DaytonDailyNews.com

By Paul

May 2, 2007 2:45 AM | Link to this

Wow, people really love cigarettes, wait I mean people are really addicted to their cigarettes, really its not that hard to just go outside and smoke. You smokers are all acting like they took that right away from you, cigarettes are still being sold in stores right? There not banned totally, so quit acting like your rights are being stripped away and that the government did this without asking the voters. Ohioans voted and the law passed.

By S

May 1, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

To all of the people who use the its my right, its America, go f**k yourself. I know its hard to not be selfish and arrogant since you are an American. F**king smoking a******s couldn’t understand the consitution if they even cared enough to read it.

By Renee

April 26, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this

First, I’m a nonsmoker. Despite that, I think everyone should be able to enjoy certain things in life. If a person wants to smoke, they should have an enjoyable, entertaining place to do so, as should the non-smokers-each in an environment that suits them. If non-smoker’s want non-smoking places to patronize so badly, why not just open (or convince a current business owner to have) non-smoking establishments. According to us non-smokers, business would boom, right?

By Dave

April 23, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this

We’ll miss you George.

Seriously, how can you even try to compare this with slavery or racial desegregation? You’re talking about laws that were enacted because of the malicious and inexcusable treatment of human beings based on their race.

How many handicapped parking spaces and wheelchair ramps did you see before they became law? Businesses could have addressed the need earlier, but they didn’t. Same goes with smoking. They could have, but they didn’t.

By George

April 23, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

I see this as the Tyranny of the Majority! Just because the majority voted for something, doesn’t make it right! 58% ppfftt. I’m sure a majority in Mississippi might want slavery back as well…. Go ahead and be happy with our Federal and State laws taking away our freedoms. Just wait until they come after something YOU enjoyed. It was perfectly legal to open a smoke-free bar BEFORE this law. I didn’t see many of them packed with non-smokers!!! I for one, won’t be going to any bars after this.

By Geo

April 21, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

I couldn’t be happier! Enjoy your smokes OUTSIDE. It is where all smokers belong.

By Dave

April 20, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

Wake up Jimmy. There are laws regarding how much you can drink, whether you’re driving or not. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The consumption of alcohol has absolutely no effect on innocent bystanders unless the person drinking breaks an already established law.

All this conspiracy theory about Big Brother taking away all our rights. Seriously, all this law says is that you can’t force other people to breathe your smoke. How is that a retraction of anybody’s rights?

By Dave

April 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

Joseph, I don’t entirely disagree with you. Cars and greenhouse gases are just one more reason we should all be actively challenging our elected officials to get more aggressive about alternative fuels. Yes, exhaust fumes are bad for everyone. But banning cars isn’t the answer. But we have the technology and the capability to stop burning fossil fuels completely. We need to focus on that.

The point is, we need transportation. We don’t need cigarettes. There’s no real comparison.

By Dave

April 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

AliveUD, I think I may have mis-stated my point. When I asked if it’s that big a deal, I was referring to all the complaining in these forums. I would fight any restriction of freedom that has no solid reasoning behind it. But you reaffirmed a point I’ve been trying to make, which is that my pursuit of happiness ends when it starts stepping on somebody else’s freedom.

By jimmy

April 20, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

Roscoe; It’s so REFRESHING that one can enjoy his/or her smoke free drinking environment,that way some may stay long,get drinker and maybe one day, kill someone on their way home,and that someone may just be a person out buying a pack of cigarettes, one way to help the smoking ban, what’s next, 3 beer only? Now I would vote for that, wouldn’t we all ??

By AliveUD

April 20, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

I support the freedom (though certainly not the habit) to smoke just as I support the freedom to blast loud music, sight-in firearms, or scream “Fire!” These freedoms can and do limit the freedoms of others, and therefore must be restricted or altered when (and only when!!) they do so. If you can smoke in a restaurant and contain your smoke such that it does not affect others, then I will work with you to repeal the ban; however, until that happens, please keep your smoke in designated areas.

