News feeds
E-mail alerts
Mobile
Text alerts
Twitter
FacebookMonday, November 19, 2007
A year after voters approved the indoor smoking ban, the law enjoys even broader support than it got on Election Day, according to a poll conducted Nov. 3 to 5 by Midwest Communications and Media for the American Cancer Society.
Nearly 80 percent of Ohio voters surveyed said they support the law, which prohibits smoking inside most public places.
Extras
"Ohioans strongly stand behind their votes to make Ohio a smoke-free state," said Tracy Sabetta, co-chair of the SmokeFreeOhio campaign. "This poll clearly shows that people across the state enjoy working and playing without the smoke."
The poll found:
• 53 percent of Ohioans are more likely to visit restaurants as a result of the law
• 55 percent say they are more likely to visit a bar
• 47 percent say they're more likely to visit a bowling alley
• 80 percent of those polled believe restaurant and bars are healthier for customers and workers now that they are smoke free.
Ohio AG's Sunshine Express hits road
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann's Sunshine Express is hitting the road.
Dann's office added decals and painted flames onto a Chevy Suburban to create the "Sunshine Express." Basically,
it's eye-catching transportation for staffers doing public records training classes across the state, said Leo Jennings III, Dann's communications director.
"I wanted to make sure people saw it," Jennings said.
Jennings noted the SUV has 114,000 miles on it, was pulled from the existing fleet, and only about $60 was spent on the decals and paint.
Consumer voice brought to debate
Last week a collection of groups joined forces to form Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage with the goal of creating a "united consumer voice for health care reform."
The group said it wants to give a voice for consumers while government, businesses, hospitals and others are working on plans to expand access to health care, a press release said.
"Most Ohioans want to fix health care, so we ought to be able to come up with solutions that provide every family with affordable, adequate coverage with no penalty for pre-existing conditions," Cathy Levine, executive director of the Universal Health Care Action Network of Ohio (UHCAN), said in the release.
Other groups in the partnership include:
• AARP
• American Cancer
Society
• Ohio Council of
Churches
• National Alliance for Mental Illness (Ohio)
• Service Employees International Union
• We Believe Ohio
• Ohio Cerebral Palsy Association.
Former Cleveland Mayor applauded
Ohio's two senators teamed up with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., this week to introduce a resolution honoring the late Carl Stokes, who served as the first African-American mayor of a major city.
Stokes was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1967 and went on to serve two terms before declining to run for a third term.
He died in 1996.
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Cleveland, has introduced a similar measure in the House.
Comments
By Glen
November 21, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this
Ohio is headed down the wrong path.
By Dave
November 21, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
Ray, I’m sorry you’re losing business. Truly, I am.
Part of the problem is both sides wanted it all. Issue 4 was a Constitutional Amendment that would have required smoking areas in restaurants (too late), but would also nullify all existing laws regarding where we can smoke. Issue 5 wanted it banned pretty much everywhere. Actually, we could have rejected both Issues, but voters were led to believe they had to choose one or the other. Blame the Issue 4 & 5 sponsors for that.
By Ray
November 21, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
Dave: for my bar, the economy got worse EXACTLY last December when the law took effect. Dozens of my regulars vanished, forever, into the waiting arms of (the many) establishments that have ignored the ban (without significant penalty), taking many non-smoking friends with them. The new customers we were promised show up less often, in far fewer numbers, spending less money. The smokers who still show up are forced to walk out the door every 20 minutes… and that’s bad business in any industry.
By Dave
November 21, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this
I’m not trying to minimize the impact of lost business - I was the owner of a failed business, so I know how it feels.
But we will adapt - the bar business is about more than a place to smoke. It’s about friendly faces, and a place to get away and have a drink, listen to some music, tell a few jokes, and meet some new friends. That need hasn’t gone away. Give it time for people to adapt, and for the economy to settle down (at least half the problem), and it’ll pick up again.
By Dave
November 21, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this
Glen, I referenced accessibility laws only to illustrate that sometimes it takes legislation to get people to do the right thing.
