By Pablo

February 17, 2008 9:08 PM | Link to this

For sure problem is most of the antismokers are ignorant so probably have never opened a book in their lives!

By smallbird

February 16, 2008 11:28 PM | Link to this

Well said, LightningBoy…but I suspect that this post was too long for the majority of the posters that never read a book or have ever learned to be tolerant of different life styles or failed world history in high school…

By Pablo

February 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this

Well said Lightning Boy as for the rest here I read that some of you support a ban on smoking in your private clubs- why do you think it shouldnt be up to the individual place? Same for bars and restaurants? They arent owned by the people or the government but the owner- you are free to enter so if you dont like the place because of its smoking leave and go elsewhere please!

By LightningBoy

February 16, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

First, -Issue 5, “The Smoke Free Workplace Act” did not pass by an “overwhelming margin” Only 56.04% of registered voters in Ohio bothered to vote at all during the November 2006 election process. This equates to only 30.15% of all registered voters approving of this assault on personal liberty, and of the petitioned authority to usurp the rights of property owners, and allow legal discrimination against a minority of their neighbors. Add to this the fact that Issue 5 FAILED in 16 of Ohio’s 88 counties, and the on-going grossly exaggerated qualifying statement of “overwhelming” used by both the legislature and the media ad nauseam, becomes frighteningly disturbing. A lie by omission is still a lie, and is even more egregious if intentionally designed to promote an even larger fraud. Beyond the typical poor voter turn-out; Issue 5 passed by the noted slim margin in no small part due to the petition and ballot language containing false and misleading text deliberately worded in such a way as to imply that the necessity for the law was unquestionable when presented to the general public for consideration of approval. Here’s a few reasons why this lunacy should be reconsidered & reviewed: 1. The law is based on a lie; (conclusive medical studies have shown,…..) 2. The law completely ignores the sacred private property rights of business owners. 3. The law seeks to make the term “public place” synonymous with “public property” 4. The law is discriminatory against a minority of citizens that CHOOSE to smoke. 5. The law is prejudicial against business owners that prefer to offer a smoking allowed environment 6. The law requires business owners to discriminate against smokers. 7. The law dictates business owners to cater to only a portion of their existing customer base. 8. The law makes no exception for employees that would willingly be exposed to ETS. 9. The law makes no exception for Non-smokers that would willingly be exposed to ETS. 10. The law criminalizes the use of a legal product by adults on private property. 11. The law ignores the “minimum standard of protection” already in place throughout the state. (personal responsibility) 12. The law ignores the right of the freedom to associate with likeminded people free from government interference in an environment conducive to that association as made available specifically for that purpose by a private property owner that does not wish to discriminate against any group. 13. The law constitutes an unlawful taking by government without just compensation. 14. The law ignores the individual unique business dynamic of independently owned hospitality businesses. 15. The law arbitrarily dictates a “one size fits all” generic business policy in order to appear “fair” to all 16. The law seeks to vilify adults that make the conscious decision to smoke. 17. The law seeks to engineer societal attitude changes through the enforcement of civil penalties. 18. The law disproportionately affects the hospitality industry over any other. 19. The law is an impediment to the economy of the hospitality industry businesses. 20. The law contradicts projected tax collection by attempting to reduce the use of the product to be taxed. 21. The law promotes intolerance toward the revenue source for which future budgets are already decided 22. The law ignores the corporate and commercial interests involved in it’s design and passage into law. 23. The law is designed to promote and further the agenda of the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. (The undisputed leader of the 21st century temperance movement) 24. The law falsely lends credibility to the inconclusive science behind ETS 25. The law is designed to dictate public policy by unelected health advocates attempting to legislate morality. 26. The law establishes prosecutorial authority by non-elected, non-judicial health agencies. 27. The law seeks to replace the education of smokers with the punishment of smokers. 28. The law betrays any trust by those most affected, in the government that would impose it. 29. The law falsely implies that smokers are the sole reason for rising health care costs. 30. The law further establishes a paternalistic condition of government to supplant individual choice. 31. The law in its imposition, ignores the preferred use of private property as an essential attribute of ownership. 32. The law has great potential for abuse in the anonymity provided for reporting violations. 33. The law is uniformly unenforceable as it violates the secondary goal described in the petition circulated to enact it, of establishing a uniform minimum standard of protection by allowing an exemption for ANY reason. 34. The law provides no restitution of fines paid when findings of NO VIOLATION are found after investigation. 35. The law completely removes the choice for a smoking environment from those citizens that would prefer access to same and prescribes an alternative environment that is even less than suitable as those established in the Ohio Revised Code for the humane treatment of animals. Just a handful of reasons, there are far too many more to post here.

