have no issues between us. You don’t smoke and I do. I won’t blow smoke in your face if you’ll just keep your opinion and faux concern for my health,… to yourself. Politics or religion would be preferable topics of conversation over the reasons why I smoke, and you don’t, or the reasons why you get to decide on the environment in my business when you have spent nothing on creating it. But, no matter how hard I try to dumb down my position when speaking with one of these SIF’s, it simply doesn’t matter. No matter how hard I try to keep the discussion to the central issue of autonomy, liberty, and property rights using words containing the fewest possible number of syllables, to the Single Issue Fanatic, it’s all about the smoke, and their misguided belief that it’s not my choice at all, or worse, I shouldn’t be allowed to make such a choice in the first place. Trying to illiterate the consequences to these people of not being allowed to think for oneself is much more than just an exercise in futility, the fact that they simply can’t grasp the ramifications of surrendering their autonomy, is frightening. The bottom line is that just like myself, the Anti-smoker is just as capable of making a choice to move, walk away, leave the area, don’t come in, don’t accept the job, and generally stay far, far away from the source of their psychosis. But that’s simply not sufficient for most of these fanatics and they will quickly add “ Why should I?,… I’m in the majority” which brings us back to the underlying central issue of Individual Liberty. My personal choice does have an impact on them they say with great conviction, but all the while ignoring the fact that they have two legs with which to resolve their discomfort within seconds of me making that choice. This is especially troubling when the Anti-smoker expressing concern over the likelihood of their imminent demise sometime within the next 30 minutes, is standing in the middle of MY property. Have the Smoking Ban crusaders lost their collective mind? How nice that the un-elected, self-appointed purveyors of hate toward a specific consumer group get to decide what’s best for me, my friends, my family, my patrons, and my staff. Isn’t democracy an awesome thing to behold?, …especially when it’s manipulated into being a legislative weapon against a particular group that has deliberately chosen to ignore those that think “smokers” should be living as instructed, rather than how they choose to on their own.

By Bill

November 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

I’m not actually defending smoking of here, so get over yourself if that’s what you think) because I could care less if you or anyone else smokes or not. So long as you’re an adult, at least 18 years old and not deliberately trying to be rude to some poor, obviously defenseless non-smoker by doing it, I seriously don’t care,…no really, I (I believe) like most other people, really, really don’t care. As long as you offer me the same courtesy and restrain yourself from preaching about the alleged dangers of smoking, or refrain from reciting the latest tortured statistics from the American Cancer Society, we have no issues between us. You don’t smoke and I do. I won’t blow smoke in your face if you’ll just keep your opinion and faux concern for my health,… to yourself. Politics or religion would be preferable topics of conversation over the reasons why I smoke, and you don’t, or the reasons why you get to decide on the environment in my business when you have spent nothing on creating it. But, no matter how hard I try to dumb down my position when speaking with one of these SIF’s, it simply doesn’t matter. No matter how hard I try to keep the discussion to the central issue of autonomy, liberty, and property rights using words containing the fewest possible number of syllables, to the Single Issue Fanatic, it’s all about the smoke, and their misguided belief that it’s not my choice at all, or worse, I shouldn’t be allowed to make such a choice in the first place. Trying to illiterate the consequences to these people of not being allowed to think for oneself is much more than just an exercise in futility, the fact that they simply can’t grasp the ramifications of surrendering their autonomy, is frightening. Have the Smoking Ban crusaders lost their collective mind? How nice that the un-elected, self-appointed purveyors of hate toward a specific consumer group get to decide what’s best for me, my friends, my family, my patrons, and my staff. Isn’t democracy an awesome thing to behold?, …especially when it’s manipulated into being a legislative weapon against a particular group that has deliberately chosen to ignore those that think “smokers” should be living as instructed, rather than how they choose to on their own.

By Patty

November 21, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Jim, I seriously doubt you care to go into some small redneck neighborhood bar. Therefore, if everybody in the neighborhood bar wants to smoke how is it affecting your health. Cause some day you MIGHT want to actually socialize with them, NOT. Are you saying you do not want a person to open a bar that caters only to smokers cause it leaves you out! Or is it you feel you have a right to everything so noon has a right to open a bar that caters only to smokers and not you?!

By Michael J. McFadden

November 21, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

Of course the ACS “chief lobbyist” is going to come out with a poll showing people like the smoking ban. Duh. That’s his JOB! Anyone who knows anything about polls and surveys knows how easy it is to tell lies with them, and that’s exactly what the antismoking lobbyists do best: lie. They lie about the “health threat” from wisps of smoke in well-ventilated businesses, they lie about the economic effects of smoking bans, and they lie about the social effects of throwing smokers out onto the sidewalks. To see some of their lies, go to the smokersclub dot com site and search for the short “Stiletto” booklet available there. You’ll see how bans like Ohio’s get passed based on lies, and hopefully you’ll be angry enough about it to call your legislators and tell them to support SB 346, a law that supports what the voters TRULY wanted. Michael J. McFadden, Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

By Patty

November 21, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Nelson, Wright-Patt banned smoking and enforced the ban in all buildings in the 80s! It was never overturned!

By Chuck

November 21, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

31% of registered voters is hardly overwhlming. 20% of eligiable voters is even worse. Why was issue 5 put on the ballot in an off year election.

By b rogers

November 21, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

EXEMPT: 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

By b rogers

November 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT OHIO VOTED FOR AS FOLLOWS; State Issue 5: Certified Ballot Language Prohibit smoking in places of employment and most public places - Smoke Free PROPOSED LAW (Proposed by Initiative Petition) To enact Chapter 3794. of the Ohio Revised Code to restrict smoking in places of employment and most places open to the public. The proposed law would: Prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment; 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 Authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke; Allow for the declaration of an establishment, facility, or outdoor area as nonsmoking; Require the posting of “No Smoking” signs, and the removal of all ashtrays and similar receptacles from any area where smoking is prohibited; Specify the duties of the department of health to enforce the smoking restrictions Create in the state treasury the “smoke free indoor air fund;” Provide for the enforcement of the smoking restrictions and for the imposition of civil fines upon anyone who violates the smoking restrictions. a majority yes vote is necessary for passage. YES SHALL THE PROPOSED LAW BE ADOPTED? NO CERTIFICATION I, Gretchen A. Quinn, Esq., acting in my capacity as the duly-designated secretary of the Ohio Ballot Board, hereby certify to the Secretary of the State of Ohio that the foregoing text is the ballot language prescribed by the Ohio Ballot Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution and section 3505.062 of the Revised Code of Ohio, for this law proposed by initiative petition for submission to the Ohio electorate at the election to be held on November 7, 2006. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name at Columbus, Ohio, this 24 th day of August 2006.

By Ray

November 21, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Senate Bill 346 is Bullcrap. The people of Ohio have spoken when Issue 5 passed a couple of years ago. If you don’t like the State No Smoking Law…..move!

By Hey, Jim

November 21, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Jim, have you even looked at the changes in the bill? This is hardly an “overturning”. In fact, what they are doing will make the text of the law match the text that appeared on the ballot — which, I daresay, is the only place where most of you read the law that was being proposed. Is your church in full compliance yet?

By ichoosefreedom

November 21, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

I’m a little tired of ACS’s (excuse me, SmokeFree Ohio’s) polls. Note it’s always the same number of people polled. Hoctor says 97% of the people surveyed who voted YES understood what they were voting for. What he doesn’t tell you is that’s 97% of 600 people. And YES, they understood they were voting for exemptions. Notice the question didin’t ask if they were voting for exemtions for family owned businesses & private clubs. Like 600 represents the 2,370,369 who voted “YES”. They must be a “special” group. Here’s an idea. Let’s poll the families who have invested their life savings into their OWNED businesses. You know, THEIR property? Let’s poll the private clubs who have been donating so generously, before the ban, to charities. The only people who should be polled are the people who are losing everything they have. Or how about all you anti-smokers getting out and patronizing these businesses who CATERED TO YOU because you whined about having no place to go. Because of YOU families are losing everything. Because of YOU we’re begging the legislature for exemptions. Our family owned businesses are our “polls” and why don’t you ask us what OUR polls say? Our polls are our cash register receipts. Our polls are our rapidly emptying savings accounts. You want to tell us what to do with our business. Then BUY IT. I want want it was worth BEFORE the ban.

By Jim

November 21, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Patty, I feel I have the right to walk into any public facility, bar, or restaurant, and not breathe second hand smoke. Everyone deserves the right to work in a smoke free enviornment. If someone chooses to smoke, take the one min. trip and step outside. California and New York had this figured out years ago. It sometimes seems like Ohio is intellectually challenged and always a step behind.

By Jim

November 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Gilly’s went non smoking for two important reasons. Jerry’s health, and most of the musicians requested it. I have been going to Gilly’s for years, and enjoy it much better as a smoke free club.

By Jim

November 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

This ban was voted in by a overwhelming majority. Now we have some government officials who want to take Ohio back a step, and repeal the law and the will of the voters. We cann0ot allow this to happen. Write or email your state officials.

By Hey "KAF"

November 21, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Great job on the ad hominem attack. Despite the fact that nothing in your comment has any substance to it (ie, that eby-brown sells cigarettes to children), I’m sure you’ve completely discredited her. yah, right. Why don’t you try your hand in the smoking forum at topixdotcom There’s a Dayton non-smoker there who would de-bunk your every argument. LOL at you, honey! LOL

By Addictionisn'tfreedom

November 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

If you support clean indoor air, go to smokefreeohio.org to sign a letter to your state senator objecting to weakening our current law.