We’re all hung up on the issue of bars, but Issues 4 and 5 addressed all businesses. We didn’t get the choice to vote for a ban in restaurants and not in bars - it was all or nothing, with both Issues. And I think if that’s what it took to get smoking out of restaurants and recreational venues, it was worth it. We’ll adapt, and the bar business will recover.
By Ray
November 21, 2007 1:49 AM | Link to this
If I’m an adult, am I old enough to put myself in harm’s way? Yes: at 18 I may legally choose to join the army, risking death by firearm or explosives. So, in an establishment where everyone is required to be above 18 years of age— say, a bar— who is not qualified to assume the risks of secondhand smoke? Do you mean to tell me that everybody in a bar is, by definition, qualified to assume the risk of honest-to-God bullets, but not a smokey room?
By Glen
November 20, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this
…..I wouldn’t say you’re an ignorant boob, but don’t compare passing a law to make businesses be handicap accessible with banning smoking.
By Glen
November 20, 2007 7:01 PM | Link to this
Dave, handicap accessibility is a horrible issue to reference in debating my points. The whole point here is that it’s wrong to limit personal freedoms. If you don’t like to smoke, don’t go to a smokey bar. There are certain businesses such as Beef O’Brady’s that advertised themselves as smoke-free Bars/Restaurants. i would be willing to wager my life that the majority of voters who elected to pass the smoking ban do not frequent Bars/Bowling Alleys/Night Clubs which this law impacts……
By Dave
November 19, 2007 11:36 PM | Link to this
But then, I’m just an ignorant boob ….. Dez, you made me smile. Thanks!
I love these forums. It’s good to see different views, and to reassess my own. But the best we can do here is try to get people to open their mind and see another side. Hopefully, that begins with opening our own mind.
A happy Thanksgiving to you all. Over and out.
By Matt
November 19, 2007 11:32 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the feedback Dave. I’ve got to go now. I need to close-up early again, since nobody came to my bar again tonight. I guess they all stayed in again and watched the game at home. Like I said, big mistake moving my business to Ohio.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 11:31 PM | Link to this
Again, I don’t disagree with you. Restaurants are one thing - we all need to eat. And any entertainment that’s accessible to minors (bowling, etc.) should be smoke-free. But bars … as much as I love a cold beer, it’s not one of life’s necessities.
But I truly believe in the coming year, you’ll see a reversal. Right now people are still getting used to this. Enforcement only started six months ago. It sounds like you’re trying to do what’s right, and I wish you the best.
By Matt
November 19, 2007 11:22 PM | Link to this
I can appreciate your maturity Dave. But, if we allowed for smokers only and non-smoking only, and most bars go smoking only, than let the market determine that. If that’s what the market determines, then that’s probably what is most profitable for those businesses. The law forbids me even opening a membership only smokers only bar. That’s simply not fair. And, yes. We have all the handicap access.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 11:19 PM | Link to this
That said, Matt, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if nonsmokers couldn’t find a smoke-free bar. When I smoked, I avoided movie theatres because they were non-smoking. Some people won’t go to a car race because of the fumes and noise. Again, it’s not the end of the world.
I wish more people would support smoke-free bars. But as I said earlier in this post, remember the economic factors that are keeping people home this year, too. It’s not all because of smoking.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 11:10 PM | Link to this
Matt, I’m with you to an extent. But you said “The kind of people who work and hang out in bars, are the kind of people who smoke.” That’s a generalization - let’s agree that most of your customers were smokers.
If you let bar owners decide, who would be smoke-free by choice? Probably none. Let me ask you this —- is your bar handicapped accessible (restrooms and all)? Many aren’t. And if you ask why, they say, “We’re not required to.” People don’t always do the right thing.
By Matt
November 19, 2007 10:58 PM | Link to this
Actually Dave my bar was filled when there was no ban on smoking. Now it’s empty. My bar is cleaned by a maid service that services all the business in my shopping center. So, it has no smell of smoke what so ever. All my bartenders are smokers, and now have to run outside to have a smoke. It very simple. The kind of people who work and hang out in bars, are the kind of people who smoke. The non-smokers usually hang out in restaurants. What’s wrong with a choice to have a smokers only bar?