By jsidney

February 16, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

“There is no slippery slope toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must first be tolerated by the American people.” Alan K. Simpson The history of Tobacco-Free California legislation is an illustration of that descending staircase. In 1988 California voters passed proposition 99 which added a 25 cent tax to each pack of cigarettes and established the California Tobacco Control Program. The California Tobacco Control Program became the largest tobacco control program in the world. They announced “A Tobacco-Free California” as their goal. They set up a step by step tobacco ban list: Government and other Public Buildings Privately owned workplaces Privately owned restaurants, theaters, bars and other commercial buildings Outdoor Beaches and Parks Outdoor Dining and Bar Patios Outdoor Workplaces, Businesses and Shopping Malls City sidewalks and streets Private Apartments and Condominiums The interior of my automobile My front and back yard My bedroom Finally, if the stubborn smoker doesn’t quit smoking, they will take his children away Where does YOUR state stand on that list? How did California persuade American citizens to submit to outrageous government intrusion into private businesses and lives just to save the silly smokers from smoking themselves to death? They copied the strategy used by the German National Socialist State to teach the intelligent, pragmatic Germans to hate their Jewish fellow citizens. They told the California non-smokers, “Secondhand Smoke Kills!” they told them the smoker spreads disease to your wife and family like a Typhoid Mary or a Leper. They told them a whiff of smoke in an outdoor patio will give you a heart attack and a floating molecule in a park will give your child cancer. They tell them the smoker sheds poisonous “Third Hand Smoke” particles, like anthrax, even when he is not smoking. They tell you he kills 63,000 (53,000, 7,000, whatever) nonsmokers a year. They tell you smokers kill their babies. Like the Nazi State in 1930, the State of California lies. Go to www.velvetgloveironfist.com and call up “Appendix A The evidence for the passive smoking theory. It lists the 63 passive smoke/lung cancer and heart disease studies published, from 1981 to the present used by the US EPA, the CA EPA, and the US Surgeon General and gives a clear easy to read description and critique of each one. Read it and see just how flimsy the evidence is that “Secondhand Smoke Kills”.

By jsidney

February 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

“There is no slippery slope toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must first be tolerated by the American people.” Alan K. Simpson The history of Tobacco-Free California legislation is an illustration of that descending staircase. In 1988 California voters passed proposition 99 which added a 25 cent tax to each pack of cigarettes and established the California Tobacco Control Program. The California Tobacco Control Program became the largest tobacco control program in the world. They announced “A Tobacco-Free California” as their goal. They set up a step by step tobacco ban list: Government and other Public Buildings Privately owned workplaces Privately owned restaurants, theaters, bars and other commercial buildings Outdoor Beaches and Parks Outdoor Dining and Bar Patios Outdoor Workplaces, Businesses and Shopping Malls City sidewalks and streets Private Apartments and Condominiums The interior of my automobile My front and back yard My bedroom Finally, if the stubborn smoker doesn’t quit smoking, they will take his children away Where does YOUR state stand on that list? How did California persuade American citizens to submit to outrageous government intrusion into private businesses and lives just to save the silly smokers from smoking themselves to death? They copied the strategy used by the German National Socialist State to teach the intelligent, pragmatic Germans to hate their Jewish fellow citizens. They told the California non-smokers, “Secondhand Smoke Kills!” they told them the smoker spreads disease to your wife and family like a Typhoid Mary or a Leper. They told them a whiff of smoke in an outdoor patio will give you a heart attack and a floating molecule in a park will give your child cancer. They tell them the smoker sheds poisonous “Third Hand Smoke” particles, like anthrax, even when he is not smoking. They tell you he kills 63,000 (53,000, 7,000, whatever) nonsmokers a year. They tell you smokers kill their babies. Like the Nazi State in 1930, the State of California lies. Go to www.velvetgloveironfist.com and call up “Appendix A The evidence for the passive smoking theory. It lists the 63 passive smoke/lung cancer and heart disease studies published, from 1981 to the present used by the US EPA, the CA EPA, and the US Surgeon General and gives a clear easy to read description and critique of each one. Read it and see just how flimsy the evidence is that “Secondhand Smoke Kills”.

By Gilster

February 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Andrew said: “Your home is considered private. Would you want the public to vote that you can’t drink, smoke, or even masturbate in private?” rlK said: “It’s already happening….at least for the smoking….which opens the door for the rest.” Yes it is already happening, in California. Towns such as Calabasas and Belmont are force-banning smoking in apartment buildings, in tenants own apartments. This will not stop with these liberal towns, it will spread. This will also not stop with smoking regulations either. The slippery slope is Now. Private property is privately owned, it should be up to the owner of the businesses to allow smoking or not. If you allow the government to dictate to owners of private businesses, they will walk right through your front door. You have no ‘right’ to be served anywhere, you choose to enter a business and you choose to work at an establishment.

By rIK

February 16, 2008 7:31 AM | Link to this

Andrew said: “Your home is considered private. Would you want the public to vote that you can’t drink, smoke, or even masturbate in private?” It’s already happening….at least for the smoking….which opens the door for the rest.

By linkup

February 16, 2008 3:14 AM | Link to this

What happened to all the smoking bartenders and barmaids? Do anyone of you anti-smoking commies give a rats a*s about their careers or their smoking withdrawal health hazards?

By linkup

February 16, 2008 3:08 AM | Link to this

Every smoker should stay home,like me,untl the establishment loses it’s a*s in tax revenue,then see what happens.

