By dclay

February 28, 2010 4:00 PM | Link to this

The Constitution does not guarantee a person’s right NOT to be offended. We are supposed to be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. For some, happiness is enjoying tobacco. For others, happiness is abstaining from tobacco. So, whose rights are more important? Maybe we should take a lesson from the Dutch government. They actually had constructive deliberation on the smoking issue, and decided that both smokers and non-smokers should be protected. They created more non-smoking areas, but also preserved places where people could enjoy using tobacco. This seems to be a very reasonable solution. It just doesn’t seem fair to treat smokers like they have leprosy. Many Ohioans would no doubt be upset to see a dog left out in the cold or rain, but think nothing of demanding that their fellow smoking citizens stand in inclement weather to try and enjoy a smoke. That just doesn’t seem to reasonable or civilized; surely we can do better than an outright ban on the use of a legal product.

By itisme

February 27, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this

Quentin I was referring to you. Don’t know where I got Justin from.

By itisme

February 27, 2010 12:18 PM | Link to this

Sorry about that I meant Quentin. Don’t know where Justin came from.

By itisme

February 27, 2010 12:14 PM | Link to this

Mark and Justin, I want to thank you for being voices of reason crying in the wilderness. These loons refer to the will of the majority. Yet Madison said we need to fear the Tyranny of the majority. I know they mean well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

By Quentin

February 27, 2010 5:59 AM | Link to this

Those for the ban don’t seem to be really thinking things through. Just because a majority voted for something does not make it right. Also we are talking about private property you have the ability to avoid if you prefer. Imagine if the majority of voters decided to ban something that was legal and you did because they didn’t like it? Would you then be saying it was “we the people” who decided it so it was righat as the majority decided it? Also since we are telling people they can’t smoke on private property, then why not ban in in homes too? You don’t have to go to the house of any friends who smoke now but shouldn’t your rights to be free from smoke also extend to their homes just like someone’s private business? You can argue all you like but so far the arguments for the ban seem to be lacking in thinking things through from way I am seeing since those for it are not paying full attention to exactly where their arguments lead.

By Mark

February 26, 2010 11:19 PM | Link to this

I am sick of hearing people complaining about smoking. Every year more and more of our rights are being taken away. We have a right to smoke, and it’s a pain in the butt to do it outside when it’s 10 degrees and snowing. How about this, if you don’t want people smoking around you, how about YOU go outside! Obesity is America’s number one problem. Someone smoking in a restaurant doesn’t bother me, but seeing 500 pound people in tight clothes ruins my dining experience. We want to smoke, you make us go outside. Fine, if you want to eat, do it outside, because I don’t want to see it. What if we ban chocolate, or hamburgers, or biscuits and gravy? Would you be mad? Of course, because it is your right to eat whatever you want. What if we start banning everything that kills people? Can we ban snack machines? Can we ban cars? How about banning swimming since people drown all the time. Or what if we ban traveling on an airplane? You wouldn’t want that because it takes away your rights as an american. Our rights are being violated by people like you who only think about yourselves. If you don’t like it, leave! My girlfriend hates it when I smoke in my car, but guess what, I own my car, and I will do whatever I want in it. If I own a business and I think it’s ok for people to smoke in it, then guess what, you can smoke in it. It is not your decision to make, it is mine as a business owner, and if you have a problem with that, DON’T ENTER! Plain and simple.

By Mr. Logic

February 26, 2010 10:30 PM | Link to this

Intent of the smoking ban law, overwhelming passed by the Ohio Electorate is to protect both patrons and employees. Businesses that sell alcohol and smoking products enforce underage use everyday or get fined and license revoked. Judge Cain thinks it’s unfair for these businesses to get fine for scoffing at the smoking ban law. Now we understand why thousands of people died from fires because businesses scoffing at fire code laws for example exits blocked or locked. 100 % this Judicial opinion will be reversed on appeal.

By Theodus T

February 26, 2010 8:11 PM | Link to this

Get off dog!The cigarette smokers are the fall guys for the fuel industry and sugar. freaking diesel fuel burns unfiltered carbon and lead into the air,diabetis cripples or enjures over 6 million Americans a year.Oh Where is Jane Fonda when there is so many misdirected and misinformed people? The tradgedy of life isnt the freedoms we used to have but no longer practice, but the stupidity of the ignorant as they accelerate toward a controlled society by a criminal government stepping on everyones toes.If you dont like smoke in a bar,stay your fat lazy nonproductive butt home! Take up cathing bullets with your teeth,you’ll stay free longer. We have to many laws now.

By Belinda Hellard

February 26, 2010 7:02 PM | Link to this

I think everyone keeps forgetting that THIS WAS VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.it’s about our health not whose allowed to do what and where.They voted deal with it and shut up.

By Randy

February 26, 2010 5:06 PM | Link to this

Last I checked the business business owner/ceo blah blah; is the one whose butt is on the line if a business doesn’t make a profit. It should be that person that makes the decision and NOT the government!

By Belinda Hellard

February 26, 2010 4:47 PM | Link to this

Squirrelly girl, Who cares if you want to light up and drink do it outside or where ever they have a place set up why do we have to breath smoke if we choose not too.You all seem to be forgetting this was voted in by the PEOPLE.Therefore it is the LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!! Belinda

By mark

February 26, 2010 4:46 PM | Link to this

The owners of businesses should have the choice if they want to allow smoking or not…period. If I owned a bar and my business was better off allowing smokers, then so be it. Complaining non-smokers can stay away, I wouldn’t care. When my business suffers from allowing smoking, I will adapt and change. I don’t need non-smokers who don’t support my business anyway, making decisions that impact my business because they believe it is unhealthy for them. If you believe being in a bar where smoking is permitted, is unhealthy, then stay away. You don’t have a “right” to be any where. You do have a choice though, which is far more than you allow me.

By kurt

February 26, 2010 4:46 PM | Link to this

Toxic dump sites are legal too—-but you don’t have to go there.Joe Bob goes to a bar,gets 2nd hand smoke—-then cancer,The state,under the present ruling,is a party to said lawsuit [since they tax the product]NOW do you understand the ruling ?

By kurt

February 26, 2010 4:43 PM | Link to this

Toxic dump sites are legal too—-but you don’t have to go there.Joe Bob goes to a bar,gets 2nd hand smoke—-then cancer,The state,under the present ruling,is a party to said lawsuit [since they tax the product]NOW do you understand the ruling ?

By Mr. A

February 26, 2010 4:25 PM | Link to this

“But I say to you, you already had the freedom to walk away from my “nasty habit”.” So, I have to move away from you engaging in your OPTIONAL behavior (smoke) in order for me to engage in something that I HAVE to do (breath)?

By kurt

February 26, 2010 4:15 PM | Link to this

Here Here Here !!!! Finally a judge who understands fiscal and moral responsibility.It doesn’t matter whether you condone smoking or not.What DOES matter is that when government TAXES a product,it is recognizing that product as viable and acceptable to society.If you want a LEGAL smoking ban,force government to lift ALL taxes off that product.THAT IS THE LEGAL WAY TO DO THINGS !!!!

By kurt

February 26, 2010 4:14 PM | Link to this

Here Here Here !!!! Finally a judge who understands fiscal and moral responsibility.It doesn’t matter whether you condone smoking or not.What DOES matter is that when government TAXES a product,it is recognizing that product as viable and acceptable to society.If you want a LEGAL smoking ban,force government to lift ALL taxes off that product.THAT IS THE LEGAL WAY TO DO THINGS !!!!

By Mr. A

February 26, 2010 4:10 PM | Link to this

“We are just ignoring you anti’s anyway.” Just got to love the wingnut’s respect for the law.

By kurt

February 26, 2010 4:10 PM | Link to this

Here Here Here !!!! Finally a judge who understands fiscal and moral responsibility.It doesn’t matter whether you condone smoking or not.What DOES matter is that when government TAXES a product,it is recognizing that product as viable and acceptable to society.If you want a LEGAL smoking ban,force government to lift ALL taxes off that product.THAT IS THE LEGAL WAY TO DO THINGS !!!!

By Rae

February 26, 2010 4:04 PM | Link to this

Once again this ban is NOT just to bars but to restaurants as well… I DON’T want to sit with my family especially my son and deal with smoke… Nothing smells worse on a child than smoke… Again I do smoke sometimes when I’m at a BAR (without my son) and I go outside and deal with it - it’s not that big of a deal. Ohio people act like we are the ONLY state that has this ban…. look around other big cities and states have this ban and they are doing just fine. STOP trying to expose my family to second hand smoke!!!!

By Belinda Hellard

February 26, 2010 3:35 PM | Link to this

They should not allow smoking because other people have the right also to be in a Bar and enjoy their selves without breathing in smoke.It’s working most places and if you want to smoke go outside or to an area they have made for you.I worked in Bars for years and having the option of not smoking it was great to go home and not smell like a ash tray.

By SmokingStinks

February 26, 2010 3:25 PM | Link to this

Second Hand Smoke - Tar - Acetone (Nail Polish Remover) - Hydrogen Cyanide (Gas Chamber Poison) - Methane - Ammonia - Methanol - Arsenic - Naphthalene (Mothballs) - Insecticide -Cadmium - Nitrobenzene (Gasoline Additive) - Formaldehyde - Vinyl Chloride - Mercury - Lead Just what a healthy kid who wants to bowl needs. Thanks Smokers

By theshawn

February 26, 2010 3:10 PM | Link to this

What is plainly obvious here, is that a segment of the population is willing to give up freedom of choice (or take it from others) if it MIGHT extend their lifespan a few years. Freedom comes with a price, if you wish to give your’s up for the sake of a few more years, go ahead, just don’t take my freedom away in the process. As a non smoker, I sometimes chose places where the % of smokers wasn’t high because I didn’t like coming home smelling like smoke. Other times I went anyway, it was my choice, they had their choice of a place to go and smoke, I had the choice to go there or not. Not all bars had ALOT of smokers. The sportsbars did not, it is mostly the smaller neighborhood bars most of these whining complainers never went to anyway. Their real belief if they were honest, is that no one should smoke ever, and to do so is a sign of lower intelligence than they possess.