By AliveUD

April 20, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

Joseph & Dave, I agree with both of you to some extent, but I think perhaps you’re each focusing on the wrong points. A restriction of freedom being ‘not a big deal’ does not make it any less a restriction of freedom. And I can see how one might perceive this as a slippery slope toward further even less desirable restrictrions. But the freedom we so enjoy has an unavoidable obstacle: one individual’s freedom must cease/change/be restricted when it interferes with the freedom of another.

By Joseph

April 20, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

for makeing laws as long as it dosent affect your individual rights but as soon as something comes along that will, you will be right here posting ur comments against it just as smokers have done here. Noone looks at the bigger picture which is someday this country will be run just like Russia and a couple other communist countries where our beloved government will control everything and you wont have a freedom of choice. But then again what are you worried about its not gonna affect you….

By Joseph

April 20, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this

See there you go again going back to the one issue of the smokeing ban. And yes its that big of a deal beacause it opens the door to so many other regulations and laws that affect our freedoms in general. also with whats in the news right now about global warming from car emmisions how can You say it dosent affect bystanders? It may not affect you but its gonna affect our children. So maybe I should lobby to go back to a horse and buggy. See thats the problem with some of you people you are all

By Dave

April 19, 2007 11:55 PM | Link to this

We have all kinds of choices. But tell me, can you name one bar that was non-smoking before December 7? As it was, there was basically one restaurant chain (Applebees) that was smoke-free. So where were the choices? Breathe my smoke or stay home? That’s pretty much the way it was. And nobody’s telling you that you can’t smoke. You just have to step outside. Is it really that big a deal?

By Dave

April 19, 2007 11:37 PM | Link to this

I don’t entirely disagree with you, but let’s face it, business owners are not free to do whatever they want, nor should they be. They face oversight and regulation in several areas.

As for the proverbial erosion of rights, consider the potential benefit of smoking (none) to the potential risk. Cars - there is a benefit. Alcohol - no effect on bystanders unless you break a law. Sex - never mind. But even with sex, you’re not allowed to do it anywhere you want.

By joseph

April 19, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

expecially places like bars that dont have children in thier places cause as an adult you have the choice to go to a place that has or dosent have smokeing.

By Joseph

April 19, 2007 6:09 PM | Link to this

Dave first of all its not just this smokeing ban That upsets me. Its any freedoms that are taken away by anyone. Whats next? Are cars going to become illegal to drive because they are hurting our ozone layer or killing people in accidents. Is Sex going to be illegal because of STD’s, what about alchole, coffee? If someone feels its hurting someones elses health then any of these could be next. As for the smokeing ban in general it should have been left up to the individual buissness owners,

By Dave

April 19, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

Here’s my point Joseph. Do you smoke while you eat? Most smokers don’t. And very few smoke at their own dinner table while others are eating. So why is it okay to sit in a restaurant and smoke while everyone around you IS eating? Do they deserve any less consideration than you’d show in your own home?

For the record, I voted against both issues. But enough people felt there was a problem, and the issue passed by a fairly wide margin. That’s life.

By Dave

April 19, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Joseph, two things. First of all, you don’t know me or my habits, so try not to lump me into some group based on what little you do know. Secondly, our freedoms are constantly under constraint. Yours, mine, everybody’s. Sometimes, we have to set aside our own convenience for the benefit of others. It’s all part of sharing this planet together. I used to smoke, and I didn’t want anybody telling me what to do. But my freedom ends when it affects the health of those around me. And it should.

By Joseph

April 19, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

dave ive read more people whineing about smokeing in these places than the people who actually do smoke..If it wasnt for ur whineing then this law wouldnt be in place. Soon tho Someone will find something to whine about that will affect ur individual freedom and youll be in the same place as these people who smoke and then youll really be crying.

By Dave

April 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Pardon me Joseph, but who’s whining??? It all seems to be coming from one side. Nobody took away your freedom. You’re still free to smoke. You just can’t do it in certain places. Why is it so important to smoke in a bar or restaurant? It takes 7 minutes to step outside for a smoke. Is that really asking too much?

People talk about consideration, yet dozens of smokers have written to these posts saying, “If you don’t like my smoke, stay home!” Well, that works both ways.