By caddyman

February 16, 2008 1:54 AM | Link to this

ohio get a billion dollares a year off smokes,paper says 80% of ohio don,t smoke. 11 millon people in ohio so smokers arepaying thAt , just 20 %who smoke ,that means every one that smokes smoke 8 cartons a week do the math,the dum lady that came up with this law should be deported , to a commulest country then let her see how smart she is , its all about getting her name in the paper so she thats she someone .give her some pot she smoke that i bet she went to collage right ,thats what thay do there just ask billl lol

By caddyman

February 16, 2008 1:54 AM | Link to this

ohio get a billion dollares a year off smokes,paper says 80% of ohio don,t smoke. 11 millon people in ohio so smokers arepaying thAt , just 20 %who smoke ,that means every one that smokes smoke 8 cartons a week do the math,the dum lady that came up with this law should be deported , to a commulest country then let her see how smart she is , its all about getting her name in the paper so she thats she someone .give her some pot she smoke that i bet she went to collage right ,thats what thay do there just ask billl lol

By caddyman

February 16, 2008 1:54 AM | Link to this

ohio get a billion dollares a year off smokes,paper says 80% of ohio don,t smoke. 11 millon people in ohio so smokers arepaying thAt , just 20 %who smoke ,that means every one that smokes smoke 8 cartons a week do the math,the dum lady that came up with this law should be deported , to a commulest country then let her see how smart she is , its all about getting her name in the paper so she thats she someone .give her some pot she smoke that i bet she went to collage right ,thats what thay do there just ask billl lol

By Ray

February 16, 2008 1:42 AM | Link to this

The whole law should go… but if it’s going to stay, private clubs can’t be exempted. No matter what anybody would have you believe, private clubs absolutely DO compete directly against public bars and restaurants— on a daily basis, they serve food and drinks, and sometimes offer entertainment, just like bars and restaurants. Plus, clubs very often offer lower prices on everything because they raise funds through (often quasi- or illegal) gambling. Exempting ONLY private clubs would be the death knell for a whole lot of already-suffering public establishments.

By Jay

February 15, 2008 11:29 PM | Link to this

I got news for the person on here who said smokers will die. Who said nonsmokers live forever? Last time I checked, nobody lives forever. And you don’t have to be a smoker in order to die young. You can die simply by being in a traffic accident. A smoking ban can’t save your life if someone is threatening you with a gun. But smoking bans do open up opportunities for smokers to become crime targets outside of a club late at night. Especially women who are smoking alone. You shouldn’t be worried about smoke from a cigarette killing you in public. You should be more concerned about a bad person killing you in a confrontation. Keep an eye out for those drunk drivers too.

By Fred

February 15, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this

OldProf, I am impressed, you hit the nail right on the head on the Addiction thing, it would be nice if the Government whom always have their hands out to collect lawsuit money, would stand up for the Smokers & make the Tobacco Companies quit increasing the Nicotine in the Cigarettes for the ones whom would like to quit - but can’t. Lisa, it is closed minded people like yourself, whom bring on the idiotic hatred for smokers, whom work every bit as hard as you do, pay a lot more taxes than you do - I promise! I know there are Smoking people out there who are not considerate to you and your non-smoking friends, and probably smoke in situations that they should not- I’ve seen them, but there are a lot of people like myself, whom would not light up if someone at the next table was eating with their Families or with Children, that’s why I really don’t appreciate the “Idiots” comment from you, that had very little class, and kind of showed your intellect & personality - sorry! May God Bless our American Soldiers & their Families! Thank-you for “Fighting for our Freedom” and may they come home & enjoy an Establishment & Organization that was raised in their honor with Fellow Veterans & their Families.

By Freedom Of Choice

February 15, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this

As I sit here taking a drag off of my cigarette I’m watching the Great American Flag blowing gently in the wind. The flag that represents Freedom. My right to bear arms, my freedom of speach, and my right to smoke as well, after all it is not illegal to buy cigarettes. Fine me, I don’t care. There is no debtors prison. Can’t fine a crackhead cause they don’t have any money. I’m a club member, I pay dues and support my club.It is PRIVATE, not open to the public, It was my FREEDOM of choice to be a member.Most employees of these clubs have CHOSEN to be members as well, and we go outside and smoke together.Go outside at Chuck E Cheese and smoke, go back in and get drunk off your a*s while your children play. Does that make sense? Hell no it doesn’t, but it happens because they have a license to sell beer. I like Kim and Rhondas responses. To those glorified non smokers, how much do you weigh? How many sex partners have you had in your life to potentially spread disease? How many of you are addicted to your prescription drugs? Since they are prescribed you couldn’t possibly be addicted now could you? After all you obtained your prescription legally. You people aren’t perfect, you have imperfections and bones in your closets as well. You place yourselve in the upper crust, the elite, the perfect, but I bet many of you are just as disfunctional as you think us smokers are. You people just hide it better, as your dirt can’t be aired for all to see, or breath for that matter.You hide your discretions because it is your FREEDOM Of CHOICE to do so. Springfield has more people smoking crack then they do cigarettes, what the hell are all you non smoking activists doing about that? Oh,it must be because you choose to ignore the bigger issues at hand. It is to big of a challange for all of you to tackle anything tougher then cigarettes. Always remember, the apple don’t fall far from the tree. Not a one of you non smoking vigalantes are better then us smokers. Instead of patroling my backyard, you need to patrol your own. You run your railroad and I’ll run mine. It’s my right.

By Tomas

February 15, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

People seem to forget that SOMEONE called in the violations in VFWs, etc., and this means that not all vets are in favor of polluting the air at these places. This simply means that there are folks who want to go to these places and breath as clean air as possible. These smoking bans are taking place all over the world now and even Canada, Ireland and France have smoking bans as well as many US states. We are not unique here at all.