By The Bird

February 26, 2010 2:16 PM | Link to this

to By rrhoop : Public places are funded by taxpayer dollars. Bars are not funded by taxes. To those that say it should be banned because people have died from second hand smole: People have died from tripping on the sidewalk. Should we ban concrete. To those that say “The people voted, enforce it.” At one time people voted to keep women from voteing, blacks from being citizens, so on and so on. Yet none of those arguements passed a test of the constitution. I personally do no care if you smoke, drink, run naked down I75. Just realize that your actions, regardless of the legallity may have an affect on others. Your rights stop when they infringe on the rights of others. That goes for both sides of this argument.

By Becky101

February 26, 2010 2:13 PM | Link to this

We are just ignoring you anti’s anyway. Soon we’ll get rid of this stupid ban all together, especially when the politicions see how much $ it’s costing them.

By smokey

February 26, 2010 2:08 PM | Link to this

maybe they can put a “red-light” camera in bars that goes off when a lighter is struck, then you can mail the offender a ticket he/she will never pay.

By Monica

February 26, 2010 2:04 PM | Link to this

Does anyone really have a clue here? Second hand smoke IS harmful to others - drinking liquor and beer is harmful to YOURSELF that’s why drinking is not illegal but is illegal to drink and drive! People are so stupid on this. Point is I the non-smoker should NOT have to sit and eat at a place where my health is at risk because some smoker can’t walk outside for 2 min to smoke. NO ONE is saying you CAN’T smoke - just NOT INSIDE businesses! Come on now!!!

By Dan Edwards (Not the Ch 2 news guy)

February 26, 2010 2:03 PM | Link to this

“Gained Freedom”, You said, “I’ve gained the freedom of not having to smell and breathe your nasty habit”. But I say to you, you already had the freedom to walk away from my “nasty habit”. Why didn’t you? Did you REALLY need a law? Don’t be so lame. If you crave fresh air, why don’t YOU step outside and breathe in the automotive exhausts and industrial fallout? That should be a healthy alternative for you.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 1:59 PM | Link to this

If underage boys buy the cigarettes, their moms should beat their behinds! It’s not supposed to be up to the gov’t to raise your children. And I don’t smoke cigarettes, but I’ll defend everyone else’s right to do that. Next is prohibition. They’re already telling you what you can’t eat/drink. I’m telling you, you’ve fallen asleep and don’t know you’re about to be raped.

By Rae

February 26, 2010 1:56 PM | Link to this

Enlightened: For the record I have not ever taken my child to a BAR… they would not let him in if I tried - that’s just a stupid statement you made….. the smoking ban is not just for BARS but ALL establishments including restraurants… bars are not the ONLY places that had smoking.

By SmokingStinks

February 26, 2010 1:51 PM | Link to this

Squirly - Every cashier/server/bartender that server or sells alcohol acts as the police. ID. Verify ID to make sure they are of age - then sells it. So what you are saying is that only police should be allowed to sell alcohol? What about your cigarettes - who will sell those? have to make sure no one underage buys them. Seems to me like you want a police state as opposed to a democracy where the people can vote on what they want.

By jon

February 26, 2010 1:12 PM | Link to this

alot of us are missing something big here.a couple years ago before this law passed,the non smokers cried about the smoke but they still ate and drank and spent merry times among the smokers.then somehow they got their wayand business owners were afraid smokers would stay home and they would lose our business.but us smokers still like to eat drink and be merry so we still go even though we have to stand out in the cold an d other weather conditions to smoke.what we need to do is find vout what all the politicians do for fun and lobby to ban it,then things will go right back to normal,we go back to smoking in public places and the nonsmokers will go back to crying about it but still eating and drinking and being merry like they always did and everyone will be 90 percent happy again

By jon

February 26, 2010 1:11 PM | Link to this

alot of us are missing something big here.a couple years ago before this law passed,the non smokers cried about the smoke but they still ate and drank and spent merry times among the smokers.then somehow they got their wayand business owners were afraid smokers would stay home and they would lose our business.but us smokers still like to eat drink and be merry so we still go even though we have to stand out in the cold an d other weather conditions to smoke.what we need to do is find vout what all the politicians do for fun and lobby to ban it,then things will go right back to normal,we go back to smoking in public places and the nonsmokers will go back to crying about it but still eating and drinking and being merry like they always did and everyone will be 90 percent happy again

By jon

February 26, 2010 1:11 PM | Link to this

alot of us are missing something big here.a couple years ago before this law passed,the non smokers cried about the smoke but they still ate and drank and spent merry times among the smokers.then somehow they got their wayand business owners were afraid smokers would stay home and they would lose our business.but us smokers still like to eat drink and be merry so we still go even though we have to stand out in the cold an d other weather conditions to smoke.what we need to do is find vout what all the politicians do for fun and lobby to ban it,then things will go right back to normal,we go back to smoking in public places and the nonsmokers will go back to crying about it but still eating and drinking and being merry like they always did and everyone will be 90 percent happy again

By chuck

February 26, 2010 1:08 PM | Link to this

you light up,the smoke goes through a filter,then your lungs filters it again, then it disapates into the air,how much bad smoke is left? p.s. i dont smoke.but it doesnt bother me and i am 80 years old.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 12:53 PM | Link to this

They could pass a law that says I have to pull people over and give them speeding tickets. They could. But they would be blue in the face and pass out and die before I would do it. You see, that would be an illegal law. A law that isn’t enforceable because I don’t have training to be a policeman, and just passing a trivial law can’t make me work without a paycheck. You see? Not a legal law.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 12:50 PM | Link to this

When did it become fashionable in America to become a socialist? I know the progressives rewrote our children’s history school books, but dang, did our reasoning go out the window with original thought? Why can’t people see that you can’t give any of your rights away, because you don’t get to pick and choose which rights they’ll attack next? Socialism is not okay. It’s not cool. It’s stupid to give up your rights just to look “modern” or “cool” or “be in with the in crowd”. Did your teachers suck your brains out of your heads?

By sallysue

February 26, 2010 12:49 PM | Link to this

the government is “we the people”, we vote, we decided, we put what is needed on a ballot to vote. Freedom to do whatever you want, even if it means injury to others, is not freedom, it is self-centerness

By tired

February 26, 2010 12:32 PM | Link to this

this sums up my opinion… “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” seatbelts,smoking,windshield wipers, etc…it’s all the same thing…next we’ll vote down wearing blue T-shirts and then where will we be! The gov’t uses the emotional issues to assert more and more control.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 12:17 PM | Link to this

Haven’t you ever heard of give them an inch and they’ll take a mile? It’s the same thing with our freedoms. If you don’t care about “smokers” losing their freedoms, then just stick around and they’ll get around to you sooner or later. You will be next, and don’t think that you won’t. Check out your history as to who pushed for prohibition. It wasn’t the rich Republicans, it was the liberal democrats. And they may make you think they are making your decisions for you for your own good, but it’s a lie straight from hell. I promise you that. Smoking in a bar can no way be compared with walking around nude. What a silly argument you are trying to make to justify refusing someone their right to choose.

By sallysue

February 26, 2010 12:14 PM | Link to this

bars closing would be a great idea. There is nothing good about drinking and driving. And don’t say you don’t!!! Stay home and drink and smoke. It smells and you all look like low life trash. You look soooo stupid inhaling smoke and for what reason? Mood alter? I love going places and not having to clean my coat everytime I went anywhere with smokers.

By Satan

February 26, 2010 11:48 AM | Link to this

I AM PROUD OF MY MINION SQUIRRELLY GIRL FOR JOINING ME AS A MASTER OF LIES. SHE DOES SO WELL WITH HALF-TRUTHS, SLIPPERY SLOPES AND SUPPOSITIONS I CANNOT WAIT FOR HER TO TAKE MY SIDE FOR ETERNITY.

By Jim

February 26, 2010 11:47 AM | Link to this

Squirrellygirl, You’re wrong. You don’t have the freedom to pollute the air in a public place. A nudist don’t have the freedom to walk into McDonald’s without clothes. Paint companies don’t have the freedom to put lead in their paint, even though they might make more money. Toyota doesn’t have the freedom to sell cars with sticky accelerator pedals. Bar owners don’t have the freedom to expose their employees to second hand smoke. It’s very simple. If you want to smoke, step outside.

By Gained Freedom

February 26, 2010 11:36 AM | Link to this

Dan Edwards, You haven’t lost any freedom due to the smoking. You can still smoke, just step outside. As a non smoker, I’ve gained the freedom of not having to smell and breathe your nasty habit.

By Dan Edwards (Not the Ch 2 news guy)

February 26, 2010 11:01 AM | Link to this

“not a fanatic smoker”, You continue to miss the point. You have not won any argument and will not win any argument. You have proven nothing to me except that you are a mindless twit. Sling any mud you may have but, prepare to get extremely muddy. No one lost anything from the smoking ban but their freedom. However, I have adapted to it by (are you ready for this?) stepping outside. If you’re against freedom, perhaps YOU should move to a Communist or Socialist country. But then, this country is on its way there so stick around.

By YeahRight

February 26, 2010 10:57 AM | Link to this

Business is GREAT at our restaurant and bar without smoking. If the ban were repealed, we’d still be non-smoking.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 10:51 AM | Link to this

No one forces nonsmokers to go to smoking bars. If you give this freedom of choice away, there will be another freedom you will be giving away next, and then pretty soon you won’t need to make any choices for yourself. The gov’t has it all UNDER CONTROL. You know what I mean? This issue shouldn’t have gone up for a vote, because it is a matter of personal choice whether or not the bar owner wants to allow smoking at his business. The same thing with gays not being allowed to marry. If they can find someone to marry them, why does anyone else have the right to tell them anything. Again, I’m a Christian, but I don’t have the right to force my ideals on anyone. You can’t legislate morals. Where and when do you draw the line? Who is the most moral perfect person who has never sinned who can draw that line? They don’t exist. Deregulate. The gov’t is incapable of being anything but political and unfair.

By Freedom Lover

February 26, 2010 10:51 AM | Link to this

Hey, “Not a Fanatic Smoker”. Judging by your comment, I guess we now know why you don’t have a boyfriend. Nobody likes to kiss someone who smells like a cigarette “butt”.