By Joseph

April 19, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Ive said it once and Ill say it again…I believe it should be up to the individual buissness owners wheater to ban smokeing in thier facility, they bought and paid for it themselves. If they wanted non smokers buissness they would have banned it themselves instead of waiting on a bunch of whiney cribabies to take away our freedoms by passing this law. I cant wait till something else is passed that affects these nonsmokers so itll give them something else to cry about.

By kc

April 19, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

I don’t go to bars anymore or do I go to any estabishment that has food, I am a smoker. I do recall an issue where in a certain township they had like 50 more voters than what they had on file to vote, I know they was trying to find out how this happened and if so then it is oviously a major problem, and they need to put it back on the ballots and have a revote for this because I know alot people were confused and they dont smoke but still believe this in unfair.

By kc

April 19, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

I am a smoker but I also have compassion for people and I will not smoke around someone who has a health problem or young children, but if it was so bad for you then maybe they shouldn’t have put it out on the shelve’s for me to have in the first place, what is next because we are suppose to be the land of the free, sounds like we are comunist. If I don’t like your stinky perfume then maybe I should throw a fit and have your perfume banned. sounds stupid huh? We all have our opinions.

By Dave

April 18, 2007 11:33 PM | Link to this

Might not hurt for him to read a little about socialism while he’s at it. Seems to me the majority of people in socialist countries smoke like a worn-out Yugo. Because the rest of their life sucks so bad, they don’t have much to live for. The smoking ban, for better or for worse, is a perfect example of democracy at work. Voters put it on the ballot, a sizeable majority voted for it, and the law is in effect. What am I missing???

By geo

April 18, 2007 8:10 PM | Link to this

D Day <<<< You say you are a minister yet you do not understand the reasons for the smoking ban?? Get educated and develop support for the ideas of inclusiveness, respect, consideration, good health and of setting good examples. Learn to understand about the dangers of smoke and the negative effects it has on people. Spend a day at the office of a pulmonary specialist and minister to the disabled smokers. Some of the disabled would be “smokers by choice” others would be “smokers by association”.

By Dave

April 18, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Actually, Issue 5 was introduced by a coalition of health-related organizations under the name of Smoke Free Ohio. It was placed on the ballot by the voters who signed petitions to get it on the ballot. As for who’s profiting, I would assume insurance companies may profit in the long run if smoking-related illness decreases. And companies dealing in smoking cessation may benefit. But in either case, who really comes out ahead? The answer may be as close as your nearest mirror.

By ERIN

April 18, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

I CAN’T HELP BUT NOTICE THAT THINGS OF THIS NATURE STARTED HAPPENING RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF THE SUFFRAGETTE MOVEMENT.DOES ANYONE REMEMBER PROHIBITION? MAFIA BRIBING THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE THEM A RIGHT TO VOTE,AND THEN SPLITTING THE BOOTLEGGING PROFITS.SO DON’T TELL ME THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.WHO INTRODUCED IT AND PUT IT ON THE BALLOT? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH OR LOSS OF FREEDOM.IT’S ALL ABOUT GREED.SOMEONE IS PROFITING FROM THIS, NO DOUBT.

By CRH

April 18, 2007 2:28 AM | Link to this

I think the non smoking law is doing really well. I enjoy going to bingo now and not having to breathe the smoke. I agree with giving smoke breaks and providing a patio w/heat in the winter for our smokers….b/c smokers do have rights, but everyone has the right to breathe fresh clean air.

By D Day

April 18, 2007 12:56 AM | Link to this

I am a single man who will be leaving the State of Ohio because of the fact that the door of socialism has been opened here by the American Cancer Cociety. I am glad I am a retired business man who is not tied to this socialist state. Ohio is my birth-right but now I must leave it. It was a wonderful place to live in the 70’s. Is there a “Free State” left anywhere in the Union? If so where? Does anyboby out there know of one. Please be serious as I am a Minister. God bless you all, pro and con.