By kim

February 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Ahhhhh……Myke!! You hit the nail on the head. Freedom of Choice. WOW What a concept.

By kim

February 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Ahhhhh……Myke!! You hit the nail on the head. Freedom of Choice. WOW What a concept.

By kim

February 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Ahhhhh……Myke!! You hit the nail on the head. Freedom of Choice. WOW What a concept.

By tom

February 15, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

As of yet not one establihment has been fined. Smokem if you gotem.

By tom

February 15, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

As of yet not one establihment has been fined. Smokem if you gotem.

By tom

February 15, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

As of yet not one establihment has been fined. Smokem you gotem.

By null

February 15, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

As of yet not one establihment has been fined. Smokem you gotem.

By Myke

February 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

Anyone who’s against this is way too far to the right. We’re talking about private clubs here. Public and private are two different things. A private club you clearly choose to enter regardless of the smoking. More to the point, people go there because they allow smoking. I would call it Freedom of Choice. Something we are on the verge of outlawing in this state and country.

By Sense

February 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

FINALLY!!! Some common sense in the State House. You da man Dann!!!

By Rhonda

February 15, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

This is in response to those who do not believe that businesses are losing business because of the smoking ban. Do you work in the restaurant or bar industry? Well, I do and it is a FACT that our bar is losing $8000-10,000 or more a month in sales, not to mention tips that our bartenders are losing.The owners of my bar choose not to break the law and not allow smoking, so we are losing out while the people are going to bars that DO allow it. You say that in time it will get back to normal? Well, it has been a year and it is not back to “normal” yet. What are we supposed to tell the bill collectors? “Well, in time, my income will get back to”normal”.Ok, so then the next thing on the list is to just get another job, someplace else where it is not an issue. UUHHHH NO! like I have said before, I have bartended for 20 years, I love my job, and I love the people, smokers or not! Why should I be forced to get a different type of job just because there are some people up on their high horse and want to dictate what others do! You run the risk everyday of dying, be it by ‘secondhand smoke’ or getting hit by a bus, ,maybe they should ban buses, too!! I will say that I ,too like going to restaurants better now, with out having to pick “smoking or nonsmoking”, and not having to smell the smoke, that the miracle barrier is supposed to stop, but people do take their children to those places, and children do not have a say in that matter, they are forced to accept the choices that the parents make. But, you cannot take your child to a BAR or NIGHTCLUB. If you do take them to “family night” at the clubs, you are assuming the risk for yourself as well as your children.

By poohla

February 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

To JG, we are all going to die one way or another. It could be from smoking, old age, or a traffic accident any on which are not plesant. To kim, fair is fair??? Nothing is fair! If it was fair people wouldn’t be complaining about it. Smokers know what the are choosing to do to themselves, they willingly buy their cigarettes. Ohio should offer smokers products like Chantix if they want them to quit smoking but why would they… the money the state makes from the sales of cigarettes is not something they are willing to give up. So around it goes. Neither side will be happy with the smoking ban because most people can’t see both sides and come to an unbiased point. So smoke if you got them or don’t… it’s your choice!

By Sue

February 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

I don’t mind going to a restaurant to eat where there is no smoking. (Not allowed to, anyway) They are making more $$.. They can turnover more people, because, nobody is sitting around smoking, after they eat. But, I do belong to a couple of private clubs and I believe, the members should have the choice to allow smoking, or not. The Ohio Department of Health, has to investigate all complaints that they receive. Think of the $$ they are spending in trying to keep up with the job. This would save them the trouble! (and maybe some of the taxpayers $$ too!).

By Oldprof

February 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

While I am sympathetic to the nicotine addicted and think that the ban on smoking in private clubs goes too far, I wonder at the smokers who don’t take responsibility. How many of you smokers have ever walked up to a fellow smoker who lit up under the “no smoking” sign at the pharmacy and pointed out that the oxygen-users waiting for their prescriptions would appreciate if they obeyed the law there? Now, I do have concerns about nonprofits like the VFW—many veterans would not be able to enjoy membership there if they had breathing problems unless there was a safe area free from smoke. But in general, I say let’s make some accomodation for private organizations.

By Lisa

February 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Smokers are going to have to get over it..this is not government control b/c the people voted for it. ITs a stupid disgusting habit & I don’t at all feel sorry for the idiots standing out in the cold…kick the habit like so many others & get over your selfishness at expecting the rest of us to breath your crap. Just got back from MO where they haven’t banned it YET. Walked into a restaurant & forgot that awful smell…so grateful for the ban..would vote for it again & again!

By lisa

February 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

I am so sick of the crybabies that are whining over not smoking. I do not believe places are losing business over that alone…and over time if so it’ll go back to normal. This is not “govt control” b/c people voted for it. Plus, smoking is not a protected right…its STUPID and disgusting. Just got back from STL where they haven’t banned it yet & went into a restaurant..forgot that awful smell. Thank goodness we banned smoking here in Ohio!

By Dorothy

February 15, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

The bottom line is if you smoke and get lung cancer - you knew the risks and the chances you were taking. don’t feel sorry for those individuals. A choice was made. the same things goes for overeaters who die from heart conditions. they know the risk. Let them be. As for chantix, my husband tried it and smoked the whole time he took it. Failed miserably.