By Where's Your Sign?

November 21, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

To all of you who mistakenly think that you know what you voted for with this law, be sure and note whether your churches are in compliance. If they are not, then you need to call the 800 number and report them immediately. And if you don’t know why your church could possibly be in violation of the Indoor Smoking Ban, then you don’t know what you voted for, you liars. 97% of you claim to know what you voted for. Most of you are liars.

By nelson smallenbarger

November 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

i think they should not change the smoking law the people voted it down. i used to work at wpafb year ago and they allowed smaoking in the building. now i never smoked . i never smoked . today i have real bad lungs becuse they smoked in the building i have to take breathing medicine and get real tired and lack oxrgen due not change this law nelson s

By ReasonOverRationalization

November 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

KJ said: “When your most private acts are a concern of the government, they suddenly become your most public acts.” -G.K. Chesterton. In other words, when your most private things, such as your health and body are a concern to government, they cease to be private. They are now public things which the government has a right to control. This is what the smoking ban is all about and why it is wrong! To which I have one question, is this really a private act? I have never participated in what I consider to be a private act and had smokers watch it. Nice quote, it is just not appropriate for the circumstance. If the smokers were smoking in private this would not be an issue. We are talking about what is already a very public act. It is amazing the twisted logic that is being used to rationalize a nasty addiction. But, I have never met an addict who could not rationalize their addiction.

By Patty

November 21, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Gilly’s was a non-smoking bar before the ban. I have asked the non-smokers on this blog if they went to Gillys. I have received no answers. That’s because no they did not go to Gillys. The point I am trying to make is that they did not support or show support for a bar that went non-smoking years before the ban. The non-smokers in this blog just don’t want anybody smoking anywhere even if it does not affect the non-smokers health.

By Musician

November 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Weakening the ban is the best thing that could happen so us musicians could get back to working regularly. NOTHING has thrown a wrench into our livelihoods more than this absolutely ridiculous ban. It wasn’t what the “overwhelming majority” voted for anyway. No exemption in the ballot language is being acknowledged at this time. Ohioans did not vote for this no matter how the SFO ilk cares to spin their usual deceptive yarns.

By b rogers

November 21, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

According to the Ohio Dept. of Taxation, 315 drinking establishments closed in 2007 after the ban. More than 5,400 people lost their jobs. A potential of 67.44 million dollars was lost among permit holders. Smoking bans are not good for businesses but freedom of choice and diversity is!

By HalM

November 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Look all you old vets; stay at home if you must smoke. P.S. I am one of you (vet) that was subjected to smoke from my family, co-workers and countless others who didn’t care about me or my comfort (or health) for years.

By KAF

November 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

null=kim.bernas@eby-brown.com. Eby-brown is “the largest privately owned tobacco, candy, and convenience distributor in the United States” (eby-brown.com). Of course people who profit from addicting children to nicotine would be in favor of loosening smoking restrictions (8 out of 10 smokers begin smoking as children).

By null

November 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

I am glad people are finally starting to see there needs to be some kind of compromise of both sides. I would vote YES for the chance to be equal to a non-smoker….again.

By Alice M. Martin

November 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

I think these Legislators better remember who voted for them. They can be removed. Afterall the vote to Ban Smoking everywhere was overwhelmingly approved and can be done again. They have no right to overturn a vote of the people. They need a wakeup call and I do hope this paper will send the comments to each of the 13 that is sponsoring this bill Thank You.

By Richard F. Jones

November 21, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

It was only a matter of time before this ban would be reconsidered and revised. The claims that folks knew what they were voting for is hog wash. Many who voted for a partial ban, ended up voting for a total ban and ended up banning themselves, only because the legal language of the law was so confusing, no one knew what they were voting for. Plus with the downward spiral of the world economic situation, all of which has a direct impact on all businesses, including bars, restaurants, and private clubs, the revision of this law will have to be revisited and dealt with in a manner that permits patrons to light up. The loss of revenue in any business is a loss of taxes and general fund for any state, including Ohio. Ohio especially is strapped due to the closings and merger acquisitions of so many firms, causing more and more pink slipped employment. It is also a known fact that beer and liquor sales are up in resale outlets as more people do there alcohol consumption at home. As are cigarette sales, up dramatically. Yet veteran posts, fraternal clubs and family owned bars, sales are down. This impacts not only locally, but contributes to the overall health of the state and nation. So when I read about how the American Cancer Society took a poll of voters and voters knew what they were voting for, I know for a fact that poll is tainted to favor a smoke free Ohio.

By KAF

November 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Nancy, so voters were presented with Issue 4 which had numerous exemptions and Issue 5 which had no exemptions, but were “tricked” into voting for Issue 5? No one is buying your argument except people who did NOT vote for Issue 5.

By Nancy

November 21, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

Voters were tricked into this ban because the two issues were confusing? Some people I know voted for the ban and they smoke? Hurray for the possible weakening of this ban?

By Karen Levin

November 21, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

With regard to Tom Roberts’ position on allowing exemptions for the smoking ban…SHAME ON YOU! Don’t you realize smoking and second-hand smoke causes more health related illnessess and deaths each year than I can sit down and relate in one blog. How dare you and those other 13 co-sponsors try to circumvent the will of the electorate. I am graduating tomorrow with my Masters in Public Health and all I can say is if you try to get this amendment passed you will be responsible for opening the gate for smoking related deaths and diseases to increase in our state. What were you thinking when you endorsed this lame-brained bill? It sounds like a classic example of “cranial-anal inversion”. I have always voted for you and with the exception of this incident, you have done a credible job. I really would like to have the opportunity to speak with you about this. Karen L.

By Dave

November 21, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Since the smoking ban was voted in by the people, any changes to that ban should also be voted on by the people, not changed by legislators. If you don’t like the ban, collect signatures for a referendum.

By Jim

November 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

I was at awe when I red the article Not just by the smoking ban but the fact that our lawmakers are changing a law that was overwelmingly voted in. Does this mean they can vote for a new govener too or a nother they can’t agree with. These privetly owned Bars ect have people that dont smoke working that rely on the jobs and cannot quit.So are people that have no self control running the state? Question If the Ohio Lawmakers allow smoking is the State now lible for the long term care of canser, and other smoking related deseases I think so

By Jim

November 21, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

I was at awe when I red the article Not just by the smoking ban but the fact that our lawmakers are changing a law that was overwelmingly voted in. Does this mean they can vote for a new govener too or a nother they can’t agree with. These privetly owned Bars ect have people that dont smoke working that rely on the jobs and cannot quit.So are people that have no self control running the state? Question If the Ohio Lawmakers allow smoking is the State now lible for the long term care of canser, and other smoking related deseases I think so

By Patty

November 21, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Again to all you non-smokers. Gilly’s was a non-smoking bar way before the smoking ban, how many of you here were customers?

By Rick

November 21, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Smoking should NOT be allowed in restaurants or bowling alleys where children go. And there are non-smokers who would like to go to bars or nightclubs and that is usually on weekend nights. So allow smoking in bars anytime except Friday-Saturday evenings starting at 7.

By kurt

November 21, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

…..furthermore,a buisness owner does NOT give up his property rights just because he’s in buisness.If non-smokers would use common sense,they would collectively boycott smoking places but there will always be and should be places for smokers to go.Some more do-gooder legislation !!!

By Elrod Adams

November 21, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

State Sen. Roberts needs to fully explain his reasoning for intending to overturn the smoking ban. And the DDN needs to ask harder questions or print fuller answers than this article provided. Is this a legitimate usurpation of popular authority? Why? Why would you vote to reintroduce toxic smoke into closed environments? Is your reasoning libertarian? Or is there a legitimate business complaint about government interference? Should the people not have been allowed to demand the businesses they patronize prohibit smoking? Or what?

By Hog

November 21, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

It’s nice to see that 13 of our State Senators have time to co-sponsor a bill that will overturn the smoking ban that Ohio voters have voted in twice. I mean with the stock market strong, schools with all the money they need, and industry thriving in Ohio, it’s a breath of fresh air to see that they are using their time wisely. Of the 13 co-sponsors, I wonder what legislation they have worked on in the past year or two on the other topics mentioned?

By kurt

November 21, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Non-smoking laws should NEVER have been brought to the people—they set a legal precedent on when and how to use a TAXED product.You want smoke-free bars,tell your senator to lift ALL taxes off of them—what’s next,M.A.D.D. turning all bars into carry-outs only ? When a product is taxed,it is acknowledged as legal !!!!!

By Patty

November 21, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

The discussion here is because there is a bill to make some exemptions to the smoking ban. And yes smokers still go to bars and they go outside to smoke, no problem there. BUT they don’t stay as long and they don’t spend as much money as they did before the ban. Smokers just want a place for themselves - you know a place just for smokers that is inside. They are not forcing you to go there and actually they don’t want you in their smoking bar. So hopefully this new bill will pass and indoors will stay smoke free but with the addition of smokers only places!

By Capt Oblivious

November 21, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

You smokers that are crying over lost business to bars obviously aren’t getting out very much. Smokers still go to the bars!!! They just smoke outside. So lets be real about why you want the ban overturned you don’t want to get off your lazy rear ends and go outside to smoke. Boo-Hoo. Bars are booming all over the place, a perfect example is Cincinnati where you have the N. Ky bars and establishments right across the river from the Cincy businesses that do not allow smoking. The Cincy bars are taking them to the cleaners, and its not even close at this point. You people gripping about lost freedoms just sound stupid. This is not the government that went out and said “hey let’s ban smoking”, it was the people of this state. Stop crying and get over it. Nothing but a bunch of crybabies. If you want this changed you have two options: 1) you can leave the state (good riddance); or 2) you can get a petition before the ballot again (good luck!!). Those are your options. Crying in the Dayton Daily and thinking that will solve anything is just stupid. Non-smokers don’t like smoke, your endless whining about how it infringes on ‘your freedoms’, will not change that.