By Dave

April 17, 2007 11:48 PM | Link to this

One final thought. I eat out a lot. I’ve noticed that, even though the parking lots are full, the average wait for a table is less than it was before the ban went into effect. Seems to me people are eating their meal, then leaving, instead of sitting there smoking and drinking free coffee refills. I guess it’s possible the average check is a little less (fewer drinks and desserts), but with more customers per day, I’d be interested in knowing whether total sales have increased or decreased.

By BuckNut

April 17, 2007 11:48 PM | Link to this

As a smoker, I am upset that we are not able to smoke in bars. I do support the ban though. I hate eating and having smoke blown in my face. I’m glad to see this in effect.

By Dave

April 17, 2007 11:40 PM | Link to this

Lo Retta, you said: “Them rules was hard to read, and I think it was forced by big business. “

(1) If “them rules was” too hard to read, go back to school. (2) This has nothing to do with tree-hugging hippies. This issue was sponsored by health groups, not Greenpeace. (3) You’re right, big business was involved. RJ Reynolds invested $5 million in an effort to buy a constitutional amendment that would have stripped away your right to vote on this in the future. They lost.

By Gen

April 17, 2007 10:40 PM | Link to this

I used to live in California and now live in Ohio. I was very upset that Ohio did not have the smoking ban when I first moved here, but I am thrilled to death that it is now in effect. We all have to remember that our own personal freedoms must not interfere with the rights of others. We all have to start being so selfish by only thinking about ourselves.

By kj

April 17, 2007 10:26 PM | Link to this

I am so glad there is a ban!!! Now I can go out and eat without smokers blowing their stinky smoke in my face. Also What gives you smokers the right to be able to light up wherever and whenever you please. I shouldn’t have to stay home just because you smokers want to take over the restaurants and bars. You think it is your playground.

By Lo Retta Shephard-Smith

April 17, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

I think this is insane. I can’t do this, I can’t do that. All because some tree hugging hippy, says I can’t. Them rules was hard to read, and I think it was forced by big business. They are taking my liberty. Next thing you know I won’t be able to go to Bible School. Hippies go back to Communist Russia.

By Dave

April 17, 2007 5:32 PM | Link to this

I’m amazed at some of the comments I have read. The fact that people are equating a smoking ban to Germans isolating Jews under Nazi rule demonstrates that the argument has been stretched a bit far. A wise man once told me “Liberty means you can do what you wish provided it doesn’t interfere with the lives of others.” It’s difficult to fight against a ban on an action that is potentially life-threatening to those around it.

By Molly

April 17, 2007 5:28 PM | Link to this

In regards to AliveUD’s post: You hit the nail on the head. Not only that but the people of the state of Ohio voted this law in. Stop complaining because you are outnumbered. It’s a like a new world in public places, and it’s great!

By Buck Rogers

April 17, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

I love the smoking ban! “Thank you” Ohio voters!

By Catherine

April 17, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

Joe, I am sorry that you can’t read a simple ballot. The facts were stated clearly, almost on an 8th Grade reading level and after seeing some of the posts in here today; it seems amazing that some people can find the keyboard on their computer -much less use it. The voters have spoken. If you want to sit, drink, and smoke, do it at home. Don’t subject the rest of us to it.

By Joe

April 17, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

To the guy who is a non-smoking bartender. When you got the job you knew that people smoke when they drink, so stop complaining oh i smell like smoke when i get home, yes your going to YOU ARE A BARTENDER. Lets all vote on it again and make the rules more clear.

By Rob L.

April 17, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this

Well, my last post has magically disappeared. So, I’ll restate it.

The smoking issue was decided by the people - not the government. The democratic process was used to let the people’s voice be heard and the majority of the people voted for the ban. We decided this is what we want in the state, just like any other issue placed on the ballot. I’m proud to have voted on this issue. The process worked well and it again let us American’s have a voice in how our state runs. God bless America!

By Tony R

April 17, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this

Great now that smoking sections are finished we should take immediate action and turn that section into a fat people section. IF we can seperate fat people just like we did smokers from us normal people we can eventually ban fat people from restaurants too. Catch my drift folks, kinda reminds one of German policies in 1939, first seperate them, then ban them all together. Aren’t we glad fascism is alive and well in Ohio today.