By NCF

February 26, 2010 10:41 AM | Link to this

@YeahRight Seriously, I’ve answered each of these points several times since 2006 on topixdotcom. The level and quality of the debate here is little better, overall. Why immerse myself in that quagmire here, with my neighbors? Unless things improve here, I will content myself to watch from the sidelines.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 10:35 AM | Link to this

so…who decides where to draw the line about what a safe work environment is? And as Clinton would say, what does “is” really mean? Truth to progressives is not the same as truth in the Bible, or truth to someone who is truly seeking the truth. The fact is, the law is unlawful. It didn’t have the required # of votes, and it had a crooked politician allow it to go up for a vote, and the bill wasn’t written properly and was snuck by the majority of voters. It requires people who aren’t police to work as policemen. And it makes the choice for the bar owners that people can’t smoke in their bars. It’s unconstitutional in more than one way. I suggest we deregulate and get rid of the trashy politicians who are ruining our country.

By SmokingStinks

February 26, 2010 10:21 AM | Link to this

Bartenders do police. They have to ID patrons. Underage they have to kick them out and not serve them. If they serve someone to much alcohol they may be held liable. Asking a patron to put out a cigarette is no big deal. If they disregard, politely let them know you will no longer be serving them. The simpliest solution is for smokers to get up and walk outside for 5 minutes to smoke. You get up to pee. The people of Ohio spoke. They do not want smoking indoors.

By SmokingStinks

February 26, 2010 10:15 AM | Link to this

Asbestos - wasn’t illegal. Private business owners didn’t protect their employees. Years later when it was found out it caused mesothelioma. The private owners were sued. By allowing smoking you are putting your workers at risk. Owners that allow smoking are knowing allowing their employees to breathe in toxic fumes and are not protecting them. It is the duty of an employer to have a safe working enviornment.

By not a fanatic smoker

February 26, 2010 10:12 AM | Link to this

I don’t have a boyfriend. I could make a very disaparaging remark about your wife, but I’ll stop there. The bottom line is that idiots like you complain about issues and cry “Freedom!” when you are on the losing end. Any legislation that you are OK with, suddenly you don’t mind it being banned. As I said, you are better off in Europe with people of your ilk.

By Smokey The Bear

February 26, 2010 10:10 AM | Link to this

There is also a principle involved with this issue; no matter what position we have on this issue, the people voted to create a law making it illegal to perform a specific act. The judges’ job is to enforce the existing laws. He is taking a personal stance by doing and end-run around the law. This defeats the purpose of having an election if some official will arbitrarily bend the will of the people after the fact. Our infamous governor tried the same stunt with the gambling issue and was shut down. I hope the same happens here. Help Prevent Forest Fires! (not to mention house fires while smoking in bed…duh!)

By jacob

February 26, 2010 10:02 AM | Link to this

“Would the Department of Health require property owners to pat down visitors for cigarettes before they are allowed to enter?” I’m OK with the ruling, but this judge is an idiot. Possession cigarettes is not illegal, smoking them in enclosed public places is. What difference does it make if they are in someone’s pockets?

By Dan Edwards (Not the Ch 2 news guy)

February 26, 2010 9:59 AM | Link to this

“not a fanatic smoker”, You have obviously missed my point and have NOT won any argument. It’s about freedom of choice. I have indeed adopted to the ban by (are you ready for this?) stepping outside for a smoke. Also, I am very sorry you didn’t get to marry your boyfriend as a result of the ban on gay marriages. Must be a real (are you ready for this?) “drag” for you.

By Smokey The Bear

February 26, 2010 9:55 AM | Link to this

It’s an easy decision for me and mine; we won’t patronize businesses where people smoke. If enough people will do the same, it will affect business. Comedian Steve Martin said it best, years ago: (1st guy) “Hey, do you mind if I smoke?” (2nd guy) “No, do you mind if I fart?” It’s kind of like that.

By Wendy

February 26, 2010 9:55 AM | Link to this

2.2 million Ohio voters made an intelligent choice. Bar owners remove underage and drunken patrons every day. Clearly, asking smokers to step outside is not too much to ask. Squirrelygirl, Ken Blackwell was the Sec. of State in office when the SmokeFreeOhio petitions were approved.

By Smokey The Bear

February 26, 2010 9:54 AM | Link to this

It’s an easy decision for me and mine; we won’t patronize businesses where people smoke. If enough people will do the same, it will affect business. Comedian Steve Martin said it best, years ago: (1st guy) “Hey, do you mind if I smoke?” (2nd guy) “No, do you mind if I fart?” It’s kind of like that.

By Marlene Lawson

February 26, 2010 9:52 AM | Link to this

I’ve read some of the comments here with great interest. I agree with the people who said there should be smoking bars and non-smoking bars, that would end a lot of the problems. One reader said that they, the non smokers don’t force anything down the throats of smokers..by your own comment you did force things down the throats of smokers. What we have here people is a no win situation for the smokers of America… Second hand smoke kills? What about hard liquor and beer? Doesn’t it kill too? Why aren’t we banning that too? Not only drunk drivers kill, what they consumed kills too..not to mention liver disease! And drunks stink just as bad as alot of you have said smokers do..

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 9:48 AM | Link to this

It is unAmerican to tell people what they can do and where they can do it. Progressives will try to make smoking and drinking illegal so they can take that money you were spending on that and make you give it to the gov’t for redistribution to those who helped them get elected. Big gov’t is EVIL! Also, it is illegal to make people work for no $. This law is unconstitutional and the judge was correct in his verdict. You can’t make bartenders policemen. Sorry, it’s just not legal. An unlawful law. Jennifer Brunner. Things that make you go, HMMMM!

By theshawn

February 26, 2010 9:42 AM | Link to this

LOL, hey Jim, bet it’s not judicial activism when it adheres to the east/west coast elitist beliefs eh? I’ll take the midwest common sense over NYC and CA liberal elitist bs any day. Like we should give a ratz rear what they think. It’s hilarious, and proof of your arrogance that you think we should care.

By theshawn

February 26, 2010 9:40 AM | Link to this

LOL, hey Jim, bet it’s not judicial activism when it adheres to the east/west coast elitist beliefs eh? I’ll take the midwest common sense over NYC and CA liberal elitist bs any day. Like we should give a ratz azz what they think. That’s hilarious and proof of your arrogance you think we should care.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 9:40 AM | Link to this

Did Jennifer Brunner have anything to do with allowing the vote on this issue even though the required signatures weren’t there? Hmmm. Kick her out of office. We need someone who will do their job regardless of their politics. She refused to investigate claims of fraudulent voter registration/voter fraud last prez election.

By Squirrellygirl

February 26, 2010 9:37 AM | Link to this

I’ve seen several comments posted that the required signatures to put this issue up for vote weren’t there but that it went up for vote anyway. Did Jennifer Brunner have anything to do with that? ‘cuz she’s the same one who refused to investigate fraudulent voter registration claims/fraudulent votes last prez election. I suggest voters kick her out of office next election since she can’t seem to do her job fairly w/o political favors.

By Jim

February 26, 2010 9:30 AM | Link to this

This is another case of judicial activism. Bar owners should be accountable for not permitting smoking in their establishments. California and New York have had these bans for years. Is it any wonder that people on the coasts view us as a bunch of backward hicks? 2010 and we’re still haggling over something that’s common sense.

By theshawn

February 26, 2010 9:26 AM | Link to this

And another thing….this line in the article (“and that it is difficult to cite individuals violating the ban,”) and this one (“To cite an individual, the department needs a name and address, she said. Also, if an investigator goes into a bar and sees someone smoking but doesn’t see the bartender ask the person to quit, the smoker is not in violation, she said.”) These comments are the biggest intellectually vacuous statements I’ve seen yet, and proof the judge got it right.

By not a fanatic smoker

February 26, 2010 9:23 AM | Link to this

“The ban should never have reached a ballot for voting.” The same whiny liberal line, whenever they lose a ballot initiative. The liberal left cried like babies when gay marriage, in several states, was banned. Using this idiotic logic, we shouldn’t let those bans stand, either. If you don’t like living under the will of the majority, move to some other country. Smoking isn’t banned in Europe (in fact you can even smoke weed in public in some countries!) and you’ll find more elitist liberals like yourself to commiserate with. As a sometime smoker, the ban doesn’t affect me one bit. I still go to bars frequently. When I feel like a smoke, I (are you ready for this!?) WALK OUTSIDE.

By yeah right

February 26, 2010 9:16 AM | Link to this

“Have fun. I’ve got better things to do.” I sincerely doubt that, Mr. I’m-too-cool-for-the-DDN. Idiots like you have been posting the same tired line since well before 2006.

By theshawn

February 26, 2010 9:15 AM | Link to this

Second hand smoke MAY kill you, but breathing it is not a death sentence. And a private business owner should have the right to allow smoking just as non smokers can choose to use their right to not be around smokers. It’s still a free country on some level, just not the level where big brother types like telling you how to live. I think the next ban should be on fat people being seen in restaurants, I hate looking at obese fat slobs stuffing their faces and driving up my insurance rates…. Plus, we ALL die, quit acting like the passing of a law that MAY postpone a few deaths is some kind of diefied accomplishment and get over your self righteous arrogance.

By Yipee!

February 26, 2010 9:11 AM | Link to this

@Chriss - Civics is a class they teach kids in junior high and high school. Perhaps if your knowledge base was beyond that, you’d know that a LAW textbook is a better reference on judicial activism than a civic book. Thanks for proving to us how clueless you are. And why are you on here at 1129 at night writing messages to strangers?? Sounds lik you have nothing better to do at that time. Perhaps when you kiss a girl for the first time, that will all change. This decision is a prime example of a judge using HIS own bias to decide a case. It’s pretty weak to call someone else an idiot when you can’t even cite anything to prove your point, just name-call. But then again, at your (mental) age that probably sounds pretty cool! I for one am proud of this judge! I think this is a fine example of letting the minority stick it to the majority. OBAMA 2012

By Dan Edwards (Not the Ch 2 news guy)

February 26, 2010 9:10 AM | Link to this

We all have our arguments regarding the no smoking ban issue but, nobody really wins the arguments. The ban should never have reached a ballot for voting. We are still a free country as of this posting. We have a freedom of choice. What we DON’T need is our government pretending to protect a bunch of whining crybabies from the dangers of 2nd hand smoke farce, who have the ability to choose to go into a smoking establishment, or not. Second hand smoke is nothing more than an annoyance, even to myself, a smoker. If you don’t want to stink, perhaps you might entertain the idea of exercising your freedom of choice by staying away as opposed to whining about something you have the ability to choose from.