By Patty

November 21, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this

Yeah Steve, logic, reasoning, and compromise are concepts to difficult for you to grasp.

By Anthony Graham

November 21, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

In today's economy with businesses going south(folding), it is difficult for the mom and pop businesses to stay above profit level. I think it is a great ideal to allow smokers in these types of businesses to help them to survive. Businesses such as private clubs, bars, bowling alleys, and dining places that are owned by hard working citizens who are trying to make a living without corporate money. These people are struggling and I feel "smokers" would bring back some of the revenue that has been lost since the ban. Tom Roberts in a nutshell is trying to help the,"Little Businessman and woman survive. I support the Ideal.

By me

November 21, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this

im surprised we are allowed to smoke in our cars still…i go to bars and dont mind the fact that i have to go outside to smoke. if it bothers you then stay away from it, common sense people. oh and to the person that said smokers are typically fat, redneck losers…get real….im not fat nor redneck and have a college degree, its all personal preference. ill do what i want.

By Katie O'Donoghue Ly

November 21, 2008 7:41 AM | Link to this

Our three year old daughter, Allison was born with only one lung and has chronic lung disease. As a result she has lived her life on supplemental oxygen. Allison’s lung is now healthy and large enough to allow us to begin weening her from oxygen. She can go to any public restaurant, bowling alley, etc. like any other three year old. Don’t take that freedom away from us. We voted YES! on Issue 5 to protect my daughter’s one and only lung, as well as the lives of those living with compromised respiratory systems. Senate Bill 346 is a danger to society and does not favor the common good!

By MR A

November 21, 2008 6:16 AM | Link to this

There is more than enough room to cater to both groups and come out with a better since of what our country was founded upon, ( rights, and freedoms ). The idiotic ideology of people who seem to believe that taking away a businesses main source of revenue is good for all is not only harmful, it has shown through the last year just how much damage it has caused. Look at the numbers, the bottom line you simple minded idiots, businesses are closing, restaurants are cutting their labor by 20 percent or hiring fewer people, lowering their menu prices, lowering quality control etc. And you continue to feed the snake that bites you? To the politicians who support changing this to accommodate the suffering businesses I applaud you, to the people who support this I also applaud you. To the people who do not smoke but are in favor of a simple compromise I applaud you and your intelligence to know the difference. To the hard line simple minded drones who are still hooked up to the anti groups IV line, I feel sorry for you.

By Peacekeeper

November 21, 2008 6:12 AM | Link to this

My mom owns a bar in downtown Dayton and her business has suffered a lot over this. I can see banning smoking at restauraunts, I’m a non-smoker and I have been enjoying eating in a smoke-free environment. However bars are different and most of her customers are smokers. I know of bars that have shut down because their business died off, hopefully this will pass. It’s already tough enough to make it with the financial situation we have, there are going to be a lot more bankruptcies in Ohio if we don’t start helping the small business owners.

By Jammin

November 21, 2008 5:15 AM | Link to this

If you are going out in public to do anything you have to deal with somebodys’ bad habits-too loud, to much fragrance on, smoking, etc. If you don’t like it-stay home.

By jeez...

November 21, 2008 4:41 AM | Link to this

Why stop with the smoking ban? There are just as many risks associated with obesity,type 2 diabetes mellitis..heart disease..sleep apnea..Why not ban fast food chains?They pander their unhealthy wares..even targeting children with larger portion choices in their kids meals.Look at taco bell..encouraging people to have a “fourth meal”. Certainly all the advertising encouraging people to gorge themselves in fatty food could be considered as enticement or peer pressure, meaning the health of my family could be affected. Studies do suggest that obese adults tend to raise children with the same unhealthy lifestyles. Sure, we could leave it to personal responsibility..I mean..I only partake in eating fast food once a month..but the kids always come home complaining about eating green vegetables when their friends are out having cheeseburgers and they think that that is the only food that is any good. So even with my own personal responsibility and good decision making the health evil that is fasat food still manages to make its way into my home. So..by all means..ban fast food too. According to all the arguments for smoking it meets the criteria for government regulation. Bring on the American Heart Association and Diabetes foundations and start the petitions! But wait..maybe there is something about personal freedom and choice on the law books somewhere that I’m forgetting about..some people are quite content with potential neuropathy, gangrene, heart attacks and cellulitis..as long as they still get to have their whole- days- worth- of- calories- in- a- single- sandwich value meal. I suppose that is their choice, just as it is mine to abstain from it…so long as the smokers stay twenty feet from the exit..at least their lungs will be free from disease…

By SHUT UP!!!

November 21, 2008 4:05 AM | Link to this

Everyone has an opinion, I smoke, but I smoke outside, its my choice!!! I feel that it should be up to the businesses to decide, not the goverment!!!, To the ppl who say smokers are stupid, smelly rednecks, SHUT UP!!, I’m sure you have habits too, but WE CHOOSE to do this, and if you don’t like it, GO ELSEWHERE! I can understand bowling alleys and resturants, but not bars. I’m so sick of all the bigotry. Keep your juvinile comments to yourselves! ITS A FREE COUNTRY!! SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP, you don’t smoke, so why care what others do?

By bob

November 21, 2008 2:58 AM | Link to this

Free country? Yes it is…you are free to move to a state that allows smoking in indoor public spaces. I’d like to remember when the ban passed and all the smokers predicted that all the bars and restaurants would close. Amazing how they haven’t….

By Disgusted by insensitivity

November 21, 2008 2:36 AM | Link to this

I am a smoker and honestly I don’t mnd the ban at all. Mainly b/c i smoke outside at home anyway b/c of my kids and my mom was a non smoker who worked as a waitress for 40 years and every year had pnuemonia from working in smokey enviroments. I feel its my choice to pollute my own body but I certainly don’t want to expose my little ones to second hand smoke in a resturaunt when i go to so many measures at home. Now bars on the other hand i think non smokers should just suck that up. Bars should remain smoking you have to be over 21 to enter and if you are a non smoker you can work at tgi fridays as a bartender if you don’t like the smoke.

By cc

November 21, 2008 1:27 AM | Link to this

I thought the voters already voted on this issue. Do we also need to vote again to see who will be in the white house come January?

By null

November 21, 2008 12:11 AM | Link to this

This used to be a free country but little by little the government takes away a piece of freedom. For all the nonsmokers, I say let’s take something you enjoy doing and tax it to death and tell you when and where you can or cannot do it. Bet you’d change your tune really fast! Mind your own business.

By toomuchtv

November 21, 2008 12:05 AM | Link to this

Sen.Ton Roberts needs a real nine to five. He does nothing in the state house, send him home ASAP. Send goofy R.Mclin with him, and give her a bottle of liquor. Oh, and pack of cigerettes.

By Julie D.

November 20, 2008 11:15 PM | Link to this

I’m a nonsmoker, but I must say, the people who go to bars and complain about the smoke are the same kind of people who buy houses near airports and then complain about the noise. Duh.

By KAF

November 20, 2008 8:52 PM | Link to this

If you support clean indoor air, go to smokefreeohio.org to sign a letter to your state senator objecting to weakening our current law.

By Capt Oblivious

November 20, 2008 8:22 PM | Link to this

DURL you have got to be kidding me. “In the Republic of Georgia people have smoked for hundreds of years, yet cancer is almost non existant.” Well that is just priceless, let me go consult the census bureau of the ‘Republic of Georgia’ to check on the wonderful track record that a former Soviet Republic keeps on their lung cancer victims. I wonder if they correlate those records of with the statistics of people that were dragged out in the street and shot and/or those that were worked to death in forced labor camps. Perhaps we could build a gulag for you smokers, since you are afterall, so terribly persecuted being forced to keep your nasty habits outside.

By KAF

November 20, 2008 7:52 PM | Link to this

Durl, it is an established scientific fact that smoking causes lung cancer. It has been so since the 1960s. Even the tobacco companies don’t dispute this anymore. Nicotine addiction effects not only the lungs, but the brain as well.

By Tom

November 20, 2008 7:48 PM | Link to this

1st off I’m a smoker. It is my desire to be able to go into an establishment that allows smoking. EVERYONE IS ARGUING THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE! Then anyone who receives any form of assistance from the government cannot smoke in their place of residence. I WORK AND PAY TAXES ON 50K+ PLUS A YEAR TO SUPPORT GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. Such as ADC [we must protect the children] Section 8 Housing [they can’t afford to pay for their housing]. Medical Cards [my insurance sucks $5000.00 max out pocket a year and it costs me $50.00 a week $2600.00 a year,and I cannot afford to go to a doctor]. SO LET’S BRING THIS UP NO GOVERNMENT MONEY NO SMOKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Had this issue been brought this way people on the dole my have voted another way. My list can go on.

By ken

November 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

Too bad we don’t have a medical lobby. The fact that respiratory illness took a nose-dive after the ban isn’t enough to keep our dictatory government from getting its way. Majority rules only if our politicians aren’t getting their pockets stuffed.

By ken

November 20, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this

Too bad we don’t have a medical lobby. The fact that respiratory illness took a nose-dive after the ban isn’t enough to keep our dictatory government from getting its way. Majority rules only if our politicians aren’t getting their pockets stuffed.