By AliveUD

April 17, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this

Remember, folks, you only have THREE main rights: Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness; and they are in that order. The rest of our rights are gravy, really really good gravy. But keep in mind the right to life comes first. My freedoms end where they take away the freedom of another; it’s a basic principle, not that difficult to grasp. Therefore if my freedom to smoke in a public place undermines my neighbor’s freedom to life, then I should not be smoking in that public place. Peace.

By Rachelle

April 17, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

There are other things that will kill people. If not second-hand smoke, then something else will.

By Ruth

April 17, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this

So I guess it’s all right for the people who said smokers can stay at home and puff to dictate what smokers do however think of the choice you have you can stay home too so you don’t inhale second hand smoke it’s all about freedom and for people to be prejudice against smokers that’s just wrong smokers are not prejudice against non-smokers.

By Ruth

April 17, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

Has any one thought about the lives this ban will change. such as the tobacco farmers. Alot of these men and women grew up growing tobacco. That was how they were raised and is how they raise their children. Is it right for this smoking ban to make people quit smoking and tell these farmers that it’s ok their family can go hungry and live on the streets. We have no choices any more because of whiners.

By NancyCleanLungs

April 17, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

The beautiful thing about democracy is that we all have a chance to vote and make our opinions matter. If you didn’t vote—then quite complaining. If you did vote and disagree with the outcome—you’re just going to have to accept the results. No one is ever 100% satisfied with the results, but if we are willing to live in a democracy, we have to be willing to accept what the majority votes. Think other states & countries do it better? What’s keeping you here?

By Rose

April 17, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

I support the no-smoking law. It is refreshing to have dinner in a clean smoke free environment. If a customer cannot wait until after dinner to have a smoke, then maybe stay home to puff. I would also support a law that would ban the loud blarring stereos. Cars driving past with music so loud it rattles the windows or so loud you cannot hear your own music. Music can be heard without blarring so loud.

By Bob

April 17, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

I don’t smoke, but I believe in freedom and choice. As the majority (nonsmokers) have spoken, I think the only hope for smokers is that they ban together to create more private clubs to smoke in. The 75% or more who are nonsmokers should be able to support the bars and restaurants with no smoking — if they can’t, then that is their fault (as for me, I seldom go into any of those places, so smoking seldom bothered me anyway)

By Jim

April 17, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

This ban is just the beginning. It has opened the door to allow more freedoms and choices to be taken away. Smoking, trans fat, what’s next? I really can’t stand screaming kids in restaurants and planes. I say we propose a ban on kids in restaurants and planes. Who is with me?

By D. Day

April 17, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Yes it is working all the way up to the Fedearal Supreme Court of Appeals, where the stench of socialism will be removed from American free business forever and to the IRS which is very close to revoking the ACS, 501 C3 tax exempt status.

By Linda

April 17, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

It isn’t that we can’t smoke inside. I have always stepped outside to smoke. It is the fact that they are saying we have to walk a city block away from the building to do so. I agree with the person about the booze. If they are going to take away our right to choose to smoke then let the drinker be banned from drinking as well. drinking kills too. Brain cells, liver damage, not to mention all the drunk drivers who get behind the wheel of a car and drive drunk killing innocent people.

By Bazooka Joe

April 17, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

What happened to them sections they had in bars and food places? Smoking sections? MAYBE in 3 years when Ohio is even more fat then it is now (moving here I realized it) then we can have sections in them bars with WIDE chairs for all the fat people. Also even more ppl are going to have their vice eating now instead of smoking…GREAT!

By Lureen Jones

April 17, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

I think it’s gone to far. I can’t smoke, I can’t do anything. To them people whinin about the smoke, stay home. I don’t want you saur faces ruining my nite out with the gang. So I didn’t vote, I didn’t think all them people would be that stoopid to not vote it in. Americas is loosing their freedom.

By Bazooka Joe

April 17, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

Maybe we could set up places for people to smoke. Like in bars and places where people eat. We could call them smoking sections? I don’t know it’s just an idea.