By CLEVO

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

Well said Bill! These guys just don’t get the picture. They are so selfish. Kill yo-self not others. The obvious reasons for banning this is the death rates. Government is not going directly after the Taboo Companies so they have to hit the baco heads. Hummm… if you look at it it’s like crack heads smoking legally in public. Dang you smokers you all should feel ashamed.

By Bill

February 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

As a VFW member and AMVETS member and voter I believe I fully understood what I voted for. As amember and non-smoker I also have the right to be in a smoke free enviroment as any one else. After 50 years of information of the hazards of smoking only the stupid among us still waste their money on smoking

By JG

February 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

to all the smokers,your going to die and it will not be a easy death!

By CLEVO

February 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

4 WHAT! This dude is waisting time. Who healthy wants to smell that stuff. He needs to take whatever he and others smoke and stick it up the butt.

By kim

February 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Smokers will only quit squalking when the non-smokers have to go outside and enjoy their favorite beverage or meal. Fair is Fair!

By kim

February 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Smokers will only quit squalking when the non-smokers have to go outside and enjoy their favorite beverage or meal. Fair is Fair!

By ME

February 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

But, has it ever occurred to Kerri that there are also hundreds of places to go to smoke…like your own home? Perhaps your car? Maybe out your front door? A friend’s house? Friend’s car? Etc. etc. etc. When you are young, the most prevalent jobs available to you are retail and waiting tables/food service industry. Their “hundreds of other jobs available” are mostly in the same areas that could once again expose them to smoke. Seriously, it is a riot listening to smokers cry over this. I see both sides of the issue, but the smokers have no hope in ever winning when what they are doing is going to contribute to killing someone at a more rapid pace than other people going through their daily lives.

By Kerri

February 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

It’s always presented that they’re trying to protect the workers at the establishments from breathing the second-hand smoke. Has it occurred to them that there are hundreds of other places to work where they wouldn’t be exposed? Let smokers establish private clubs, pay to get in, with the proceeds going to the state’s medical fund. Then everyone’s happy. I know I, as a smoker, would gladly pay $5 to have dinner with my smoking fiancee in a place where we can be comfortable.

By Kerri

February 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

It’s always presented that they’re trying to protect the workers at the establishments from breathing the second-hand smoke. Has it occurred to them that there are hundreds of other places to work where they wouldn’t be exposed? Let smokers establish private clubs, pay to get in, with the proceeds going to the state’s medical fund. Then everyone’s happy. I know I, as a smoker, would gladly pay $5 to have dinner with my smoking fiancee in a place where we can be comfortable.

By Joe B.

February 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

It is UNBELIEVABLE that you smokers are still squalking about something that is protecting the lives of others who don’t smoke.Private club or not.Get over it and go outside.

By Kim

February 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

This is unreal. Can’t smoke a legal product. Why continue to make it? Let’s let the people who don’t want smoking pick up the tab for the money the “so called” great state of Ohio would earn off the sin taxes. Here’s an idea…while they are getting their Big Mac’s, fries,Diet Cokes and stopping by the doughnut shop for the bonus intake of fat before they get their lipo surgeries - all the while RAISING MY INSURANCE RATES - which I DON’T WANT - try taxing these items. Maybe when they get skinny, they will want a cigarette after they finish their Big Mac & the state of Ohio would have money for education. Seems we have a lot of people out there who need it. Get a grip on yourselves and quit pushing your view of how a life should be lived. You wouldn’t like it if I did it to you.

By Tim Hunt

February 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

This entire, what should be a non-issue is crazy and I am amazed by the ignorant people in Ohio. A couple of things to ponder: 1. As the revenues continue to decrease at these smoke free public and private places and they pay less and less state tax, who do you think is going to make up for that lost income to the state - EVERY tax payer in what used to be the great state of Ohio. Just watch! 2. I cannot believe that Wendy Simpkins, The American Cancer Society and all the supporters of this puritan law think the people working in the resturant/bar industry are too stupid to understand the possible risks of their chosen occupation and they need to be protected? If I were still employeed in this field, I would be highly insulted by this cop out excuse and extremely offended to be named as the scapegoat for a reduction of freedoms - voted on or not. What’s next? The Police Officer who has the right not to carry a gun? The firefighter who has the right to not turn on the siren because he/she is against noise polution? 3.) If Wendy Simpkins, The American Cancer Soicety and the rest of the communists in Ohio want to worry about something or “protect” a group people why don’t they worry about child abuse, homelessness, the foreclosure rate in Ohio (which is one of the highest in the country), or any other serious issue and stop wasting our elected officials time on this ridiculous “issue”? If they can not do that then don’t to a smoking bar, go buy a bubble, move to a communist state, just flat out shut up and/or get a life. 4.) The basic problem is that the smokers are the majority of the people who spend money in a bar and those bars that would choose to be smoke free won’t make as much money as “the smoking bars”. This law puts ALL establishments, public or private, on same playing flied and removes any option of choice, for the owner OR the patron, and people there is word for that - COMMUNISM!