By Ken

November 20, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this

Too bad we don’t have a medical lobby. The fact that respiratory illness took a nose-dive after the ban puts the majority rule out on the curb. Majority rules only if our politicians are getting their pockets stuffed.

By Ken

November 20, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this

Too bad we don’t have a medical lobby. The fact that respiratory illness took a nose-dive after the ban puts the majority rule out on the curb. Majority rules only if our politicians are getting their pockets stuffed.

By DURL

November 20, 2008 6:48 PM | Link to this

KAF said “According to the US Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC), tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death, killing more Americans than AIDS, illegal drugs, alcohol, car crashes, murder, and suicide, combined.” You are paroting the same old stale data that The World Health Organization could not verify. They could not get the results they wanted at all, but would not retract what was already in play. In the Republic of Georgia people have smoked for hundreds of years, yet cancer is almost non existant. Many of you should take a closer look at GM foods and MTBE in in the gasolene if you are truly concerned for your health!

By DURL

November 20, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this

I am shocked to see so many communists on here! I guess the takeover was quite a success. Enjoy your New World Order.

By R

November 20, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

At 18, Americans are deemed competent to undertake great risk for pleasure (e.g. skydiving) or business (e.g. joining the military). In establishments where everyone is above 18 years of age (say, bars), and therefore competent to assume the risks associated with secondhand smoke… who is this law protecting?

By KAF

November 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

Sex toys are legal, but their legality doesn’t give you the right to use them in a restaurant, bowling alley, or daycare center. The government also tells you what you can do with your body- you can’t walk into a bar naked or engage in sexual acts at the Denney’s. But perhaps such laws should be overturned along with the smoking ban?

By KJ

November 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

“When your most private acts are a concern of the government, they suddenly become your most public acts.” -G.K. Chesterton. In other words, when your most private things, such as your health and body are a concern to government, they cease to be private. They are now public things which the government has a right to control. This is what the smoking ban is all about and why it is wrong!

By BP

November 20, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

It’s a free country. It’s a legal substance. If you don’t like it, then open up a non smoking bar and rake in the profits. If someone wants to allow smoking in their bar, then they should have the right. The current law is very unjust to people that want to enjoy a legal substance. It is total infringement on our individual rights. Make tobacco an illegal drug and then I could see this law being just.

By BP

November 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

It’s a free country. It’s a legal substance. If you don’t like it, then open up a non smoking bar and rake in the profits. If someone wants to allow smoking in their bar, then they should have the right. The current law is very unjust to people that want to enjoy a legal substance. It is total infringement on our individual rights. Make tobacco an illegal drug and then I could see this law being just.

By KAF

November 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

According to the US Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC), tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death, killing more Americans than AIDS, illegal drugs, alcohol, car crashes, murder, and suicide, combined.

By Smith

November 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

Go through and read Patty’s comments, but do it with a really thick redneck accent (make sure to read all of the terrible grammar as well). It will easily be the funniest thing you’ll read all day. As well as enforce the point that nobody should be listening to her…

By KJ

November 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Anti smoking laws are simply “to deny common pleasures to the common man.” Smoking is something enjoyable and normal that people have enjoyed for hundreds of years and for the “New Puritans” to lump it in with all that is evil is wrong. “A society is in decay when it places more emphasis on adhering to minor morals while ignoring major morals.”- G.K. Chesterton

By non drinker

November 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

Most of you nonsmokers are nothing but a bunch of do gooders that sit in your bars and drink your liquor or beers then come out and drive on my Street and put my family in jeopardy. I think I would rather face a puff of smoke then a 2000 lb car any day. BIG BROTHER is WATCHING…Maybe MADD will be try to start closing the bars.

By KAF

November 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

It is the role of government, not business, to protect the safety and health of workers and the public. We don’t let bar owners decide if they want to add antifreeze to their drinks. We don’t say that it’s up to restaurants if they want to serve food contaminated with chemicals or animal waste. We don’t give business owners the right to use lead paint or lead gasoline or asbestos insulation. We don’t allow coal companies to decide whether they will supply miners with safety equipment. We don’t allow contruction businesses to decide where hard hats are worn. Private businesses adhere to many regulations to protect people- as they should. People who don’t agree should be asking for the end of ALL health and safety regulations, not just the one concerning smoking.

By Tomas

November 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

I am a professional musician and was employed on September 26th to play in a big band at the FOE in Fairborn. This is one of the “private clubs” in which state senators want to allow smoking to resume.  I am not a member of this club, thus allowing me the ability to challenge the “private” label of this place.  The event was to recognize Honor Flights to the WW II memorial in Washington, DC.  No one was smoking and the extremely small number of people who DID, went outside to do so.  The audience was made up of people from the public mostly, and not members of the Eagles-again challenging the “private” status. These people also would have had to breathe unwanted smoke if SB 346 bill had already passed and been in place.  I discussed this with a few of the attendees (many WW II vets) who said that they could not tolerate a return to this unhealthy atmosphere and may not have come to the event if smoking WAS going to take place inside.  I should not have my health compromised while earning a living as professional musician.

By Karen

November 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

I said it then and I’ll say it now. I was under the misguided impression that we lived in a “free” country. It should be up to the business owners not the government. But then again if the democrats had their way everything would be run by the government.

By UrbanDweller

November 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

All I know is, Sen. Tom Roberts, D-Dayton isn’t getting my vote next election.

By Tvols

November 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

WOW….some of you people are just outright ignorant. You really should keep your comments to yourselves! If you don’t know the facts…shut up!

By Tvols

November 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

WOW….some of you people are just outright ignorant. You really should keep your comments to yourselves!

By Smokers are STUPID

November 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

FOLKS, BOTTOM LINE IS THIS:SMOKERS SMELL BAD, LOOK RETARDED, DIE EARLY, POLLUTE THE AIR EVERYWHERE THEY GO, AND DID I MENTION ARE SMELLY AND ARE STUPID? YEAH WHAT A SMART HABIT ALL I KNOW IS I OWN A TON OF STOCK IN PHILIP MORRIS BECAUSE I PLAN TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF SMOKERS WHO HAVE ZERO SELF CONTROL. LOSERS….. BUT KEEP BUYING YOUR CIGS SO I CAN KEEP MAKING MONEY OFF OF YOUR TYPICALLY FAT ASSESS!

By Reggie98ud

November 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Hey amused, at least have the spine to tell us which establishment is yours. I am a non-smoker that has frequented several establishments that used to be smoking. I have also turned in 2 bars that were allowing smoking. Needless to say, I have not been to those bars again. I’ll stay at the bars that do not allow smoking and most of the crowd I hang out with will join me there.

By KAF

November 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Smoking is strongly correlated to education levels. 44% of people with a GED smoke compared to just 6% of those with a graduate degree.

By KAF

November 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

Smoking is strongly correlated to education levels. 44% of people with a GED smoke compared to just 6% of those with graduate degree.

By Holly

November 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

I am a smoker and I support the smoking ban.It doesnt bother me at all to go outside or to my car to smoke. I think the smoking ban should be revised to some point. Bars and clubs should have a choice to decide if they want smoking in their establishment or not.But in my opinon,restaurants should be smoke free so people with children and also the elderly can breathe easy and enjoy their meal.C’mon people its all about respect.Give some,get some.

By XU

November 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

HEY AMUSED, WE DID USE OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO CHOOSE! WE CHOSE NOT TO HAVE TO SUCK POISON. I WORK IN A BAR, AND OUR NUMBERS ARE UP, AND BUSINESS IS GREAT! SO YOUR BAR JUST MUST BE POORLY RUN!!

By college student

November 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

most people i know voted for the ban cause they didnt think it would pass. Some didnt know what it was yapping about. Honestly i dont mind going outside to smoke. Campus life is a little more of a pain in the butt cause i have to go pretty far from the building in which i have class. I’ve always been a polite smoker so i really dont like people telling me what i can and cant do on the subject. but bars have always had smokers in them. you dont like it go to a club, they normally only allow smoking outside. see the difference? maybe its because i grew up in a big city to have this view. I dont see anyone driving less to save my health or the earth. <3 much love

By Capt Oblivious

November 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

I guess the government shouldn’t be dictating to us that we can’t drink alcohol and drive in your screwed up little world, eh ‘noneyourbus’? Please provide concrete proof that these businesses of your that you all seem to think are struggling are suffering because of the smoking ban. I happen to live in downtown Cincy and I can tell you from Thursday to Saturday night, Northern Kentucky (which STILL ALLOWS SMOKING and which always had better bars and night life areas….and more of them) is catching a beating in business revenue compared to Downtown Cincy’s nightlife. I used to have to scour the earth to find a parking spot in Mainstrasse in Covington, KY….not anymore. Now you have to pay $5-10 a night to get a spot in a corporate garage in Cincy. The bars down there are booming better than ever. Why? Because people like going out to a bar and not smelling like crap because a few people who stepped a bit too far out of the trailer park decided it would be better to catch a whiff of their cancer sticks over the perfume that all the UC girls were throwing on to get a guy’s attention. You smokers are hopeless. You’d rather scare away attractive women just to get your fix, than actually grow the nuts to go talk to one. Fudgepackers.

By Patty

November 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

For all of you that say go outside - we do, but funny how when summer comes you then want the patios too! Here is a comment from smokechoke.com “My husband, two young children, & I thought we’d enjoy a nice meal on their patio last night only to find that there was AT LEAST one person at every table around us smoking. There were also people at the bar puffing away. We discussed this with the manager and were told that because the sides were open (there was a roof over us) and she was allowing circulation then smoking was permitted. What?!? They have 2 patios on the river - one with the roof where we sat and the other with just tables and umbrellas. Both patios allow smoking. What happened to allowing non-smokers fresh air to breathe while eating their meal? It was seriously disgusting and we won’t be returning.” So why was this family on the patio, we all know the patios are the smoking areas - outside.