By NCF

February 26, 2010 8:31 AM | Link to this

Well, I had hoped to see better comments here, but, alas! only the same old idiotic posts that the same old idiots have been posting since 2006. Have fun. I’ve got better things to do. Yours, Non-Cas Fan

By SETH

February 26, 2010 8:29 AM | Link to this

I THINK OHIO SHOULD DO WHAT PITSBURGHS DOIONG THEY HAVE HAVE BARS THAT HAVE WARNING SIGNS ON THE DOORS SAY THIS IS A SMOKING BAR MUST BE OVER THE AGE OF 21 TO ENTER AND OTHER BARS THAT STATE NO SMOKING IT IS UP TO THE OWNER TO ALLOW SMOKING NOT THE STATE OR COUNTY IT GIVES YOU THE CHOISE TO GO TO WICH EVER PLACE YOU WANT

By Smoke?Thanks,but no thanks

February 26, 2010 8:18 AM | Link to this

Hey, Smoke & and Mirrors—I believe Mike was referring to picking and choosing which laws one wants to follow, not impairment. And it’s proven that second-hand smoke does kill—just like drunk drivers.

By nobama

February 26, 2010 7:26 AM | Link to this

I hope it’s a long and painful death to all smokers. Good riddance… and BTW, you stink.

By jon

February 26, 2010 7:20 AM | Link to this

I think the Law Should be Focused on Smoke Eaters and good filtration in the Bars , I don’t mind people smoking ,I Don’t but filtering the smoke out of the bar is what should be looked at.Smoke but clean the air,then everybody is happy

By Jon

February 26, 2010 7:16 AM | Link to this

I think the Law Should be Focused on Smoke Eaters and good filtration in the Bars , I don’t mind people smoking ,I Don’t but filtering the smoke out of the bar is what should be looked at.Smoke but clean the air,then everybody is happy

By smoke & mirrors

February 26, 2010 7:16 AM | Link to this

Hey Mike..You don’t think things through..no you can’t drive after drinking IF you had too much.Smoking does not alter your senses or ability to drive.JUST THINK THINGS THROUGH BEFORE MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT.

By Mr. A

February 26, 2010 6:48 AM | Link to this

“…and people should have the right to do what they want where they want!” S e x on the sidewalk! GAY s e x on the sidewalk! Yay!

By Mr. A

February 26, 2010 6:45 AM | Link to this

“…and people should have the right to do what they want where they want!” Sex on the sidewalk! Yay!

By Reverendcrash

February 26, 2010 4:50 AM | Link to this

Who is the real criminal here? The Bar owner that complies with the Law as it is written,or those minions of the State that ignore the Law as it is written in the Constitution? Justice is blind but she can still spot the crooks.After 3 years of ignoring business owners watch legislators come crawling out of the wood work trying to figure out how to shake business owners down for protection money.

By Mike

February 26, 2010 3:06 AM | Link to this

So then I guess I can ignore the law not to drive after drinking. Since the smoking ban isn’t being followed then why should this? Both law breakers kill others don’t they; one behind the wheel and the other with their second hand smoke against people who chose not to inhale that cancer.

By Dusk

February 26, 2010 2:14 AM | Link to this

Thank goodness. I don’t smoke but by god it’s a legal substance and people should have the right to do what they want where they want! If I ever get bothered by it at Sinclair I simply walk away or ask the person to finish before we converse. Easy as that. Demonizing and penning people in like farm animals just because they smoke is ridiculous!

By whatever

February 26, 2010 1:57 AM | Link to this

Looks, its this simple. If you don’t like smokers, or smelling smoke, start and run your own damn bar, and make your own damn rules. This is America, last time I checked, this is NOT a fascist country, no matter how many people want it to be. I don’t like seeing fat people coming out of buffet eateries, but I let them stuff their faces, because its a free country. If you can be fat, you can smoke, a drink, and do whatever you like, except the obvious, killing, hardcore violence, drugs, and the like. Let the smokers smoke. IF you don’t like going to the bar, start your own bar, make your own rules. I will continue to pay the dollar for a pop can to smoke at the bar and the bar owners will continue to let us.

By whatever

February 26, 2010 1:56 AM | Link to this

Looks, its this simple. If you don’t like smokers, or smelling smoke, start and run your own damn bar, and make your own damn rules. This is America, last time I checked, this is NOT a fascist country, no matter how many people want it to be. I don’t like seeing fat people coming out of buffet eateries, but I let them stuff their faces, because its a free country. If you can be fat, you can smoke, a drink, and do whatever you like, except the obvious, killing, hardcore violence, drugs, and the like. Let the smokers smoke. IF you don’t like going to the bar, start your own bar, make your own rules. I will continue to pay the dollar for a pop can to smoke at the bar and the bar owners will continue to let us.

By KJB

February 26, 2010 1:21 AM | Link to this

The first thing Hitler did when he got in power was ban smoking from public places. He wanted the states (people) assets protected from smoking. And you people that want to drag your kids into my bar. Why don’t you just go to Beef O’Brady’s other “Family Friendly” places and leave us alone? Our whole society does not revolve around your child. Go to Applebees or any other place that chose to ban smoking. Thank you to the Judge!!! :)

By smokedbacon

February 26, 2010 12:58 AM | Link to this

Wow look at the anti smokers temper tantrums in here! Talk about radical basket cases! As This stupid law is supposed to protect employees but rather endangers them when upon break they must go outside where numerous shootings have taken place!

By smokedbacon

February 26, 2010 12:52 AM | Link to this

Had election law been upheld Smoke Free Ohio would not had even been on the ballot as it did not have enough signatures to had been put upon the ballot to begin with!

By smokebacon

February 26, 2010 12:48 AM | Link to this

By Yipee!! February 25, 2010 9:29 PM Now THAT is a fine example of judicial activism! I’m glad that Judge David E. Cain doesn’t believe in respecting the will of the people. Hitler didn’t use “ballot initiatives” to listent to what people wanted. This is how life SHOULD work - the minority needs to tell the majority how to live. OBAMA 2012 Excuse me but I rember the Ohio Legislature going against the vote of the people in changing the drinking age to 21!

By hhc

February 25, 2010 11:50 PM | Link to this

@Yipee!! - don’t you have a healthcare bill to support with the rest of the idiots?

By ChrisS

February 25, 2010 11:28 PM | Link to this

@Yipee!! You are a complete IDIOT. The judge in this case has upheld freedom and the Ohio constitution. There is no “legislating from the bench” here. You really need to go back and review your civics books.

By Captain Mac

February 25, 2010 10:11 PM | Link to this

Bar owners are not policeman and have no rights under ohio law to enforce ANY law other what Citizen arrest stautes allow. If OHIO passes a law it is the responsibilty of policeman to enforce it and issue citatiations. Many Bar owners have been victims of other bar owners calling the hotline and someone walks in and vilates that bar without any proof. THE WHOLE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There should be smoking bars and non-smoking bars. Some bars have 80% of customers smoke. let the other 20% go somewhere else.

By Yipee!!

February 25, 2010 9:29 PM | Link to this

Now THAT is a fine example of judicial activism! I’m glad that Judge David E. Cain doesn’t believe in respecting the will of the people. Hitler didn’t use “ballot initiatives” to listent to what people wanted. This is how life SHOULD work - the minority needs to tell the majority how to live. OBAMA 2012

By www.liggettgroup.com

February 25, 2010 9:22 PM | Link to this

Hey Ohioans!!! Take a chance. Control every aspect of your life. Make sure you don’t sweat/don’t fret. Make sure no one “oogles” your woman/man. Make sure there’s a law that forbids it. Make sure you don’t hear “hate speech” (which, normally, is telling the truth)…insulate yourselves so intently that the phrase “roll with it” is an anachronism to when we were all free…HEY NON-SMOKERS>>>DON’T GO TO BARS THAT ALLOW SMOKING. Sorta pisses you off that your “freedom” of choice is limited, huh? God, you totalitarians want it all, don’t you? Obamans…all of you.

By bill in centerville

February 25, 2010 9:08 PM | Link to this

Light up and live! Victory is ours.

By bar owner

February 25, 2010 8:46 PM | Link to this

the “family owned” exemption is totally misunderstood. Here is an an example of someone who could be exempt. You are a machine shop and only family owrks there and no one from the public enters your building. Therefore, a bar being open to the public, even though it’s just family working is not exempt.

By heh

February 25, 2010 8:39 PM | Link to this

“My house is a business?” You can’t really try reasoning with some of these folks, Mr. A. Logic and facts to folks like that are like sunlight and holy water to vampires.

By me

February 25, 2010 8:39 PM | Link to this

Squirrellygirl: i completely agree with you. and i know personally of a bar that is family owned and it is only them that works there but are forced to abide by the laws and pay the legitimate fines even though they are supposed to be exempt (pardon any misspelling)

By me

February 25, 2010 8:35 PM | Link to this

I know of once instance where the bar is a family owned bar and they were still help liable for smokers when the law passed. They are a family owned business that was supposed to be except from the law but was forced to comply to it. They are smokers and the majority of their business are smokers. They tried to abide by it in the beginning but in the end they but in the end went with their regulars who are smokers when the nonsmokers never showed up.

By VIEW

February 25, 2010 8:33 PM | Link to this

Times change. Bar owners and such need to change with the times/laws. Remember the so called “BOUNCER”? If you to keep order in your establishment, get a bouncer as in the old days. Throw the SOB out on his ear if she/he fails to obey the rules of the house. It’s a win/win!! Keeping unemployment down and keeping smokers out!

By bar owner

February 25, 2010 8:29 PM | Link to this

here’s an idea lawmakers and politicians. There are 88 counties and if you average 100 bars (not restaurants)that will pay 500.00 per year for a smoking license that would raise over 4 million dollars for the state. Make it 1000.00. Owners would gladly pay it. It’s less than than the money because people can’t smoke

By Thank you Judge Cain

February 25, 2010 8:25 PM | Link to this

Finally a decision that makes sense.

By Mr. A

February 25, 2010 8:22 PM | Link to this

“So legally if someone smoked out in front of your house then you could be cited as it seems you want to hold a Business to these rules.” My house is a business?

By jacob

February 25, 2010 8:16 PM | Link to this

“So legally if someone smoked out in front of your house then you could be cited as it seems you want to hold a Business to these rules” Nope. The ballot initiative banned smoking in public places, not private residences. Nice try though.