By Me

February 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

I would also like to propose a ban on people sneezing. That allows some harsh germs into the air. Damn airborne viruses. Ok, after that charade, I can tell you that I see both sides of the argument. However, it really isn’t a fair fight because the “pro-smoking” people have no chance in hell of winning. Second-hand smoke kills. OK, the state can institute laws dealing with the health and welfare of its citizens. Sucks that peoples tips have gone down in bars. But, as a few friends who work in bars have told me, they are glad they don’t have to have a separate wardrobe now for “clothes worn to the bar” and “clothes worn around the rest of humanity.” Second-hand smoke is disgusting. Smoke in and of itself is disgusting. Pure plain and simple, if you want to smoke, please stay away from those who don’t want to inhale it. Oh, and if you have a cold, please don’t sneeze in my face, either. Healthier than second-hand smoke, in all likelihood, but I’d just rather be healthy if at all possible.

By Bonnie

February 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

I can understand and support not smoking in restaurants, but bars and clubs come on people get a grip bars are for those over 21 and most clubs are private let them decide what they want.

By Me

February 15, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Don’t forget though: If you can’t stand the smoke, you would also need to stay out of Applebee’s, Tumbleweed, etc. etc. Someone blowing smoke in a restaurant ruins a night out. You can’t take family to an Applebee’s and sit in the non-smoking section because all it does is drift over. You go home smelling like you just slaved over the BBQ, smoke and steak/chicken scent or whatever.

By Rhonda

February 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

First of all, let me state that I have been a bartender for 20 years,I do not smoke,and I am well aware of the risks that may or may not meet me at the door when I go to work. Everyone says that it is for the health of the workers, but I am over the age of 21, therefore an adult able to make my own choices about going to a place that allows smoking! In Ohio, you HAVE TO BE 21 TO GET IN A BAR! Did anyone ask the workers, bartenders, waitresses, etc. if they would want to take a HUGE cut in pay, due to the slowing of business or the CUT IN TIPS that are brought in? NO!! Nobody asked that!! And where are all the “nonsmokers” that said they would come in if smoking was banned? Sitting at home on their lazy boys, laughing about the fact that they are controlling what others do! They have no intention of going to the bars now, just like before! IF YOU CAN’T STAND THE SMOKE, STAY OUT OF THE BARS!!

By OHMom

February 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

I stopped smoking back in June.. not because of the ban but just because i chose to do so.. I do love it that everything dont smell like smoke though lol.. BUT.. I agree with some that say we didnt really know what we were voting for.. i was under the impression it would be up to private clubs choice. I do think it should be their choice, and then it is the patrons choice to go there.. When i was a smoke there were some places i didnt like to go because of too much smoke.. I understand non smokers feelings now, and yes i had a grandfather die of lung cancer and yes i have family members with asthma.. but come on people get off your soap box and look what you are doing to some of these businesses.. I am sure soon there will something else for you to rant about soon enough!

By Disabled Veteran

February 15, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

First of all I’m a 100% disabled veteren. I got that way serving my country to protect our rights and freedoms. Do you know we have servicemen and women who are dieing everyday in Iraq and other places arounjd the world to keep those so called freedoms. Yet these brave people can’t even walk into a bar and not only smoke, but can’t even drink a beer. Your old enough to die but to young to drink. I Just don’t get it. I’m a smoker, I’ve smoked since I was 15 and my lungs are in perfect health. When people voted for the smoking ban, they didn’t know what they were voting for. It was worded that way on purpose so it would pass. I say reword it and put it back on the ballot for another vote. I also say if a serviceman or women go into a bar an show their military ID, let them buy a beer. Come on, we’re supposed to be a democracy, lets be one. GOD BLESS OUR MEN AN WOMEN IN UNIFORM.

By John Ferris

February 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Time was — not that long ago — when Ohio and most states had jobs aplenty that did not require an $80,000 college degree, nor pee quizzes, background checks or waiting six months to begin working through headhunter agencies that made more from our labor than we did. We returning vets got hired through one personnel manager, we showed up on time that very same day (always on night shift), listened to older coworkers who had a ton of pride in their jobs, and if we proved our worth, saved some money, and lived within our means (no credit cards), by age 25 or so most of us bought homes we could afford and began raising our families. We did not shuffle paperwork, stare at computer screens all day or wear designer clothes to work. Neither did we call the ACLU if we got our butts chewed out by a boss. We produced all manner of products far better than any nation on earth! Enter political correctness! Now we invariably listen to millionaire politicians (most with law degrees) who never worked a day in their lives, who tell us that big government is the answer to all our woes. Now there are no jobs — houses cost more than 10 times what they were in the ’60s/’70s — and we can’t even smoke in a VFW or a local tavern while discussing where this country went wrong! I’m sitting here at age 68 wondering why in the hell I spent nearly six years in the military only to see America becoming a 3rd world country! You young bucks, believe me, things were never perfect, but they were a damn sight better when the government didn’t dictate every facet of our lives! This crap has got to end — and soon — before it’s too late!

By Just Me

February 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Charity There is no law that gives you the right to breathe fresh air. If there was then you would not have vehicles on the road, manufacturing, or outdoor fires. Heck, even the cows wouldn’t be allowed to pass gas.

By pete logan

February 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

As a VFW member and a Viet Nam vet, I think members should be allowed to smoke in private clubs. I quit smoking several years ago, But I would never vote to take away the rights of my fellow vets to smoke.