By Amused

November 20, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Noneyourbus..agreed. Alcohol and smokes go hand and hand for most. I hope it does pass and when it does I’ll thank that one out of a million non-smoker who came in to eat, since all of them “say” they frequent now, but you didn’t pay my bills, not enough of you who “actually” came in since the ban! I’ll take my smokers back ANY DAY!

By noneyourbus

November 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Right1 & Josh, you both are 100% correct. The government needs to keep their noses out of this. If all of you non-smokers don’t want to be bothered by smoke, go elsewhere! I for one am sick and tired of the government sticking their nose in my business and everyone trying to dictate how I have to live! Funny thing is, we now have a soon to be president who smokes!! HaHaHa! Of course that still doesn’t make me like him!

By Capt Oblivious

November 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Well lets apply this stupid smoker logic to other things. I should have a right to carry a firearm into a school because it’s personal choice. I should have a right to have an open drinking container because it’s personal choice. I should be allowed to molest my own children on MY property….after all they are mine and I own the joint. Sounds idiotic doesn’t it? And Patty you are two scoops of stupid if you think the majority did not vote for this. There were two issues on the ballot: The one to ban smoking everywhere passed with a 59% yes vote. The other (which was put on the ballot by tabacco special interest groups) would have overridden the first measure, and would have enacted limited smoking as was suggested in the new intiative outlined in this article….this was shot down with a 64% ‘NO’ vote. What part of the definition of ‘majority’ did you miss out on in grade school when you were ditching class to burn down a cancer stick?

By june

November 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

There was a vote, it is too bad this group of senators should be more concerned about property taxes and school funding. The world is going to hell, and their concern is smoking.

By Amused

November 20, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

Well now a days they say you can get cancer from tap water, I think I’ll write to have a ban put on it since it’s obviously going to affect my health. Scientists, doctors, etc…they come up with theories. I know someone who died of lung cancer, NEVER around smokers, NEVER smoked a day in their life. But smokers “stereotypically” are the cause? I love this country :) Businesses were not doomed from the start who may have had to close, I work where it affected my pay and our business tremendously! And that’s straight from the customer’s mouths! Regardless of the “economy” people are going to drink and hang out in bars, it’s their entertainment for the weekend, they are ADULTS, they have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to CHOOSE.

By nObama

November 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Patty, quit making things up. Everyone I talked to knew exactly what Issue 5 was meant to do vs. the crap legislation supported by you smokers and the tobacco industry (I think it was issue 4). I suppose most knuckle draggers like yourself don’t understand complex things like 1+1 or no smoking anywere! The only undefined areas were the consequences for breaking the law. There were hearings for those establishments who requested exemptions, but all were denied because it was spelled out IN THE LAW! Ohio voted, you lost. I doubt that you think that McCain should be president just because I don’t agree with Obama? Same goes here. As for a bar just for smokers, it won’t work because you’ll have all of the rest of the bars suing because they can’t allow smoking. If you leave it up to the owners, the rights of non-smokers will be infringed upon. You may not mean to, but you will every time you light one up!

By Amused

November 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Well now a days they say you can get cancer from tap water, I think I’ll write to have a ban put on it since it’s obviously going to affect my health. Scientists, doctors, etc…they come up with theories. I know someone who died of lung cancer, NEVER around smokers, NEVER smoked a day in their life. But smokers “stereotypically” are the cause? I love this country :) Businesses were not doomed from the start who may have had to close, I work where it affected my pay and our business tremendously! And that’s straight from the customer’s mouths! Regardless of the “economy” people are going to drink and hang out in bars, it’s their entertainment for the weekend, they are ADULTS, they have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to CHOOSE.

By KAF

November 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Employers have an obligation to provide employees with a work environment free from unnecessary health and safety hazards. Secondhand smoke is a known health hazard, recognized as such by the US Surgeon General, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, etc. The Ohio politicians sponsoring this bill show that they have little understanding of science or medicine, do not care for the well-being of Ohioans, do not care what Ohio voters decided in 2006, and therefore should not hold public office. Go to smokefreeohio.org to send a letter to your Ohio legislators, telling them to protect the right of all Ohio workers and the public to breathe nontoxic, noncarcinogenic air.

By nobodysbis

November 20, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

I am a smoker. I have no problem with the smoking ban. I have enough control to wait or to go outside to smoke. That I smoke is my choice. However, I still believe in the freedom of personal property in this country. If I own something, I have the right to decide what happens in that place, as long as it is not illegal. The Constitution was designed to keep government intervention in out lives to a minimum. That, however, has been conviently forgotten by our leaders and by the masses.

By Chasman

November 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

I will vote with my feet and my wallet—any establishment that allows smoking indoors will not be getting any of my business! Regardless of what anyone says—the ban was voted into law by the majority.

By Patty

November 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

The majority did not vote no! The issues were very confusing and the law was not even clearly defined until after it was in place. We have one of the strictest bands in the nation. The private club members thought they would be exempt so they voted for the ban only thinking of themselves. There were even non-smokers that said they did not realize it was a complete ban from everywhere. People thought that smokers will still be allowed to have their OWN place just for smokers.

By null

November 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

you know, the governmant also thinks that excessive cell phone use hurts people too, causing car crashes, cancer in the body, etc…. lets ban cell phones too!!!!! no talking on cell phones in bars and restaurants, you might be giving someone around cancer from it (ha-ha)

By null

November 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

you know, the governmant also thinks that excessive cell phone use hurts people too, causing car crashes, cancer in the body, etc…. lets ban cell phones too!!!!! no talking on cell phones in bars and restaurants, you might be giving someone around cancer from it (ha-ha)

By Voie of reason

November 20, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

I am against all smoking, how much of my health and fire insurance premiums pay for the ills of smokers? If you want to smoke and not bother anyone, then adjust health and fire insurance rates for smokers and non-smokers, I’ll guarantee the smokers will delight at incresed costs upwards of $4,000 per year.

By Doug

November 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

With 40% of states already having simialr laws and more in the process of passing such legislature-I would not expect this to be adjusted. One could anticipate that within the next 5-10 years, the federal government will require states to pass similar laws or loose out on millions of dollars of grants/aid (similar to when they had to lower their legal alcohol limits years ago).

By chas

November 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Wait I’m confused JSC,only hicks and hillbillies smoke?? Kind of has nothing to do with the article does it??

By Doug

November 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

With 40% of states already having simialr laws and more in the process of passing such legislature-I would not expect this to be adjusted. One could anticipate that within the next 5-10 years, the federal government will require states to pass similar laws or loose out on millions of dollars of grants/aid (similar to when they had to lower their legal alcohol limits years ago).

By Fed Up

November 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

All of you people act like it is the governments fault for this non smoking. Stop it. The people voted and the majority said NO SMOKING. Plain and simple, the givernment isn’t taking

By Doug

November 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

The smoking ban is not necessarily established for a business’s patrons,it is also established to protect the health of the employees.

By null

November 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

I think that it has been great to go into a restaurant and not smel that awful smoke. I have had smokers tell me that it was a breath of fresh air to eat or drink without their eyes burning. Those of you who are listening to the so called gloom and doom from these so called family business’s and the VFW need to take a hard look at what you are considering. Have you been in a VFW? Most of the members look like they are dying from smoking. If they can’t go outside for a smoke then they need an intervention and go to rehab.

By sheila

November 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Permitting family-owned businesses the right to choose IS A PROBLEM. I’m a non-smoker. I work for a business that is family-owned. The top management are all smokers so that means smoking will be permitted everywhere. So I’ll have to leave my good paying job in order to keep my health just because they don’t care about theirs? That’s wrong! I love my job. I just can’t be around smoke. The people of Ohio spoke…majority rules…NO SMOKING in workplaces that have more than ONE NON-related employee regardless of whether publicly or privately owned!

By Vicky

November 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Yes, nonsmokers: please SUPPORT NONSMOKING ESTABLISHMENTS! If a private club or family-owned BAR chooses to allow smoking after the law is modified, stay away from it - punish them by not spending all that money you usually spend in bars - yea right!

By joe

November 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

Mdog…I feel ya on that as well. I think it has helped a lot of people quit. So there you have it, I have officially played both sides of the fence. Hmmm

By joe

November 20, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

You know what? Patty I have to kind of agree with you there. If one goes to a gay bar and gets hit on, it’s because it’s a gay bar. So if you don’t want a dude hitting on you don’t go to a gay bar. You don’t go to the Ohio government and ask them to tell gay people to not hit on you in a gay bar. Even on straight night.

By in the end....

November 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

What most of you dont understand here is that “smokers” (my mother included) dont care about your health! They are addicts!!! Addicts just want their fix when and where ever they can. If they had a loved one get seriously ill from 2nd hand smoke they wouldnt feel a bit responsible…they’d just keep puffing away. So why would you think they cared about you and yours? SUPPORT NONSMOKING ESTABLISHMENTS!!! Its that simple.

By Mdog

November 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Please keep the law as is!!! This law very much helped me quit smoking!

By Patty

November 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Quit being ignorant. Smokers are not trying to infringe on your rights. Smokers are saying give them a place just for them. It’s not that hard to understand. A bar that is for smokers only does not affect you non-smokers in anyway. It does not affect your rights and it does not affect your health. It is a place for smokers only! That’s why the victoria secret example works - its for women and does not cater to men. A smoking bar does not cater to non-smokers and does not affect non-smokers health!