By wrc

February 25, 2010 7:51 PM | Link to this

I don’t smoke,never have.Only trouble with the law is that its unenforceabled.First I agree it ought to be up to the owner period.Secondly if you check,most places used outside would be consider illegal under the law but heres my point,alot of those places are public sidewalks.So legally if someone smoked out in front of your house then you could be cited as it seems you want to hold a Business to these rules.As the law states a smoker must be so many feet away from the doorway.So next time when you spot a smoker in front of your non smoking friends house I want you to report your friend as he didnt stop that person or maybe someone will report on you as someone could be out there now smoking unbeknownest to you.As written owners would have to hire people just to enforced said law as it is now as they cant be everywhere.I guess you want it wrote on their tombstone killed enforcing smoking ban as it wouldnt surprise me.As most of you never ever had to evict someone,as cops an owners will tell you it dangerous and can be volatile.Become an owner and see if you want to risked injury over a cigarette as cops won’t interfered as it not a law on their books which they are required to enforced.

By NON SMOKER

February 25, 2010 7:15 PM | Link to this

ITISME: Look, I expect that weak argument from my 13 yr/old. Unless you live in the wilderness, everyone else knows that PUBLIC establishments DO NOT allow smoking period. Stop pretending that there are loopholes and bits and pieces of ambiguity wrapped up in this NO SMOKING LAW because that is what a 13 yr/old does. Grow up and abide by the law. That goes for patrons and public establishment owners.

By rrhoop

February 25, 2010 6:37 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing to see how many selfish, irresponsible people there in the world who only care about their own wants & needs above anyone elses. It’s no wonder why the U.S. is in the mess it’s in!! Public places are just that…PUBLIC. They are there for all to enjoy. Non-smokers shouldn’t have to breath in something that stinks & is bad for them and they shouldn’t be the ones who have to stay away from public places. If smokers only knew how bad they really smelled to the rest of the public…There are some hospitals that will NOT hire a smoker and it’s LEGAL! Smokers need to get off their high horse & get over it. We don’t force things down your throat…don’t force them down ours.

By rrhoop5469

February 25, 2010 6:35 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing to see how many selfish, irresponsible people there in the world who only care about their own wants & needs above anyone elses. It’s no wonder why the U.S. is in the mess it’s in!! Public places are just that…PUBLIC. They are there for all to enjoy. Non-smokers shouldn’t have to breath in something that stinks & is bad for them and they shouldn’t be the ones who have to stay away from public places. If smokers only knew how bad they really smelled to the rest of the public…There are some hospitals that will NOT hire a smoker and it’s LEGAL! Smokers need to get off their high horse & get over it. We don’t force things down your throat…don’t force them down ours.

By rrhoop5469

February 25, 2010 6:35 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing to see how many selfish, irresponsible people there in the world who only care about their own wants & needs above anyone elses. It’s no wonder why the U.S. is in the mess it’s in!! Public places are just that…PUBLIC. They are there for all to enjoy. Non-smokers shouldn’t have to breath in something that stinks & is bad for them and they shouldn’t be the ones who have to stay away from public places. If smokers only knew how bad they really smelled to the rest of the public…There are some hospitals that will NOT hire a smoker and it’s LEGAL! Smokers need to get off their high horse & get over it. We don’t force things down your throat…don’t force them down ours.

By Leigh

February 25, 2010 6:33 PM | Link to this

Just have to say - there IS a difference in enforcing the smoking ban and enforcing the drinking age. People are saying that a bar owner would be in trouble if someone under 21 is drinking, so why shouldn’t they be in trouble if someone is smoking? The difference is - smoking, in general, isn’t illegal! Drinking under the age of 21 IS illegal. Quit trying to compare apples and oranges.

By TKidding72

February 25, 2010 5:35 PM | Link to this

Can you believe the people on here? Drunk driving kills more people every year than smoking does. You want to complain because other people that smoke in bars puts your health in jeopardy but your drinking and driving puts peoples lives in danger. You people should look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary. Im sure you will find your name and picture under the definition.

By TKidding72

February 25, 2010 5:34 PM | Link to this

Can you believe the people on here? Drunk driving kills more people every year than smoking does. You want to complain because other people that smoke in bars puts your health in jeopardy but your drinking and driving puts peoples lives in danger. You people should look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary. Im sure you will find your name and picture under the definition.

By barack obama

February 25, 2010 5:20 PM | Link to this

excellent news!!! i go to several bars in Columbus,they still let you smoke. the smoking ban is a joke. if you don’t like cigarette smoke,you can now do the same thing before you had your smoking ban. you can go somewhere else.

By itisme

February 25, 2010 4:40 PM | Link to this

NON SMOKER No my point is the law should be enforced as it is written. I do not smoke and do not go around smokers. That being said, I see many businesses without the required signage, yet no one is calling for enforcement of that part of the statute, they are subject to fines as well as the smokers. A violation is a violation.

By Gwapes

February 25, 2010 4:28 PM | Link to this

Skeptic, the obese people & anorexic people, the bullemics, hyprochondriachs, immunodefficient, and all other sorts of people are driving up your medical insurance costs, as well. But restuarants still serve 400 pound people, 83 pound people are still binging and purging, and the hypochondriachs are still acting like immunodefficient, while the immunodefficient are sick in bed… what’s your point?

By NON SMOKER

February 25, 2010 4:28 PM | Link to this

Dear itisme: Does that mean you don’t have to obey the civil law? Does that mean you “pick and choose what law YOU would like to obey”? Please try and think not only of yourself, but of others among you.

By itisme

February 25, 2010 4:22 PM | Link to this

Jeff, an anonymous complaint is not grounds for a violation.

By DH

February 25, 2010 4:19 PM | Link to this

all you that are complaining about the current law need to wait. I am predicting that the law will change. In its current state people would not be allowed to smoke in the 4 casinos that are going to be built. I bet that the casino owners are going to put pressure on the legistlature to change the law.

By itisme

February 25, 2010 4:18 PM | Link to this

Reference to statutes concerning guns, alcohol, and driving miss the point. Those are criminal statutes and enforced by the police. The smoking ban is a civil statute and enforced by the board of health.

By Jason

February 25, 2010 4:15 PM | Link to this

To the people who think that bar owners should be responsible for enforcing all laws in their establishments, there is a difference between alcohol, where they control the product, and cigarettes, where they don’t. If I give alcohol to a minor, I’m liable. But if they whip out a flask and take a drink in my presence, how does that make me liable? Liability usually, but not always, requires an overt act like making ashtrays accessible.

By NON SMOKER

February 25, 2010 4:15 PM | Link to this

Does anyone realize that smoking causes lung cancer? The law is justifiable. Obey it! Not only because it’s the law but because it is unhealthy to smoke cigarettes. And to comment on many, this is the USA and to have a beer with your cigarette in the state of Ohio is illegal. Just as is it illegal to speed in your car.

By Jeff

February 25, 2010 4:14 PM | Link to this

Considering the underaged drinking example, the establishment would be fined if a liquor control agent witnessed the underaged drinking, not if some random person called and complained. The young person could also be cited if police are present. Smoking reports can be annonymous and without proof. The law is poorly written and basically unenforcable without infringing on personal property rights.

By Realistic

February 25, 2010 4:10 PM | Link to this

Business owners should be allowed to decide on how to run their own business. They should decide if smoking will take place in their establishments or not. Smoke haters do not have to go in, find a business that is nonsmoking, simple. The fact is, if business owners thought they would have made more money going nonsmoking they would have done it a long time ago. But they know more money is to be made in a smoking business.

By Former Smoker

February 25, 2010 4:03 PM | Link to this

Dave you are wrong. As retired police officer, never in 36 years did I ever see or hear of a bar owner being charged because someone had a firearm in the establishment. You are trying to relate the “Public Nusiance” law.

By A Business Owner

February 25, 2010 3:59 PM | Link to this

A business owner should be able to choose if they are a smoking establishment or a smoke free establishment. The consumer then has a choice to come in… or not. An employee has a choice to work in this establishment… or not. It’s simple people. This is America and we are adults. Sharp, not everyone will be crying or embarresed by your sucky personality. They may, however end up arrested for hitting you with the glass that you purposly spilled on them.

By What About My Addictions?

February 25, 2010 3:53 PM | Link to this

OK - I understand that smoking is an addiction and there are disagreements about who’s rights are being violated (the smoker or the non-smoker). The fact is second hand smoke is harmful so if i am exposed to someone’s second hand smoke what am I to do? i could just leave or not go to that business, or i could exercise my addiction; punching people in the face. Now wouldnt that be just as dumb as forcing non-smokers to be subjected to the nasty affects of a smokers second hand smoke? If the bar owner isnt responsible, then who is? I guess if i smacked someone in the face for smoking where the “German” signs are posted there would be a reason for the cops to be called…just a thought that most are too dumb to understand.

By jacob

February 25, 2010 3:48 PM | Link to this

“The judge is right - the bar owners’ are NOT officers of the court or state. You cannot fine someone for NOT taking action” This is utter nonsense, and typical of the people who are upset about the smoking ban - all emotion, not a shred of logic. If an 18-yr-old walked into a bar and started taking shots (unbeknownst to the owner), are you telling me a fine would not be issued?

By Dear Mr. Really???

February 25, 2010 3:40 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Really??? I would love to meet you in one of these bars that does not enforce the smoking law…maybe I could buy you a drink and you could give me a lesson on reading German

By DH

February 25, 2010 3:31 PM | Link to this

I moved up here from Florida where they have a better no smoking law. There you cannot smoke in any bar that makes more than 10% of their profits from food. So you cannot smoke in a resturant but you can smoke in a bar or club. I like to have an occasional cigar and I like to go to a club and have one. The law needs to be changed.

By jacob

February 25, 2010 3:28 PM | Link to this

“So how many of the brightest and best has the professional world lost due to the preference of those less educated?” Probably zero. Check out information on Smokers and IQ:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587241,00.html “How many business owners have lost everything due to those with their snobby anti-smoker bullying?” I’ll call a big fat zero on that one. If you’ve got any evidence that says otherwise, please enlighten me.

By jacob

February 25, 2010 3:28 PM | Link to this

“So how many of the brightest and best has the professional world lost due to the preference of those less educated?” Probably zero. Check out information on Smokers and IQ:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587241,00.html “How many business owners have lost everything due to those with their snobby anti-smoker bullying?” I’ll call a big fat zero on that one. If you’ve got any evidence that says otherwise, please enlighten me.