By A non smoking bartender

April 17, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

As a bartender who does not smoke I love the new law, and I voted for it. I love not coming home from work smelling like an ashtray. I love that every shift I don’t have to inhale second hand smoke is one more day I don’t have to worry about lung cancer. For those who want a re-vote,lets do the math..75% of people in ohio don’t smoke..you will loose again! Get over it, put your beer down for 5 minutes and go outside and smoke. You want to kill yourself feel free, just don’t take me with you!

By Urban Dweller

April 17, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

The debate about the true effects of second-hand smoke aside, it’s just nice to come home from a bar or small restaurant and not my hair and clothes smell like an old, dirty ash tray.

By tim

April 17, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

I think the non smoking ban has gone way overboard. I own and operate a small automotive repair business that maybe has 4-6 people come through the door on any given day but the rest of the day me and my tech have to be here all day and acording to the law we cant smoke around each other even in the non-customer area of the shop where we breath your cars exhaust in order to keep your car running to get you to and from your smoke free bar and restraunts. Whats next a ban on your old car!!!

By Jim

April 17, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

“The smoking ban has gone way to far. Secondary smoke is so diluted that it has little effect on anyone in spite of what the Crusaders are trying to tell you. For every study that claims secondary smoke is harmful, there are ten that say it is not.” My red eyes & sore throat when dining in a smoke environment or having a beer with friends in a bar make this “crusader” vote that it’s unhealthy.

“A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool.” -bumper sticker) True, True

By Renee

April 17, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

Smoking must kill brain cells. Too bad stupidity isn’t banned also. My nights out would be even more enjoyable. No smokers AND No Idiots!!! WOW!!! Please, smokers, keep suckin’ em down. The sooner your gone the better. Only a smoker would complain about California trying to improve the environment. Lori, suck on a tale pipe. Jimmy and Joe go to Russia if you think it’s so great.

By Dave

April 17, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Joe —- you said: “I’d much rather sit next to smokers at a restaurant then glutton’s.” Tell you what. The day I start rubbing my fat all over your body, you have a right to complain. ‘Nuff said.

By Mari

April 17, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Thank you OHIO for the smoking ban!! Although we love hot wings and the atmosphere of watching a game on a big screen with friends and beer, until now my husband and I have been forced to stay home or go to friends’ homes. We almost never went to sports establishments to enjoy the games. Now we do! I LOVE going to Frickers, BDubs, Cadillac Jacks. . . it has been so much fun going to new places and creating hang outs.

By Dave

April 17, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Wake up Lori. Laws exist for one reason, and that’s to tell us how to live. Be glad somebody created a law banning lead-based paint. Be glad somebody created a law banning asbestos. Be glad somebody created a law banning drunk driving. Do I need to go on?

In a civilized society, laws exist to protect and provide reasonable comfort to the majority. I’d like to run around naked. Trust me, you should be glad there’s a law banning that.

By Linda

April 17, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Smoker or not, we will see how you feel later after living in a Nannie state. Shame on Ohio, now owned by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. All this so J&J pharma can sell smoking cessation products. Shame on ACS, For pimping for them!

By Just an observer

April 17, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

As a smoker, I voted for the ban because I want my children to not have to breathe in someone’s 2nd hand smoke. I don’t even smoke in my home for this same reason. The problem I have is that what started as a choice by the people in Ohio to have cleaner air in buildings has now gone overboard. I didn’t vote to have soemone dictate whether I can smoke in my car. For my employer, our vehicles are included in the ban. I agreed with the need for the ban. I don’t agree with what it has turned into.

By Deborah Watson

April 17, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

BY VOTING TAXPAYERS MAKE DECISIONS. SMOKING KILLS. IF THERE ARE FEWER PLACES TO THAT ACCEPT SMOKING IT WILL BE EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO QUIT. ITS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR CLEANER AIR. IN ARKANSAS YOU CANNOT SMOKE IN YOUR CAR IF THERE IS A CHILD UNDER 5 IN A CAR SEAT. THEY ARE PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN. AND FOR THE POOR TAVERN OWNER….FIND A NEW BUSINESS. ALCOHOL IS NEXT BUDDIE.