By J

February 15, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

I voted for and still support a smoking ban in Ohio. I wish my parents home-state of PA had the same ban. My husband, two year-old and I go out to eat much more now than we ever did before because I feel safe for not only myself, but for my child who will now be able to grow up not having to suck in second-hand smoke. I laughed out loud to one blogger here who said “Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.” He is absolutely correct. I can’t remember how many times I would ask for non-smoking and get sat at a table where, just over a partition, there was an entire table of people smoking. A great deal of people I know have quit or are trying to quit smoking because it’s too much trouble to get up and go outside to have a smoke - especially in the winter. This ban is saving lives and will continue to save lives and future generations reap the benefits.

By Kelly Bush

February 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

The true issue here is the preservation of individual rights. What will be the next law passed in this state? Will it liken the House Bill 282 sponsored by Rep. John Read of Mississippi, which will prohibit restaurants from serving obese customers. How can a restaurant owner enforce this? Come to the patrons table with a portable scale, weigh the customer and check the government issued weight card. If the customer is to obese the authorities will be contacted and fines imposed and if the obese customer has multiple occurrences jail time. The smoking ban is only the beginning folks. And we the citizens will go to the polls and vote for the obesity law because someone could get killed by clogged arteries or heaven forbid an obese person might fall on my child or myself crushing said person(s) to death. Please dear voters we need even more laws that strip us of our rights and freedoms. Off to the polls!

By exsmoker

February 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

If everyone would just try Chantix to quit smoking, there would be alot less smokers out there! My whole family quit tobacco with Chantix…the smokers AND the chewers! Not everyone knows about Chantix, I think it is a miracle drug. I quit July 20th after smoking for 22 years. Try it!

By slivinj

February 15, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

We must vote corrupt politicians like Dann and Strickland out of office. The voters spoke and Dann and Strickland are defying the will of the voters. We veterans are no better than anyone else when it comes to the laws passed by Ohio voters.

By Duncan McGregor

February 15, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

These have to be the most ridiculous arguements I have ever heard. I realize that most of you do not have the God given ability to choose so you need your government to do that for you. Heres a hint move to CHINA where you cannot think they do that for you. Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave telling an American Serviceman that he cannot smoke in a hall that is dedicated to him for his service to our country is down right communist. If smoke bothers you, just don’t go. Exercise your right of choice. If you work there and need a smoke free environment to be in change jobs. For gods sakes its a bar set your standards a little higher. Give us our freedom of choice.

By Bob

February 15, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

Smoking is no different than drinking. They both “can” kill; yourself or others. It’s a good thing Debbie Leiberman was drinking in a smoke-free environment before she got behind the wheel drunk (clear lungs, clouded head). Hats off to the officer that pulled her over before she killed someone. Both habits are a choice and both habits can kill. How are laws justified for one but not the other. You can go out and drink in a bar then go drive and you could kill someone but you can’t smoke in a bar cause it could kill someone. How much common sense does that make?

By Theresa

February 15, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

Ban the Perfume & Cologne that makes me go into an asthma attach!

By Oldtimer

February 15, 2008 7:43 AM | Link to this

The smell of smoke, even that done in private, clings to the smokers when they are out in public, and that second-hand smoke is what makes many of us sick. Smokers don’t know this because they are so used to the smoke.

By indifferent

February 15, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this

Meh, I don’t really care, for I smoke everywhere in public anyways. The health department hasn’t caught me yet, so look out because I will give you the second hand smoke in your face. HAHA!! OHIO IS FULL OF FASCISTS!!!

By Todd

February 15, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this

How many people vote on how it will affect themselves and not others? What if the government said you know we have to many people and we want to ban having kids or limit to only one child. If you want a kid adopt. To make sure of this you will be required to have a non-reversible proceedure done. All you gamers out there, what if the government said you can no longer play video games because it has been determined that too much staring at a game can cause eye problems and mental issues? This would be no different than a seatbelt law. This seems like a joke now but it may not be funny if we keep giving away our freedoms. The next time you vote on an issue, don’t be selfish, instead think am I giving away another freedom!

By John Ferris

February 15, 2008 6:59 AM | Link to this

Choice — defined as “the right or power to choose; an option.” My right to smoke in a private club in no way infringes on your rights — especially if you don’t belong to a veteran’s club and you don’t even qualify for membership! Likewise, private means “belonging to oneself, not public or of the state; not open to,intended for, or controlled by the public.” How difficult is that to understand?

By Todd

February 15, 2008 6:56 AM | Link to this

I am not a smoker, but I think we are losing our freedom one issue at a time. Forced to wear a seatbelt, this pertains to my safety not others. Can’t gamble but you can play hundreds of Ohio lottery games and remember odds are you’ll have fun! Can’t smoke in a private establishment. If it is the will of the people that is the deciding factor, then put an issue on the ballot to stop paying so many taxes on everything, gas tax, sales tax, sin tax. How many people think that being taxed from income and then being taxed when buying something is fair? Not only are we being taxed from both ends but also if you give too much money to your kids you have to pay tax on money you already paid tax on. Every time a vehicle is sold the buyer has to pay tax. If a $10,000 car was sold ten times the total tax would be $7,000. Who is making all the money, it sure is not the auto maker? Property tax, why can I never own my home? Pay your home off and don’t pay your taxes and see who owns your home! The government has tried to take your guns, another right and freedom. STOP GIVING ARE FREEDOMS AWAY PEOPLE! If you want to be told what you can and can not do then move to a communist country.