By JavaJane

February 25, 2010 3:27 PM | Link to this

Some people have taken to smoking in restaurants after the eat hoping they will thrown out without having to pay their bill. I saw this last week. Man and woman light up after their meal, using the plate as their ashtray, and when the manager politely asked them to put it out, they got beligerent and the manager asked them to leave. I was leaving about the same time and I heard the woman say that smoking after their meal saved them $50 because they were thrown out without having to pay for their food.

By jacob

February 25, 2010 3:23 PM | Link to this

“Guess all the smokers that say it is OK to violate this LAW won’t mind if I spit tobacco juice in their glass the next time I have to breath their smoke.” AWESOME!!!!!! I hope you do that!

By David

February 25, 2010 3:21 PM | Link to this

There is a bar I used to frequent that continues to take a minimal approach to enforcement. They did post the sign and take ashtrays off the table, but a few of their customers continued to smoke day in and day out. They continued to serve them day in and day out too. I agree that occational disregard for the laws should not be the owner’s fault. But when the owner/management does not take action day after day , week after week to prevent smoking, and continues to serve the same smokers, then there is something wrong and management needs to be held accountable. Perhaps laws could be changed to permit bars/bowling alleys/fraternal organizations or whatever to permit smoking on a precinct by precinct basis, just like sunday sales are voted on in this way. This would let each area determine their own preference.

By Really???

February 25, 2010 3:18 PM | Link to this

OK Bob and every other NAZI on who wants to call the police about this “law” - I am going to say this once and I will type slow, so maybe you can follow: The police DO NOT enforce this law. It is County Health Department that does - call them!! Please do not bother the police folks, they are already understaffed, under paid and over worked on REAL crimes & don’t need to be bothered with your MINOR inconvenieces. I am still hoping someone will answer my question about the two signs? Do non-smokers not understand what they would mean? Do we need to write them in German maybe?

By shannon

February 25, 2010 3:12 PM | Link to this

Ok, a bar owner enforces the no drinking under 21 law by not serving them correct? So they can enforce the smoking ban by not serving to any patrons that are smoking. I don’t agree with the law myself, but it is now the law and we don’t get to decide not to abide by laws we don’t agree with.

By shannon

February 25, 2010 3:12 PM | Link to this

Ok, a bar owner enforces the no drinking under 21 law by not serving them correct? So they can enforce the smoking ban by not serving to any patrons that are smoking. I don’t agree with the law myself, but it is now the law and we don’t get to decide not to abide by laws we don’t agree with.

By shannon

February 25, 2010 3:12 PM | Link to this

Ok, a bar owner enforces the no drinking under 21 law by not serving them correct? So they can enforce the smoking ban by not serving to any patrons that are smoking. I don’t agree with the law myself, but it is now the law and we don’t get to decide not to abide by laws we don’t agree with.

By Mike

February 25, 2010 3:11 PM | Link to this

I hate smoke from cigerette and I love going to Dave & Busters and being able to leave without smelling like I just smoked a carton of Marlboros. That being said…what happened to personal choice. If I don’t like the smoking in a restaurant , you know what U do? I choose NOT to go there and go some place else. I am sooooo tired of people telling the gov’t to stay out of their lives and then the yell for the gov’t to get rid of this and that so that it fits “their wants”.

By zman

February 25, 2010 3:03 PM | Link to this

If the smoking ban is causing bars to go out of business why are there so many bars/resturants opening up locally?? Doesnt the fact that South Carolina (a major tobacco producing state) just outlawed smoking in public places tell you something?? Smoking kills! Second hand smoke kills! And even if it didn’t, I sure dont miss coming home from my favorite bar smelling like a dirty ashtray. I can’t believe you smokers are still complaining about this…GET OVER IT, AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES!! The issue was voted on by the people of OHIO and we voted for the ban, period!! If the state was really serious about stopping smoking in bars/resturants, it would be a fine on first and second offenses, and they take your liquor license on your 3rd offense. That would end the problem right there! 25% of ohio peole smoke..75% dont..majority rules folks!

By dale1

February 25, 2010 2:59 PM | Link to this

I think the constitutionality of this law should be challenged in court. BTW, our government is set up that every law can be challenged in court so there is nothing wrong with a judge stepping in on this. I don’t smoke and like the non-smoking bars but I would rather deal with the smoke than lose another freedom.

By dale1

February 25, 2010 2:59 PM | Link to this

I think the constitutionality of this law should be challenged in court. BTW, our government is set up that every law can be challenged in court so there is nothing wrong with a judge stepping in on this. I don’t smoke and like the non-smoking bars but I would rather deal with the smoke than lose another freedom.

By Dave

February 25, 2010 2:55 PM | Link to this

Former Smoker – every bar in the state is required to post a sign saying it’s illegal to have a gun on the premises. If a cop walks in and finds fifty people with guns out in the open and the bar is serving them anyway, do you think the bar owner won’t face some kind of legal action? Try again. How many times have you seen bars closed by the police because of shootings and drug dealing? I’m not trying to equate that with smoking in public, except to say bar owners can be held accountable for what goes on in their establishment.

By Enlightened

February 25, 2010 2:55 PM | Link to this

If our country was a democracy, 51% of the people could decide they want to kill the other 49%. That is why our nation is a Constitutional Republic, to protect the minority, in this case, smokers! We need to get rid of these lawmakers who keep giving special interest anything they want by a poll and elect those that abide by the U.S. Constitution. Laws should never be enacted to further demonize a population as large as 1/3 of the U.S. This is right out of the playbook of these special interest groups that benefit from bans! They know the mere mention of smokers raise the ire of anti-smokers. Tobacco Control organizations like the American Cancer Society, ASH, Tobacco Free Kids, etc., have become nothing but Perception Management firms. They are PAID to CREATE “truth”. Created truth is controllable. Smoke free advocates try to sell the success of smoke free initiatives, laws, and taxation, but never tell of the amount of money the states lose, nor do they report truthfully of the damage it causes to business owners. There is NO business without an owner! I know many professionals (educated) who will NOT work under smoke-free rules and have quit! So how many of the brightest and best has the professional world lost due to the preference of those less educated? How many business owners have lost everything due to those with their snobby anti-smoker bullying?

By Bob

February 25, 2010 2:51 PM | Link to this

Ok Really???, I’ll concede your point on using 911. I’ll call the non-emergency number for the local police department/sheriff instead. Point is, they’re breaking a law and the police enforce the law.

By Skeptic

February 25, 2010 2:51 PM | Link to this

This judge is out of his mind. The ban was approved by the people because smoking causes cancer. The bar should responsible. In some countries, the individual SERVER is responsible and can be fined if they are caught serving anyone who is smoking. Meanwhile, the smokers are driving up MY the cost of health care insurance because of their bad habits. Why is the USA so far behind when it comes to public health?

By ga chef

February 25, 2010 2:48 PM | Link to this

The judge is wrong. The bar owner is responsible for checking ID’s for age and enforcing the law. The states can’t can drink unless you’re 21. Why is the non smoking ban any different. To those smokers, if you don’t like the law then take action to get it repealed. If the bar owner wants a liquor license then he needs to enforce the law.

By jacob

February 25, 2010 2:46 PM | Link to this

“A minority making decisions for everyone else.” Following this logic, the smoking ban is a good thing, right? After all, the majority voted for the ban. Just like in California and several other states - the majority voted to ban gay marriage, so the minority should have to deal with it. The majority voted to ban smoking, the minority has to deal with it.

By Former Smoker

February 25, 2010 2:46 PM | Link to this

The judge did not rule on the legality of the law, just that the owner cannot be held liable if patrons do not abide by the law. Owners of establishments are not empowered with police powers for enforcement and, if signs are posted, have no duty to act. Real simple.

By Squirrellygirl

February 25, 2010 2:45 PM | Link to this

The progressives are nasty, and they always have another agenda. A secret agenda. They want you to think it’s for your good, but really it’s to further their agenda. They aren’t satisfied until you are taxed when you potty. Seriously, it’s a hop skip and jump from progressives socialism to communism. They even have SEIU thugs to enforce their oppression at townhall meetings. Gov’t doesn’t have a right to tell you what you can or cannot do in your home. They shouldn’t be able to tell businessowners either. And to fine bar owners for not policing their establishments is like requiring police officers to work without pay. You can’t do it legally, folks. Think about it. Our gov’t is incapable of being fair and impartial, so why allow the gov’t to take away any of your rights?

By Dave

February 25, 2010 2:43 PM | Link to this

Here’s the thing. The bar owner shouldn’t be held accountable for illegal activity that they don’t see, or that they tried to prevent. But when somebody is sitting in the bar breaking the law, and you serve them another drink, you condone their behavior. At that point, signs don’t matter. If I take my 9 year-old grandson into a restaurant that serves alcohol and buy him a beer, I’m the one who broke the law. But if the staff sees him drinking that beer and doesn’t take active steps to stop him, they can be held equally liable because now they are an accomplice. This is really no different.

By Really???

February 25, 2010 2:43 PM | Link to this

Bob - I would LOVE to be there when you are arrested for making false calls to 911 - kind of shows the mentality we are dealing with here doesn’t it? OMG - 911 for someone smoking. You should write comedy if your serious. Make that call and let’s see how many laws you are breaking???

By TAS

February 25, 2010 2:38 PM | Link to this

So when bars start burning down because bar owners can’t provide ashtrays but can’t stop drunks from smoking either… Great idea. I guess bars don’t have to enforce any rules anymore, bring on the fights, nudity, gambling and whatever, there is no responsiblity to enforce laws in your place of business, bring it on! Judge must have been having a bad day!

By Sharp

February 25, 2010 2:37 PM | Link to this

Had a beautiful meal out at a nice restaurant last night and I thought about not smelling smoke. Ahhhh, that was nice! Then I read this today about what the judge did and I fully expect smoking fools to begin testing the water again and start smoking in public places. If that happens, I will again return to vigilantism and start enforcing the rules myself. It was kind of fun spilling drinks on smokers, badgering and threatening them until their wives and children cry, and generally embarrasing both the smoker and myself just to get my point across. Ahhh, the good old days!