By KARON

April 17, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

KEEP THE SMOKING BAN

By George

April 17, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Debbie,

Yes, exposure to smoke SHOULD be a choice, but now it’s not. BEFORE, you could choose to NOT patronize a business if it allowed smoking. NOW, you CAN’T choose to patronize a business that DOES allow smoking. Where is the choice now? There is none.

I’m a nonsmoker, but I think people voted for a law that has turned the state into a nanny. And lawmakers are too wimpy to do the right thing and overturn it.

By Lori

April 17, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Why do we want to become like California? California is now making everyone change to energy saver lights by the year 2011. They will no longer be able to use any other type of light. What happened to free enterprise, freedom of choice, etc.? California is trying to make it against the law to spank a child under the age of 8. Isn’t that the parents right to decide how they want to discipline a child? Again, where is the freedom of choice? I know I don’t want to be told how to live.

By Brad

April 17, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

The ban has been working great for me. At first I was against the whole “smoking ban”, but it has really worked to my benefit. Having to step outside every time I wanted to puff became a hassle, so I would just smoke less often when I would go to a bar or restaurant. Since the ban, I have been able to stop smoking. Going out and not having to be around smoke really helps towards quitting. I am hardly ever around smoke anymore, so when I do smell smoke it is irritating. Thanks OHIO!

By BH

April 17, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Some posts refer to restricting our freedom by controlling indoor pollutants. How would those people react to lack of water pollutant control? Do you want bacteria and toxins in your water? I suspect those people would object to tainted water, tainted food, lead in paint used in children’s toys and furniture, etc. Isn’t is strange that we agree to laws that protect us, unless the protection causes us inconvenience?

By Lori

April 17, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

To Debbie who wants to ban smoking at outdoor events. To me that is pretty stupid. Your factories, cars, buses, semi’s, etc. have more pollutants than a cigarette. Yes, I am a smoker, I don’t mind not smoking in restaurants (bars are another thing), but when you are outdoors (in the open air) it shouldn’t be a problem. Let’s start on getting new laws banning alcohol sales (drunk drivers kill innocent people just like smoking does). Now that this has started, just wait to see what else we lose.

By Brian

April 17, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

I support the ban, let’s get it going already!

By Justin

April 17, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

This smoking ban is the best thing Ohio has done in a long time. Finally, people that choose to live longer and healthier have a choice not to breathe in all the carcinogens of the less careful smokers. If you want to smoke, then kill yourself, not others.

By Kim

April 17, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

My dad smoked - I had pneumonia repeatedly & other any respiratory problems. My dr. didn’t believe me when I told him I wasn’t smoking - he thought I was a lying teen trying to hide it. When I left home - the problems ceased. My husband smoked around our daugther until I made him start smoking outside because she has CF. The first time we took her to the dr. after he stopped smoking in the house, she asked what we had changed because she sounded so much better. Secondary smoke is not harmless.

By joe

April 17, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Right on Jimmy, well spoken. They should ban fat people from restaurants instead of smoking. I’d much rather sit next to smokers at a restaurant then glutton’s.

By Vonda Shephard

April 17, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

i think that it’s not fair that I can’t smoke in line at PKI. I miss them bingo games with coffee. This is communist russia.

By Bill

April 17, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

jimmy, mayme you have a brain disease. my mother thought she was safe too. till she died of lung cancer

By jimmy

April 17, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

How can so many people be brainwashed to believe that smoking is bad for ones health. I’ve been smoking 3 packs a day for 62 years and do not have any health problems.

The fact is that people in ol’ communist Russia had more rights then we do here today. Maybe we should watch more Dutch televsion to see how a real free country operates, to them American policies are pure comedy.

By Bill

April 17, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

The same ones that claim second hand smoke does no harm are the same ones to stupid or lazy to quit smoking after 45 years of knowing how harmful it is. Private clubs have lungs too!!!

By Debbie

April 17, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

You can tell which comments were made by the smokers. Smoking is a choice and all exposure to any type of smoke should be a choice as well. I am enjoying dining out now at any restaurant I choose without worrying how close the smoking section is to the non-smoking section. Cigarette smoke gives me an instant headache and causes my clothing to smell. Why should I have to suffer because of someone else’s selfishness? Now let’s restrict smoking at parks and outdoor functions! Keep air fresh!