By Vicky

November 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Privately owned businesses definitely should have a right to choose. Bars are for 21 and over adults who can decide for themselves if they want to enter an establishment. Why does Tracy Sabetta care? She doesn’t go to these places anyway. All these people opposed to smoking have done NOTHING to make up for lost business. All they are doing is spending the money you contributed to the American Cancer Society to put private clubs and family-owned businesses into bankruptcy. The Ohio economy is already in the basement and unemployment is at an all-time high. All these bar closings (caused primarily by the smoking ban) have taken jobs from bartenders and servers (most of whom smoke). Nonsmokers can go to those businesses who choose NOT to allow smoking. Pretty simple really.

By jsc

November 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Well that figures! With all we know about the hazzards and dangers of smoking and 2nd hand smoke, there is one logical place for all our recenly made progress to be thrown into reverse…OHIO. What a regressive and backward place this is! Buncha ignorant hicks and hillbillies!

By chas

November 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

Hey Joel, you can worry about what that beer is going to do to you liver as well!! “I don’t want lung cancer, but yet destroying my liver sounds great and I have no one to blame that on but myself!” Some people are such fools.

By kybriar

November 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Look at the exemptions State Issue 5: Certified Ballot Language Prohibit smoking in places of employment and most public places - Smoke Free PROPOSED LAW (Proposed by Initiative Petition) To enact Chapter 3794. of the Ohio Revised Code to restrict smoking in places of employment and most places open to the public. The proposed law would: • Prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment; • 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 • Authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke; • Allow for the declaration of an establishment, facility, or outdoor area as nonsmoking; • Require the posting of “No Smoking” signs, and the removal of all ashtrays and similar receptacles from any area where smoking is prohibited; • Specify the duties of the department of health to enforce the smoking restrictions • Create in the state treasury the “smoke free indoor air fund;” • Provide for the enforcement of the smoking restrictions and for the imposition of civil fines upon anyone who violates the smoking restrictions. a majority yes vote is necessary for passage. YES SHALL THE PROPOSED LAW BE ADOPTED? NO CERTIFICATION I, Gretchen A. Quinn, Esq., acting in my capacity as the duly-designated secretary of the Ohio Ballot Board, hereby certify to the Secretary of the State of Ohio that the foregoing text is the ballot language prescribed by the Ohio Ballot Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution and section 3505.062 of the Revised Code of Ohio, for this law proposed by initiative petition for submission to the Ohio electorate at the election to be held on November 7, 2006. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name at Columbus, Ohio, this 24 th day of August 2006. Gretchen A. Quinn, Esq. Secretary, Ohio Ballot Board

By menosmoke

November 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

I reported a local VFW post to authories and the post was called 2 hours before the inspectors showed up to warn them. Now what good is reporting someone, if they are going to get a warning call?

By menosmoke

November 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

I reported a local VFW post to authories and the post was called 2 hours before the inspectors showed up to warn them. Now what good is reporting someone, if they are going to get a warning call?

By menosmoke

November 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

I reported a local VFW post to authories and the post was called 2 hours before the inspectors showed up to warn them. Now what good is reporting someone, if they are going to get a warning call?

By joe

November 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Though I’m not a smoker, I think smokers get a bad rap. People say things like women that smoke tend to be more loose, or smokers are less intelligent. I’m not a greeing or disagreeing, but…crap I forgot what I was going to say.

By Reggie98ud

November 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Hey Patty, Men going into Victoria Secrets does not kill the woment that also patronize the business. This is not the same as smoking vs. non-smoking. RM25483 had it right along with the Federal Contitutional Republic (democracy is more easily understood by the knuckle draggers here), This is a public health issue first and foremost. It has been proven that secondhand smoke is hazardous to the health of non-smokers! I have the right to carry a gun, but that right ends when I use it to kill another person. Same thing applies to smoking. Your “right” to smoke ends when it impact my health or the health of my family!

By RM25483

November 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Patty said, “This bill does not include restaurants.” Did you read the bill? Here: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127SB346 {The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: A family-owned and operated place of employment. As used in this division, “family-owned and operated place of employment” means a business or corporate structure to which all of the following apply: (1) The business or corporate structure is not publicly owned or traded. (2) The business or corporate structure has a president or chief operating officer who comes from a family having controlling interest in the business or corporate structure. (3) The business or corporate structure is located in a freestanding structure or is separated from any other business by a firewall.

By bill

November 20, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

What’s so difficult about getting up and going outside to smoke? Are smokers truly THAT lazy? It’s called courtesy. They still smoke where I work…right there at their desks! We already know for a fact that smokers are less intelligent than non-smokers. Can’t they just accept the fact that we are better than them and then do our bidding by getting their lazy butts (pun intended) outside to light up?

By heyhey

November 20, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Agreed. Patty is a retard.

By Eddie

November 20, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

Patty: its hypocritical because all of these Smokers are complaining about being kicked out of bars or forced to go outside because of non-smoking laws, that they are losing their rights to enjoy the bar. Now they are turning around and saying that if non-smokers can’t deal with it then THEY need to get out. That’s pretty much the definition of Hypocrisy!!! Retard.

By heyhey

November 20, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go there! Its your right, and its other peoples right to smoke! Quit trying to control!!!

By Patty

November 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

Gilly’s was a non-smoking bar way before the ban. Non-smoking by the choice of the owner. How many of you non-smokers went their before the ban and how many of you go there now.

By joe

November 20, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

I like smoke-free places. I don’t visit bars. Personally I think, let the owners make thier own decision who smoke in their establishment if it’s an adult place. Make them post warnings if you have to. Just don’t do business there. If an establishment wants to allow it and there are people that don’t mind the Carcinogens have at it. Save money and stay home.

By nonsmoker

November 20, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Since the smoking ban, I’ve eaten at restaurants and visited other businesses I avoided before the ban because of the smoke haze in their businesses. If the legislature goes through with this, I’ll gladly take my money to businesses that choose to stay smoke-free.

By smokers are stupid

November 20, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

I suppose the tobacco companies are behind this. Smokers have every right to smoke and kill themselves…let them do in their homes and cars. What they don’t have the right to do is to kill other people with their second hand smoke! Perhaps we non-smokers should start suing every smoker we see for infringing on our rights to breathe fresh air!

By Steve

November 20, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

Smokers pay a lot of taxes, give them a few bars and private clubs to hang out in. Keep it out of restaurants and places with kids, and I think that would probably keep a majority of people pretty happy with the situation.

By Patty

November 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

“I love all the people who say “If you don’t want to breathe the smoke in don’t go in there!” How hypocritical is that?” Why is it hypocritical to have a bar for smokers only - no non-smokers allowed?

By Want2BeASmokeNaziToo

November 20, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

I love the phrase SMOKE NAZI.Those for more government controlling the individual rights of small business are facist pigs.There are communities in CA where smoking is banned in UR own home.Just stop your facist parade & bring back some personal choice.I no longer smoke but everytime I see an antismoking ad or someone complaining about another person who is smoking I just feel like lighting up again.FIRE IT UP…SMOKE IF YOU GOT THEM…I hope all U smoke nazi’s choke on 2nd hand smoke.

By michael

November 20, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

what is a Situational Freedom Lover? I don’t smoke. If you don’t like smoke, stay out of places that allow it. Its the individual owner’s business, and the owner should have the right to choose who he wants as clientel, just as we should have the right to go where we want. 3.To compare smoking with hardcore crime is just rediculous. Quit whining.

By Richard

November 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

null: you couldn’t be any more wrong: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=insurance+programs+for+smokers+to+quit

By null

November 20, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Since all the non-smokers want smokers to quit, and we are killing ourselves, how about fixing the insurance to cover and give us smokers help to quit. You have forgotten that this is also a addiction, just like booze and drugs, but yet insurance does not cover trying to kick a smoking addiction.

By Richard

November 20, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

I love all the people who say “If you don’t want to breathe the smoke in don’t go in there!” How hypocritical is that? Some of the people that post here are just flat out moronic, simple as that.

By Patty

November 20, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

This bill does not include restaurants. What this bill does include is letting the owner of the business decide what customers it wants. Victoria Secret wants women customers. It does not mean men can not go in the store, but it does mean they make product for women and the store does not cater to men. There are no mail magazines for them to read. Actually I think most women would prefer the men stay out. This amended would allow a business owner the decision of whether they want non-smokers or not. Don’t feel sorry for the employees in a smoking bar, they are there by CHOICE. They have that right to make their own decisions without your help or the government’s help!

By Anonymous

November 20, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Smoking Bars are just like Strip Bars. If you don’t agree with them then don’t go. I agree that if it is a family place then smoking shouldn’t be aloud, but clubs and bars that make a living from alcohol sales should at least have the choice. I am smoker and just like non-smokers have a choice, so should we.

By sentinel

November 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

I love how all the smokers think that businesses that went under since the ban went under because of smokers no longer going there. That’s not true, these places were doomed before then. The economy sucks. People don’t realize that this country isn’t really free. We have freedom of religion, speech and expression, not freedom to do whatever we want. God forbid us to take measures that would actually make our society healthier. If you think that everybody should be exposed to a habit that only 2 out of 10 people participate in, that just proves that you are selfish. For those who worked in bars that were smoking, they didn’t have a choice the whole time. Sometimes that’s the only job some people could get a the time. Quit using that as a excuse.