By OK Fine

February 25, 2010 2:37 PM | Link to this

OK, so if owners should not be required to enforce laws in thier establishment then why card suspected underage drinkers, why comply with department of health rules, i.e require workers to wash thier hands after going to the bath room, why store food at the correct temperature and clean the kitchen,why close at 2:30 a.m. etc, etc. If they can refuse to serve someone for being underage they should refuse to serve someone who is smoking inside. If they can refuse to serve someone because they are not wearing a shirt or shoes then they should refuse to serve someone smoking inside, violating the LAW.

By Bob

February 25, 2010 2:36 PM | Link to this

The solution is simple, if somewhat ridiculous. If someone’s smoking and you object, call 911. Let the police enforce the law.

By bill in centerville

February 25, 2010 2:32 PM | Link to this

Light up and live. Victory has been had.

By Really???

February 25, 2010 2:30 PM | Link to this

The judge is right - the bar owners’ are NOT officers of the court or state. You cannot fine someone for NOT taking action. You holier than thou non-smokers need to get a grip. Post one of two signs: “SMOKING ALLOWED” or “NO SMOKING”. Too complicated for you people to follow? Confused about what those words mean? Unable to make your own adult responsible choice? Please explain this to me? I’ll tell you what: I won’t go in the non-smoking places, so WHY do you WANT to come into the smoking places?

By Joe

February 25, 2010 2:20 PM | Link to this

Pam..???? That was my point exactly. IF the bar owner removes the ash trays and posts the signs then the bar is in full compliance. It is not their responsbility to enforce the law… just comply to it. Let them police it by fining the offender (smoker) not the bar owner.

By Brandon

February 25, 2010 2:20 PM | Link to this

Does Kroger get fined every time someone illegally parks in their handicapped spots? Has Meijer ever received a fine for a customer parking in the fire lane? Is the State of Ohio sending bar owners paychecks for enforcing the Ohio Revised Code? It would seem to me that it would be the State’s burden to enforce laws. Not bar owners. It would also seem to me that, “I cannot go to a bar and get drunk without having to put up with cigarette smoke.” is a pretty lame argument for anyone to make.

By A Conservative Voice

February 25, 2010 2:19 PM | Link to this

What’s next? Citizens detaining spitters & speeders? A law enforcement officer should visit these bars and enforce the law with citations for those who violate the law - clearly posted in visible areas as @ the entrance.

By theshawn

February 25, 2010 2:15 PM | Link to this

Right on judge, it’s not the bar owners job to police what the government wants illegal. Just because big brother types who know what’s best for everyone, voted to disallow private business to make it’s own decisions on the matter. This does not mean it’s now the bar owners job to police it. Maybe if they started ticketing the actual smoking patrons, they would actually decide it is not worth it to defy the ban.

By A

February 25, 2010 2:14 PM | Link to this

BOOOO HOOOO HOOOO, Ohioians voted to ban smoking. If these people spent as much time thinking of ways to run their businesses better as they do complaining about the ban they’ll probably make more money than they did before. Its the law, deal with it and move on!!

By Dan Edwards (Not the Ch 2 news guy)

February 25, 2010 2:10 PM | Link to this

“Me”, “However, I should not have to suffer through your addiction”. Why not? We smokers must still suffer the chronic complaining of people not at all unlike yourself. There are countless laws that people constantly ignore. Why is this one any different?

By Bill

February 25, 2010 2:03 PM | Link to this

Richard needs some work on analogies. That was the most harebrained thing I’ve ever read. This might come as a shock, but different laws apply to the owners of material items and the owners of businesses. You can tell short people, old people and Asians they’re not allowed in your car if you want. You can’t restrict them from your business. You can operate your car any time and any place you want, but you can’t do that with a business. See how this works, little guy? It’s really pretty simple. I’m sure you’ll get it in no time, once you’ve had some more schooling.

By Pam

February 25, 2010 2:00 PM | Link to this

Fortunately, Joe, the court rules and not you. Individuals who are smoking are the ones who are violating the law if we owners tell them to put it out, take away ashtrays and put up the signs. At some point, the person smoking IS the legally responsible person. If someone pulls out a gun to shoot someone in our bar, am I supposed to stop him?

By Stand

February 25, 2010 2:00 PM | Link to this

Take a stand now and report EVERY business that violates the smoking ban. If they don’t want to pay the fines, then they can waste our government’s time on stupid lawsuits. Enforce what Ohioans put in place!

By Gene

February 25, 2010 1:57 PM | Link to this

The smoking ban includes all tobbacco products. It was put in place to protect the employees so they are not subject to second hand smoke. I was a smoker for 20 plus years but never smoked where others ate ifothers were considerate like that maybe this law would have never been required. Something to think about.

By Joe

February 25, 2010 1:55 PM | Link to this

Here is an analogy to the judges ruling that maybe some can understand. It is illegal to spit on the sidewalk and I come on to your property and do that, then you get ticketed because you didn’t enforce the law on your property. Are you going to yell foul and protest that action? If you say no you are either an idiot or a liar. Same thing here, If the bar complies by posting the signs and removes the ashtrays (conformity in fulfilling official requirements ) then who enforces the law? The Bar owner has fulfilled his obligation.

By smokey

February 25, 2010 1:53 PM | Link to this

plain and simple to me, just have some respect. i don’t like breathing it, so i leave if i have to. much like you wouldn’t want to stand there and smell my farts, they don’t bother me, but they may bother you. if you want to smoke, go outside. why is it ok for you to tell me to leave, but not for me to say that to you? last time i looked, smoking wasn’t a right.

By Pam

February 25, 2010 1:53 PM | Link to this

Sure, J, it’s Ritchie’s Tavern. Do you think we bar owners are rolling in the dough since the ban? WE ARE NOT!

By Bill

February 25, 2010 1:52 PM | Link to this

LD, does that stand for Learning Disability? Certainly seems like you have one. Too bad you’re not capable of thinking for yourself instead of just buying into the propaganda. If second hand smoke is so bad, why aren’t there more cases of nonsmokers with lung cancer than smokers? The AMA says about 90 percent of lung cancer patients are smokers. As for N, you are absolutely correct. That’s the way it should be handled, but the non-smoking zealots would never go for it because they know it wouldn’t work. The non-smoking establishments would go out of business because who in their right mind would want to go to a bar and hangout with a bunch of whiny, annoying killjoys?

By Richard

February 25, 2010 1:51 PM | Link to this

How interesting! So from the judges logic, a car owner shouldn’t be responsible for the car’s speed or who is permitted to drive it….just leaves keys for whom ever. Sound stupid? Who’s influencing the judge’s thinking?? The legislation (Ban) was passed, so enforce it. Non-smokers have as much right to breathe clean er air.

By Pam

February 25, 2010 1:50 PM | Link to this

Dave said “Why did we bother to vote on this if the judges and politicians are hell-bent on changing the rules with every new phase of the moon? Either smoking is legal in these establishments, or it’s not. I wish they’d make up their minds. “ Actually, Dave, the Ohio Department of Health changed the rules and that’s what the judge said, too.

By Mel

February 25, 2010 1:48 PM | Link to this

I find it hilarious that complaints have been filed against the Butler County Health Department and the Butler County Sheriff’s Office. If the county’s chief law enforcement agency is in violation and the health agency charged with enforcement can’t find themselves in compliance what do they expect of others?

By J

February 25, 2010 1:47 PM | Link to this

Can you please tell me the name of that business? Thats what I thought.

By middsteve

February 25, 2010 1:46 PM | Link to this

Really it is this simple..if you don’t like smoke,don’t go places that allow smoking.Don’t try to to make the world suit you.If I own a bar or restaurant it should be up to me if it is smoking or not.And an earlier post told about all the funerals they had been to because of smoking,not so,there has never been 1 death proven to have been caused by second hand smoke.

By Pam

February 25, 2010 1:46 PM | Link to this

Morman is a liar. The Pour House decision by the District Court ruled the exact same thing that Judge Cain ruled but the ODH ignored the ruling and kept going after bar owners anyway. I think every bar that’s been fined instead of the smoker should sue to get their fines and legal fees returned.

By Dave

February 25, 2010 1:46 PM | Link to this

Joe, you’re wrong – the bill that passed was clearly written as a ban to smoking in public places. The opposing bill was funded by tobacco companies, and it was intentionally written in such a manner as to confuse voters and make them think they were voting for a smoking ban, while in reality they would have been voting for a Constitutional amendment that would have repealed every non-smoking law in the state and made it illegal to raise the issue again in the future.

By Pam

February 25, 2010 1:42 PM | Link to this

Here you go, J. A picture is worth a thousand words. http://opponentsofohiobans.com/default.aspx

By Squirrellygirl

February 25, 2010 1:39 PM | Link to this

Why does it seem that these progressives always cheat when it comes to their political activities? They can’t accept that we are adults with the right to choose how we want to live. They tell us we’re too stupid to understand and then try the socialist thing. Then once the people are made aware of their agenda, they change their name. They’re progressives now. Guess they’ll have to change their name again soon. Freedom is the answer. Deregulate. Make it legal, then they can’t hurt you.

By n

February 25, 2010 1:39 PM | Link to this

As long as there is a sign out front of a BAR that says that it is a smoking establishment, non-smokers and others who don’t want to come in don’t have any reason to complain. Just like smoking, make it a choice. No smoking in restaurants, etc. but bars are different. I like the bar we go to, that, when they hand you an ashtray, tell you that you can’t smoke in here. Covers their *.

By Enlightened

February 25, 2010 1:37 PM | Link to this

The legal choices of free Americans is NOT the government’s role to take away! The Nazi’s tried this and got away with it for some time, where are they now? The government enacted Prohibition, what happened to that? Our government officials need to get out of the business of taking away private property rights! Once upon a time, the penalty for treason was the gallows!

By Enlightened

February 25, 2010 1:32 PM | Link to this

Peoplehavespoken: The ballot said that privately owned family businesses and private clubs would be exempt. They CHANGED it after the vote! YOU voted to exempt these places, and the gov’t threw out YOUR vote to placate special interest, big pharma’s grantees like smoke-free Ohio. And they used illegal petitioners going home to home, like felons (forgers, rapists, child molesters), to gather signatures to get it on the ballot illegally.

By Enlightened

February 25, 2010 1:25 PM | Link to this

Rae: You take your kids to bars? Leave them home! These are adult venues and adults should be able to choose where they go. There was never a law that said a place MUST allow smoking, there should not be one saying the CAN’T!