By fed up

April 17, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this

Excuse me people, the government is only enforcing a law that “WE THE PEOPLE” voted for. I think it is about time they stepped up and did something. It is not the government “Telling us what to do”, it’s what we told them to do. Grow up!

By FloridaBuckeye

April 17, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

To the people that say that second hand smoke is not harmful, please take note that my father was a smoker all his life, died a horrible death from emphysema, and my mother had lung problems from all the many years living with his smoking! My father was also bothered by any restuarant that had a non smoking section because just having it somewhat in the air is still a major problem for people with lung and bronchial problems! I love living in Florida, we don’t complain!!!

By Steve

April 17, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

The state has again changed its own law to allow the private clubs to smoke.The law should be the same for everyone, as this gives them a clear advantage over the bars.

By Amy

April 17, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

Sure, why don’t we just let the GOVERNMENT dictate EVERYTHING we do, what we can eat, how to spend out money!!!!

By scott

April 17, 2007 9:27 AM | Link to this

I love it, but we do need to start the fines. Nothing moves a business owner like a fine. My daughter had to breath smoke when she was pregnant at the restaurant she worked at, so I hope someday this will be a thing of the past.

By b rogers

April 17, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

The bumper sticker that says ‘a smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool’ just shows how ignorant many folks are on this matter. The water in a pool is usually changed twice a year. The air in a restaurant is changed at least 35,000 times a year or about 10 times a day.

By Meredith

April 17, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

It’s about time we started enforcing this law. Obviously there are people who do not like the law but the majority of voters in Ohio supported the ban and most of the restaurants and bars I frequent which are enforcing the ban already seem to be doing fine. I, personally, as well as many of my friends and relatives eat more often as places like Tanks and the Oregon Express since they’ve gone smoke-free.

“A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool.” (-bumper sticker)

By Jim

April 17, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

It’s a step in the right direction. I don’t know why people here are so upset, NY and Cali have had these bans for years. What’s the big deal for a smoker to just step outside for a min to have their puff? I should be able to go into or work in any public building without having to breath second hand smoke, that’s the bottom line.

By b rogers

April 17, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

The smoking ban has gone way to far. Secondary smoke is so diluted that it has little effect on anyone in spite of what the Crusaders are trying to tell you. For every study that claims secondary smoke is harmful, there are ten that say it is not.

80% of cancers due to poor air quality are caused by diesel emissions. Coffee contains 1000 chemicals 16 of which are found in rat poison. Airborne concentrations of carcinogenic alcohol is up to 2,000 times as great as their exposure to the combination of all human carcinogens present in secondary smoke. We ingest more on average 10,000 chemicals with our daily food intake.

Chemicals, germs, dust mites are a part of our existence.

You would have to sit in a room with a smoker smoking 165,000 cigarettes to be exposed to as much arsenic as you would get in a large glass of water.

The anti-smoking crusaders are doing what is called social engineering in much the same way that Hitler used it to de normalize the Jewish population and quarantine them from the mainstream of society. Please put some perspective into your thoughts regarding this issue.

The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation has funded the anti-alcohol movement 265 BILLION over the last four years in an effort to stigmatize and eventually ban alcohol. This is the same organization that has funded the anti-smoking groups.

By Democratic Natl Convention

April 17, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this

We democrats are loving this. We don’t like people having the ability to make choices so we are enacting laws and rules to prevent that. Next will be speech and thought, we’ve started by eliminating Imus. We are coming after you, resistance to our agenda is pointless.

By Gregory

April 17, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

NO these bans are far to overreaching.

If an establishment wants to cater to smokers only, and posts thaqt information on the exterior of their establishment - why is that a problem for any smoke intolerant person?

They can simply go to a smoke free establishment instead. Isn’t this America anymore?

There are many small businesses that have 100% of their employees who are smokers themselves, and wish to only cater to smoke tolerant patrons !

Why do they care??

By Roscoe

April 17, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

YES, it’s definitely working. It’s so refreshing to be able to have drinks and\or dinner in a clean smoke free environment………..