By SmokeNazi

November 20, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Smoke Nazi’s suck.As a former smoker hate the smell of smoke as much as anyone.I also hate that we have taken away the rights of a business owner to decide what goes on in their place of business.If a employee dont like it work someplace else.If a patron dont like it go patronage someplace else.U have no right to tell a business owner they can or can not allow their patrons to smoke.

By LizardKingLives

November 20, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Smoke Nazi’s suck.As a former smoker hate the smell of smoke as much as anyone.I also hate that we have taken away the rights of a business owner to decide what goes on in their place of business.If a employee dont like it work someplace else.If a patron dont like it go patronage someplace else.U have no right to tell a business owner they can or can not allow their patrons to smoke.

By MARK

November 20, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

IT IS TOTALLY SAD THAT THESE SO CALLED LAWMAKERS WANT TO TELL US EVERYTHING WE CANT DO WHEN YOU JOINED THE MILITARY AND IN YOUR RATIONS WHAT WAS IN THE CIGARETTES NOW LETS GET RID OF THEM I AGREE WITH GREG LETS GET RID OF ALL THE REST OF THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES THAT THE RICH A*S PEOPLE DONT WANT CATER TO THEM SOME MORE I FOUGHT FOR MY COUNTRY FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND NOW CANT EVEN HAVE A SMOKE WHEN I HAVE A DRINK IF YOU DONT LIKE THE SMOKE GO THE HELL SOMEWHERE ELSE OR SHUT THE HELL UP AND DEAL WITH IT

By Bio major

November 20, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

If you are so concerned about the well-being of businesses, here is a solution. Cut your habit that kills you and everyone around you. Take the extra $2,500 that you save a year, and help out those businesses. It is an everyone wins situation. Also, the argument that other things kill us is not a good one. Just because something else has a similar effect makes that other thing objectionable too, rather than making both of them right.

By Skeptic

November 20, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Someday people will come to their senses and have a nationwide smoking ban. Besides the smell and obvious health risks, it raises the cost of health care for everyone. Ohio voted to be ahead of the curve for a change. Why should we take a step backwards? Don’t make exceptions for a good rule.

By Greg

November 20, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Ohio voters, let’s get together and ban more legal activities!!! Who’s with me? Here’s a list I’m working on: exotic dancing (destroys marriages), any form of gambling (including lotto and keno, because these are simply taxes on stupid people), alcohol consumption (alcohol destroys more lives than smoking), selling alcohol at drive-thru and gas stations (drinking/driving is bad), furniture and appliance rental (like rent-a-center…they charge way too much), pay day loans (oops, we already killed them off), pawn shops (they just take advantage of people). We’ve got to get these issues on the ballot!!!

By RM25483

November 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Michelle is right on the money. Your individual right to smoke ceases when the second hand smoke affects the rights, specifically the Right to Life, of others. However, I do not see any legal reason why there cannot be an agreeable customer base in a smoking-permitting establishment all well knowing of their decision to patronize such an environment. The stats are there, the smoking trend is in vast decline; many businesses will remain smoke-free even if Ohio waters down this ban. Most of what people are arguing about is restaurants, bars, and clubs; those are what this new watered-down ban will affect. As I understand it, office buildings, vehicles, and the like will remain forcibly smoke-free. This is unfortunate for those workers who will now be subjected to smoking, and this part of the matter requires further discussion.

By Patty

November 20, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

“No one is trying to take away anyone’s right to smoke. But you don’t have the right to affect someone else’s health by your actions.” No one is trying to affect your health. They are saying give smokers their own bar - that does not affect you cause you would not be a customer, so your health would be fine. The way the law reads now, smokers don’t have that.

By Michelle

November 20, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

No one is trying to take away anyone’s right to smoke. But you don’t have the right to affect someone else’s health by your actions.

By null

November 20, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

I think the private establishments should be able to make an area for the smokers if they want to put forth an effort and put in proper ventilation and other precautions for it that way both parties are happy. I know as a smoker myself, I do not stay at places as long because of having to go outside to smoke, but I do understand where the non-smokers are coming from.

By RM25483

November 20, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

If they water down the ban, it could become an unfair economic advantage to those that choose to allow smoking ( unfair only in the case of an establishment not re-granted the right to choose ). Many establishments allowed smoking before the ban simply to compete, not because they wanted smoking permitted. In terms of public health, there was a suggestion for a posted sign indicating the smoking choice for the restaurant ( non-smoking sections are not as the name would imply; the establishment is smoking or non-smoking, there are no sections ); the sign route could be doable. In fact, the sign route might encourage business for those that choose non-smoking; many folks ( smokers and non-smokers ) have applauded the cleanliness since the ban, and they may openly choose non-smoking establishments now that they’ve gotten that taste of clean. I certainly support the individual’s right to choose, but this is a public health issue, not a cleanliness issue.

By Patty

November 20, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

What they are proposing does not cause all places to go back to smoking. There have been smoking bans in Ohio since the 80’s. This last one was TOO strict. He gave smokers nowhere! It gave all of Ohio to non-smokers. This ban said noone could establish a place just for smokers! Look at www.smokechoke.com and you will see there are alot of business owners that would rather have smokers as customers than non-smokers. Read the comments and you will see non-smokers feel every business should cater to them only!

By enough

November 20, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Might as well stop voting for anything at all, dod anyone notice that a democrat is the person that is pushing this law change. The democrats may get what they want now but this will change back one day. You democrats will begin your complaining when you are taxed to death and you will have to eat your votes and live with the many more problems that are coming. Congress said two years ago things would change for the better, will, it is two years later a NO CHANGE….

By Judy

November 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

Mary must really smell bad…if she wants smoking….when you take a drag of that cigarette, swallow it…that way, no one can see or smell it

By Judy

November 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

Mary must really smell bad…if she wants smoking….when you take a drag of that cigarette, swallow it…that way, no one can see or smell it

By Judy

November 20, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Mary must really smell bad…if she wants smoking….when you take a drag of that cigarette, swallow it…that way, no one can see or smell it

By Michelle

November 20, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

All of the arguments for the supposed rights of smokers are ridiculous. We only have rights until they infringe upon the rights of others. Cigarette smoke infringes on the health of smokers but it also infringes on the health of those around them, which they have no right to do. No one is trying to take away their right to smoke; just the right to threaten someone else’s health by doing so.

By Smoke Away!

November 20, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

It’s all fun and games until the democraps want to bail out the tobacco industry!

By Gene

November 20, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t even do any good to vote if they have a right to throw out or change something….

By RM25483

November 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

Keep in mind that the ‘democracy’ and ‘majority rules’ argument only goes so far. Our democracy is limited to voting on what is in our ballots and voting into office those that write issues for the ballots. It is up to the lawmakers ( and the judicial branch to check their work ) to ensure that when the majority rules, it does so fairly, with protection for the rights of the minority. The rights of the individual come before the desires of the majority. We do Not live in a Democracy, we live in a Federal Constitutional Republic; do your homework. The only solid argument For the ban is that of public health, which overrides the rights of the individual; if you have other valid arguments For the ban, please remind me, as it has been some time since I researched this issue.

By mary

November 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

I agree with the smoking. The only thing I ask is that where ever there is food there is no smoking. But for everything else, why is it that the smokers are the ones forced outside in the weather and the non smokers get the shelter. How would the non smokers like it if they had to go outside whenever a smoker wanted to light one up? There are many other things that will kill you before smoke will. Think about that! The polls are very biased. Only a small amount of people are polled and it is made to look like the major part of the population are either for or against the subject. Web pages are going to say things above and beyond the truth to get the people to sway to their side. There are other things that are not healthy for you as well, just think about it, pesticides on the plants of the food you eat, fertilizer in the ground to make the plants you eat grow fast and beefy, the amonia put into the ground to alter the wait on nature so they can plant the same thing in the ground each year instead of rotating their crops, the sprays you use in your home to disinfect and clean…the list goes on and on. Just think about both sides for once not just one side.

By Gene

November 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t even do any good to vote if they have a right to throw out or change something….

By Greg

November 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

I know more than one person who voted for the smoking ban, but later acknowledged that it was a MISTAKE to force small, privately owned businesses and clubs to be subject to it. They admitted having a knee-jerk reaction to the original vote because they strongly dislike smoking…period. Clearly there’s no reason a privately-owned business (or club) should have this restriction of a perfectly LEGAL activity. If I own the business, don’t tell me what legal activities I CAN’T have on my own property. I’m a non-smoker and won’t go to an establishment where smoking is openly going on, but that doesn’t mean I want to force everyone to follow my way of thinking. CAN WE STOP MAKING OHIO A LESS APPEALING PLACE TO OWN/OPERATE A BUSINESS???

By Judy

November 20, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Ohio voters voted…..NO SMOKING…let it remain that way. It’s nice to go into an establishment and not come out smelling like some cigarette butt.

By Carl

November 20, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Sabetta said she doubts most Ohio voters even know that the lawmakers are considering the bill. The above is a stupid coment, they will certainly know now with this in all the papers!!!!

By Tom

November 20, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

Sounds like a bunch of hog wash to me. We need to keep the smoking ban as is. If the ban gets watered down count I hope it gets thrown out. I know for one thing I will encourage everyone to vote Tom Rberts out of office.

By Confused

November 20, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Bob540: “They insist on having EVERY place to themselves, and the smokers can stand out in the rain. What is reasonable about that position?” I tend to disagree with you. I think BOTH groups feel like this. The smokers feel all their rights are being taken away and the non-smokers feel their rights to eat/socialize in a healthy establishment are taken away by smokers. Why should non-smokers be punished by having to smell/taste/wear the smell of cigarette smoke every place they go? Smokers don’t care because they CONSTANTLY smell/taste/wear the smell. They get used to it.