By Puffy

February 25, 2010 1:23 PM | Link to this

Heh, heh heh heh, ha, ha, ha,,.. har har har!!! Oh I love it! Too funny!!!!! Let me sit back, fire one up, and just chuckle for a few minutes. Maybe I’ll order a beer.

By smoke & mirrors

February 25, 2010 1:22 PM | Link to this

How come all the good deed doers didn’t try to ban sex when aids came along!

By marbee

February 25, 2010 1:21 PM | Link to this

FINALLY! Some common sense! You know that surgeon general’s report on second hand smoke? www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ DEBUNKED! Health Facts And Fears ww.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp Everything else: DEBUNKED! www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf For this we give up freedoms that we’ve had for hundreds of years! Much like the newly exposed global warming debacle, which is nothing but an excuse for the government to legitimize the extreme taxation it would bring, the second hand smoke issue is nothing more than a way to control a huge segment of the population, perhaps as much as 1/2 of it or more. The newly created obesity ‘crisis’ that has kids feeling guilt, not love, is nothing more than a way for big pharma’s control.

By marbee

February 25, 2010 1:20 PM | Link to this

FINALLY! Some common sense! You know that surgeon general’s report on second hand smoke? www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ DEBUNKED! Health Facts And Fears ww.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/newsdetail.asp Everything else: DEBUNKED! www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf AND: www.google.com/search?q=SECOND+HAND+SMOKE+DEBUNKED&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGLenUS318 For this we give up freedoms that we’ve had for hundreds of years! Much like the newly exposed global warming debacle, which is nothing but an excuse for the government to legitimize the extreme taxation it would bring, the second hand smoke issue is nothing more than a way to control a huge segment of the population, perhaps as much as 1/2 of it or more. The newly created obesity ‘crisis’ that has kids feeling guilt, not love, is nothing more than a way for big pharma’s control.

By J

February 25, 2010 1:15 PM | Link to this

Name one bar that has closed as a direct result of the smoking ban? EXACTLY….none

By Really???

February 25, 2010 1:13 PM | Link to this

The judge is right. You cannot make the owners enforce this stupid law - they are NOT officers of the court/state. You cannot “fine” someone for not taking action. O.K. fine the smoker, but not the owner. You non smokers are REALLY out of loop with regards to the law. We are a Republic, not a Democracy and if you don’t know the difference go look it up and then please, shut up and go to your Non-Smoking establishments.

By Hate the smell

February 25, 2010 1:11 PM | Link to this

So the message I am receiving from this article and the judge is that is is ok to go ahead and smoke in a non smoking establishment as long as they have signs posted and ashtrays removed? Seriously, a lot of the bars are not following the law of no smoking. They have the signs hanging, but have the ashtrays available. Although they have a designated outdoor area for smokers, that is only a cover. I usually leave those places because I choose to not smell like smoke. There is nothing pleasant about that scent. Give it another year. All bars will be back to allowing smokers to light up whether it is the law or not!

By Squirrellygirl lover

February 25, 2010 1:09 PM | Link to this

Squirrellygirl I bet your a hottie.

By Squirrellygirl lover

February 25, 2010 1:09 PM | Link to this

Squirrellygirl I bet your a hottie.

By Joe

February 25, 2010 1:06 PM | Link to this

LD… could you please post a link to the site that shows absolute scientific proof that second hand smoke kills. I read the papers and the studies, you should too before you make statements like that.

By Squirrellygirl

February 25, 2010 12:57 PM | Link to this

Deregulate everything as much as possible, that is the answer to our problems. If businesses find it easier to set up and aren’t hindered by gov’t regulations and taxes, then they will hire people. I’d much rather have a job then worry about who is smoking what when and where. Yes, legalize EVERYTHING. Agree with 4/20. Then watch people flock to U.S. to set up companies that will hire people. Bars are going out of business due to this ban. Nonsmokers should go to nonsmoking bars instead of forcing others to follow suit. Smoking a cigarette with your beer shouldn’t be against the law in the United States of America.

By Joe

February 25, 2010 12:57 PM | Link to this

Snuffy… you’re ridiculous and childish with your statement…now if anyone can offer concrete evidence that second hand smoke is harmful I’ll listen until then quit talking about something that has never been proven. I can produce just as many statistics proving the contrary as all the fanatics can that prove it is. (Kind of like Global Warming) And YES I did vote but the way it was present was confusing to the average voter and they ended up voting the wrong way. Put it up for a fair vote that requires a simple “Yes” allow it or “No” Ban it and I’ll bet the results will be far different this time..

By Hank

February 25, 2010 12:56 PM | Link to this

The Judge is Wrong . If the establishment has signs ” no smoking ” and if all the ashtrays were removed - no smoking is allowed in the bar . Folks have the right to expect ’ No smoking ’ when it’s posted and the Establishment must honor that advertisement . Once again , Who can we trust as a society when the rules are posted and no one enforces them ? The Judge is totally ‘Wrong ’ and he probably smokes and drinks … LOL

By B'wana

February 25, 2010 12:45 PM | Link to this

This “ban” is a NON ISSUE to me. We still smoke in the bar I frequent. You don’t like it? Stay THE F* OUT of my bar. And bugger the health dept! THAT’S the owners stance. IT’S A BAR! Where people come to get drunk and smoke. It’s been THAT WAY since before many of you…DO GOODERS were even born. Friggin whiny, health conscious, do-gooders…

By Me

February 25, 2010 12:43 PM | Link to this

I agree with the smoking ban. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to smoke in the privacy of their own home, car, etc. However, I should not have to suffer through your addiction. As far as the ruling of the judge, it sounds like he is upholding the ban. His position just questioned the Dept. of Health requiring the bar/restaurant to strictly enforce it.

By Jason

February 25, 2010 12:39 PM | Link to this

As usual, people are dumb and didn’t read or understand the ruling. All it said was that the government overstepped its bounds in holding the establishment responsible for enforcement. It did not judge whether or not the smoking ban is legal/constitutional or not.

By Libertarian

February 25, 2010 12:38 PM | Link to this

I’m a non-smoker. Can’t stand cigarette smoke. But I voted against the law. A business owner should have the freedom to allow - or disallow - smoking. We are supposed to be a free country, right? Right?

By LD

February 25, 2010 12:38 PM | Link to this

I’ve been at the funerals of food service workers who have died as the result of 2nd hand smoke. Easy to say they should have quit their jobs when they were single Mothers with children to clothe & feed. SMOKE KILLS! 2nd hand smoke has been proven to be more deadly over a prolonged period of time.

By Rita

February 25, 2010 12:38 PM | Link to this

So, snuffy, are you saying it is ok that the ban went on the ballot by means of fraud and other criminal acts that is ok with you? Isn’t that a double standard?

By Bob540

February 25, 2010 12:32 PM | Link to this

As I recall, the ballot issue stated that certain places would be exempted from the ban, but where are those places now? Seems to me that the anti-smoking Nazis are outlawing smoking entirely, including preventing people from getting jobs if they smoke. I don’t smoke, and I voted against the issue because I thought it was too restrictive. Voting really doesn’t matter, because the voters are lied to. Good for the judge tho.

By T

February 25, 2010 12:31 PM | Link to this

I don’t smoke and I voted against it. Why? Because I just don’t feel that if I own my own business, why should the State of Ohio have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in it. If people don’t like the smoke, they will go elsewhere ( my loss ). Just another case of the government getting involved where it does not belong. It’s their business and their building. Leave these people alone.

By Monica

February 25, 2010 12:19 PM | Link to this

I’ve heard so many people complain about the non-smoking rule….. but not ONE of them voted…. HELLO VOTE next time!!!

By Rita

February 25, 2010 12:19 PM | Link to this

This smoking ban was put on the ballot by means of fraud and other criminal acts. It has cost the state of Ohio over 2 million dollars since the beginning to try to enforce it. Now, all these appeals, that they didn’t think would happen, are costing the citizens of Ohio, more and more each day. FOR WHAT??? Is the state so rich it can afford to use our tax dollars on it?

By Rae

February 25, 2010 12:17 PM | Link to this

I voted for nonsmoking due to having a child that doesn’t need to go places that there will be smoke in his face…. saying that I do smoke while I drink and it sucks to go outside - but I’d rather go outside than to ‘help’ someone develope cancer or other second hand smoke health problems. My thoughts are stop crying about it and walk your happy butt outside and smoke… it’s not that big of a deal people!!!

By jpb

February 25, 2010 12:12 PM | Link to this

420…legalize it

By snuffy smith

February 25, 2010 12:11 PM | Link to this

Guess all the smokers that say it is OK to violate this LAW won’t mind if I spit tobacco juice in thier glass the next time I have to breath thier smoke.

By Wake up People

February 25, 2010 12:07 PM | Link to this

People insist on having the government take care of them and this is what you will get. Be responsible people. These smoking bans and strip club restrictions are only the tips of the iceberg. Government health insurance will be way worse. Read up on why the PM of Canada came to the US for heart surgery. The length of the line was too long. Based on age and value of the surgery is how it will be determined if you get it or not. Get rid of the socialanistas now before it is too late.

By smokey

February 25, 2010 12:03 PM | Link to this

legalize it!!!!!!!!

By PeopleHaveSpoken

February 25, 2010 12:02 PM | Link to this

The people voted to ban smoking. What is this judge thinking. The people spoke, and told the minority you have to respect the rights of non-smokers. You can smoke, just outside where the toxic smoke won’t affect other. I wonder what these bars will do when an employee sues on the basis of cancer from their patrons and not providing safe measures.

By Gerry

February 25, 2010 11:59 AM | Link to this

A minority making decisions for everyone else Actually, 58.2% voted for the smoking ban in 2006. You can disagree with it, but it wasn’t enacted by a minority. It’s what the majority of Ohio voters want, and it’s not particularly close.

By Squirrellygirl

February 25, 2010 11:53 AM | Link to this

A minority making decisions for everyone else. Not a good thing. Some bars are losing business and going out of business because of this. Most people who smoke and drink want to drink that beer with their cigarette. If you don’t want to go to a smoking allowed bar, go elsewhere. Stop trying to tell everyone else what they are ALLOWED to do. We are adults, we should act like adults and stop trying to manipulate other people’s lives.

By Dave

February 25, 2010 11:52 AM | Link to this

Why did we bother to vote on this if the judges and politicians are hell-bent on changing the rules with every new phase of the moon? Either smoking is legal in these establishments, or it’s not. I wish they’d make up their minds.