By John S

February 15, 2008 6:36 AM | Link to this

…amazing how many people use the terms public and private interchangably… John S

By Me

February 15, 2008 6:00 AM | Link to this

Private clubs are private and should be allowed to have indoor smoking areas. The Cancer Society says the ban is to protect workers! Well, at one of the restaurant/bars THAT JUST CLOSED DOWN DUE NO DOUBT TO THE SMOKING BAN, all of the employees couldn’t wait to get off the clock so they could sit down at the bar and have a smoke (before the ban took effect.) If people don’t want to work in an environment that allows smoking, they are free to go elsewhere. But I bet 99% of them are smokers anyway. Next thing you know, I won’t be allowed to sit on my front porch and have a smoke because the smoke might drift thirty feet out to the public sidewalk.

By TRA

February 15, 2008 4:50 AM | Link to this

Ohio’s Smoking Ban - What it’s about. Money and Power - of course. Ohio makes 29.6% on all liquor sales. Much more on retail establishments. In the small community where I own a bar the mayor has told the police not to do their walk thru’s at the Chamber of Commerce meeting - That the police where not welcome at the VFW and Amvets. Our Mayor is a member of Amvets and the VFW. In my bar the police do walk through once a night and usually two when we are busy and they stay for times up to 45 minutes with two patrol cars (illegally parked). I would say that 80 to 90% of my customers are smokers. Amvets has a fully enclosed heated, smoking area. I have lost more than 60% of my normal customers due to these facts. The facts being: 1. The smoking ban is not being enforced equally. 2. State and city officials are using the system to target tax-paying businesses for kickbacks in popularity and possible monetary purposes. Right down the street is a drug dealer that is running a bar where you can smoke whatever- under-age isn’t a problem. They don’t have to pay for a license, pay taxes or have cops do a walk through. No sales tax, unemployment tax, BWC, ODJFS corporate tax, etc. I’m not sure if they have gambling but at that non-profit place (VFW and Amvets) they have gazillions of tickets and are making lots of money - It makes me wonder why both democrats and republicans wanted to exempt “Clubs” (by definition non-profit). Individually these seem to be just normal stuff but when you look at it all together it appears to be a conspiracy to create a monopoly for the non-profit group. The state doesn’t really doesn’t care about you or the law - What they really want is to control all alcohol, tobacco and gambling - you know…like the moffia. Who’s profiting? I don’t know. I expect it’s the Drug dealers, non-profit places and possibly some State and/or City officials. I do know (Who’s NOT profiting) my business or my employees or my venders. So it’s “Smoke-less” Right.

By Fred

February 15, 2008 4:38 AM | Link to this

first of all, the high & mighty people whom put this on the ballot in the first place, were not thinking of the rights of the Business owners, American Citizens who have the alleged right for the so called “Land of Opportunity” to be known as Owners, but still have no say so in their own Business & what they may do in their Bars, Restaurants, etc. Like the earlier commenter said: the non-smokers are NOT going to these establishments to pick up the difference in lost Patrons, which to me says that they were not going there in the first place. Freedom is not quite the exact same thing in Ohio as it used to be - now is it? sure, smoking is not good for anyone, and even the smokers know that - but - it has been around for hundreds of years, just as the freedom we used to share, Ohio has many more problems than just who sits beside you in a bar with a Cigarette. The Government in Ohio is doing what ever suits whomever is making the most noise, if it was the Voting Smoker that was putting up the fight in large masses (as they should) it would be the Smoker who would have the Governments attention -duh! ya think? This Ban should be put back on the Ballot again now that the people of Ohio know what they were voting for or in this case against. The funniest part of all of this would be the State of Ohio being in such Financial Destruction, and their hurting themselves and us by overtaxing us with a “Sin Tax” and then telling us not to Smoke or Drink, thus shooting the whole State of Ohio in the Foot, so your high & Mighty attitude is going to get back at you by getting in your Wallets & Purses, ya’ll ain’t as intelligent as you thought you were now are you.

By Panman

February 15, 2008 4:06 AM | Link to this

I am a lifetime member of teh VFW; AL, and AMVETS. We were lead to believe that these private exclusive membership clubs would be exempt. I also remember anotehr law that was passed that was misleading. The seatbelt law! Whe it was first passed the politicians said that law enforcement officers would NOT BE ALLOWED TO STOP YOU FOR A SEAT BELT VIOLATION. They would only cite you if yoiu were stopped for a tarffic violation. That’s just one other example of teh politicians lying to us. The same as this smoking ban. Time to vote out all incumbents. Oh, by the way, many smokers are not going and supporting these Veterans organizations as before the ban. The result is less money to spend on worthwhile programs like Little League and supporting politicians election campaigns, etc.

By Dani4Terry

February 15, 2008 12:05 AM | Link to this

Just a point ot ponder….VFW’s are private clubs and VFW stands for Veterans of Foreign Wars (i.e. WW1, WW2, etc.) I think these brave Americans have earned the right after having served their country risking life and limb, to go into a private club founded in their purpose and smoke if they feel like it. Should you not wish to join this club, please feel free to go to Iraq and play with the bombs and terrorists since the smoking here will kill you quicker it seems. This way we can save thousands of lives and taxpayers dollars since smoker’s pay heavy excise taxes for you all.