By Rob

November 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Wow, now smoking is a protected right? Bigtime BS. BTW, you situational Freedom Lovers, Where’s all the outrage at Seatbelt Laws, Catalytic Coverters, Airbags, Speed Limits, Hunting Laws, Permit Requirements, Drivers License… It’s a false argument to say smoking is a freedom issue.

By Lou

November 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

Okay, my main gripe is that I like to bowl & after so many years of not being able to go to the bowling alley, I can again & I love it. Now if this bill passes, I probably won’t have that enjoyment anymore!! That sucks!! No one is taking away smoker’s rights, they are enforcing non-smoker’s rights!!

By bigrobj

November 20, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

eliminate the production of tobacco and tobacco related products…since they are deadly and addictive….and produce nothing but cancer and death….

By LetUsMakeOurOwnChoice

November 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Why can’t businesses allow smoking, if they post it? It shouldn’t have to be “our way or the highway” on this issue. Non-smokers sure don’t mind taxing smokers more and more! I say let the businesses make their own decisions. Bet you’ll all see how things pick up. The smokers will be back, unlike the nonsmokers than abandoned the businesses.

By reggie98ud

November 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Bob540, before the ban, nearly EVERY restaurant, bar or bowling alley allowed smoking ins some form or another. Smokers still go to the bars even after the ban. if this bill goes into place ALL of these extablishments will go back to smoking for fear of losing business an figuring that non-smokers will still come. Why should my right to go to a bar w/o smoke be infringed by your nasty habit? My position on the ban will not kill you, your position as a smoker could actually kill me, my family or my friends!! 18% of Americans smoke. That means 82% don’t. Why is it that this country now seems give the minorities so much power? Democracy is based on majority rule. The majority spoke in 2006, you lost, if you don’t like it MOVE!

By Patty

November 20, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Freedom of Choice. If a business owner wants to have a bar for smokers they should have the right to have that bar. Employees that work at a smoking bar do it by choice, they are not forced to work there and many of them smoke and don’t appreciate others using them for their cause. We are adults and Americans with the freedom to choose.

By Squirrellygirl

November 20, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Where’s the link to get our freedom of choice back? I don’t see a link for that. I think that the people who want to boss everyone around by telling them what they can and cannot do should go home and clean up their own messes first. I am sure that we could pass some laws about how stupid you are aloud to be and still be allowed to live here in the U.S. and vote. I wish they had a law against voting for someone just because they gave good speeches. For God’s sake, Obama was born in Kenya not the U.S.!

By Jeff

November 20, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

I appreciate the legislature attempting to correct the mistake of the uneducated voting population. I also wonder how much tax revenue has been lost from the massive taxes levied on tobacco. I doubt the motive are altruistic.

By Jeff

November 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

All you smoking dummies should do it at home. If you want to kill yourself that is fine, but don’t expose me. Don’t also expose the employees at the VFWs and bars either. Some smokers simply don’t care about how their smoke affects others and these are the same people who are trying to change the law.

By ELW101

November 20, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

A major office building in Downtown used to have a smoking room with smoke eater. After the smoking ban people smoke in the courtyard and it stinks, especially when it rains. I don’t smoke but if it will let the building bring back the smoking room I’m all for revising the smoking ban. Smokers will smoke no matter what anyone says. Some are more considerate than others but I’d rather have the smoking room back where I never smelled the smoke and wet ciggie butts. I do think smoking should be banned where children are present but otherwise, bars and such should free to decide.

By Just wondering

November 20, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

Why can’t there be a smoking permit, just like a liquor license? Wouldn’t that solve the problem. If you don’t like to be around alcohol you don’t go to places that serve it. Same can be for smoking???

By Squirrellygirl

November 20, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

I meant, I “love” not “live”—sorry, no edit key.

By Squirrellygirl

November 20, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

I live how the very vocal minority manages to make the majority of people do what they think is right. This is just one place where our rights are being legislated away. We keep passing more and more laws that limit our rights as citizens. It’s not right that people can’t smoke in a bar, and if you don’t want to breathe it in, don’t go there. There are plenty of places that are smoke free, but bars should not be one of them! BTW, I don’t smoke. So there!

By joel

November 20, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Before the ban, I would go out, have a few drinks, and come home smelling like an ashtray. I have not had to go home with the stink of other people’s smoke all over my clothes, and without the fear that having a beer could give me lung cancer!!!

By Bob540

November 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Bio-major: My point is that no one has to breathe in smoke, if they don’t go into places where smoking occurs. Go only to non-smoking places. Why is that such an impossible concept for intelligent people to grasp? They insist on having EVERY place to themselves, and the smokers can stand out in the rain. What is reasonable about that position? C’mon people!

By DURL

November 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Each establishment should be allowed to decide whether to permit smoking, not the communist minded freedom hating tyrants of the state who are hell bent on keeping the patrons locked up in their homes while closing down resturants, bowling alleys, and bingo halls. Those who voted this in should be taken to the wood shed!

By ken

November 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

how stupid is it? a state that is in such financial difficulty is spending money on legislation about a smoking ban! STUPID! It’s well know and published that the states unemployment dept. is running out of money, but no lets spend taxpayers money on stupid $#!+ This among other money whoes that this state is feeling and you fools worry about some one smoking a cigg. O yea, I’m a non-smoker

By Patty

November 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

“American Cancer Society chief lobbyist John Hoctor said a recent survey by Midwest Communications shows that 97 percent of voters who favored the new law knew what they were voting for.” FALSE! There was so much controversy over this issue and MANY people did not know what they were voting for and were very surprised when they discovered what it really was. The smoking ban totally eliminated anywhere for smokers, other than home or outside. The smoking ban said NO SMOKING bars period! NON-SMOKERS said they have a right to everything everywhere and SMOKERS get nothing. If a business owner wants a bar for smokers only that is their right! NON-SMOKERS said go outside. So bars built really nice patios and NON-SMOKERS whined because of smoking on patio! SMOKERS have a right to have their own place and NON-SMOKERS not allowed. SMOKERS have rights too!

By Bio major

November 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Freedom shouldn’t be at the expense of someone else’ health and well-being. I respect everything that you fought for, and truly appreciate the freedoms that I have. However, we have many other laws (restricting the use other drugs for example) that you could also use the “I fought for freedom” argument for. Freedom doesn’t mean that you can do what ever you want, that is anarchy. If anything, my family and friends and I feel more free now that the ban is in place—we can go wherever we want without having to breathe in the 400,000 different toxins emitted due to other people’s addictions!

By mikey

November 20, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

its too late..look at the places that have closed.ohio is stupid..go indiana! smoking,drinking and gambling

By michael

November 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Agree. I think that a business owner has the right to decide, and the individual has the right to decide if he or she will use that business. I don’t really enjoy smokey bars, but I can decide if I want to be in that smokey bar. As a Veteran, I fought for freedom and the right to choose. Some think because smoking is bad for you, that they should choose for you, but that is not what makes America the Land of the Free.

By Bob540

November 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

And those of us who still believe in freedom, we need a link to express our views as well. Anyone got one?

By Bio major

November 20, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

and since the majority of people don’t smoke, why should the minority have the right to contaminate the air that the majority doesn’t want to inhale? That’s why we don’t smoke, and why people shouldn’t be able to do it around us either! A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a swimming pool.

By Sue

November 20, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Anyone who opposes this bill can go to www.smokefreeohio.org and click on the link that says “Contact your lawmaker today” at the bottom of the page. It will come up with a pre-written letter that will automatically go to your representatives when you fill in your address.

By Bob540

November 20, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

I am a non-smoker who voted against the ban. I think both groups, smokers and non-smokers, should have their places to dine and congregate. Let the marketplace decide how many of each. I don’t need govt dictating every aspect of my life.

By Sue

November 20, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Anyone who opposes this bill can go to www.smokefreeohio.org and click on the link that says “Contact your lawmaker today” at the bottom of the page. It will come up with a pre-written letter that will automatically go to your representatives when you fill in your address.

By xu

November 20, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

How dare the State Congress try and cut this ban!!! They are supposed to be representatives of the people…the people already decided OVERWHELMINLGY that they dont want smoking inside. If this bill passes it shows the people of ohio that their vote means NOTHING!!!

By Josh

November 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

I agree. If people don’t want to work or do business with a business that allows smoking, they can go somewhere else. That’s the beauty of freedom, it offers a choice. Of course the vote was overwhelmingly one-sided, the majority of people don’t smoke.

By Right1

November 20, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

I think any private own bussiness should have the right to decide rather to have smoking in their club or not.Government and “non-profit” smoking groups can smell their own gas and get sick!
Post a comment



Remember me?




*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.

 

Breaking news by e-mail

Start your day with top headlines in your inbox and get breaking news e-mail alerts at any time by subscribing to our Headlines e-mail newsletter.

See Sample | Privacy Policy
SIGN UP

Most popular in Local News

News photos & videos

Latest News Blog Posts


Home | News | Sports | Entertainment | Opinion | Life | Recreation | Photos & Video | Jobs | Cars | Homes
Advertising Media Kit | Online Ad Studio | Advertiser Tools | Customer Service | Our Partners | RSS | Site Map

Copyright © Sat Jul 04 16:56:02 EDT 2009 Springfield News-Sun, Springfield, Ohio, USA.All rights reserved.

By using this site, you accept the terms of our Visitors Agreement and Privacy Policy. You may wish to note our other business policies.

This website is ACAP-enabled