By Luke
November 19, 2007 10:49 PM | Link to this
A true Republican is NOT in favor of regulation on business. If our Republican dominated statehouse is not representing a true Rebulician view, we should vote them out, and elect Republicans that are PRO BUSINESS. Nanny government is what the Democratic party favors. Let the Dems save the world, we need to get our economy moving again. Quit leaning to the liberal side of all these issues Ohioans. We want LESS government, and LESS spending, and LOWER taxes. That’s what it was founded on.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 10:46 PM | Link to this
Matt, for what it’s worth, I agree with you about smoking in bars. There are lots of reasons some people didn’t go to bars, and smoking was probably the least of them. I do believe people have the right to work in a smoke-free workplace, but we all make choices. I choose to work in clubs, so I don’t complain about the environment.
That said, have you taken any steps to make your place more attractive to non-smokers? Does it still smell like smoke? These are questions, not accusations.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 10:28 PM | Link to this
And Sarah, one final observation —- I’m in clubs several times each week. More often than not, I’m in another state where people still smoke, or even a bar here in Ohio that ignores the law. Either way, I don’t complain. And I’m not the old fart sitting in a corner. I’m an entertainer. For most of the evening, I’m right in the middle of the action.
So much for your generalizations, huh?
By Matt
November 19, 2007 10:27 PM | Link to this
If all you people want to go to a smoke free bar, where the hell are you? You aren’t in my bar. I’ve lost ALL my regulars and none of you holier than thou non-smokers are not going to bars. You apparently sit around at home and write things on the internet. Meanwhile, I’m going out of business. It was a huge mistake moving my business to Ohio.
By dez
November 19, 2007 10:27 PM | Link to this
ignore dave hes an ignorant boob. he knows nothing and probably voted for bush so with that said, lets move on. unless we ban as smokers to revote for the issue nothing can be done. we’ll just have to stand outside and blow our smoke up there royal butts! if they dont like it,tough. we dont like the vote and i know i voted against the ban but it didnt matter. so i gotta deal. eventually things will change to were everyones mad. clinton for instance should do it! lol happy holidays folks!
By Dave
November 19, 2007 10:22 PM | Link to this
… There was confusion over the issue of private clubs, but anybody with half a brain knew the issue was an attempt to ban smoking in most places. Issue 4 began with the words, “This proposed amendment would prohibit smoking in enclosed areas …” This wasn’t an attempt to confuse voters?
I don’t know who’s profiting from this, but let me say this —- if it’s the Cancer Society, they did a lot more for my mom in her final days than RJ Reynolds.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 10:17 PM | Link to this
Sarah, I’ve tried to contribute to this forum in a respectable, and semi-educated manner. It’s okay if you disagree with me. But for the record, I’m not rabid. I don’t hate big business. And I didn’t vote for the smoking ban. I voted against both issues, if you must know.
Two issues were placed on the ballot for a mid-term election that drew more voters than any mid-term election in recent history. One was pretty plain about what it stood for (Issue 5).
Continued …
By Dave
November 19, 2007 10:10 PM | Link to this
Dez, the way you write, I find it amusing that you would call anyone stupid. As for your assessment of me, it’s about as accurate as your command of the English language.
Glen, your point has been debated over and over. But when you consider that 78% of Ohioans are nonsmokers, and less than 1% of bars & restaurants were smoke-free, the numbers don’t quite match. It took a law to make most businesses accessible to handicapped people. Sometimes you have to force the issue.
By Sarah Walk
November 19, 2007 10:09 PM | Link to this
Oh Dave/Smoke Free/other-rabid-non-smokers: You are just like the 700 pound man (oh yea – that’s healthy) on Friday night at the Dub Pub who stated “I can smell smoke from the patio!” You want EVERYWHERE to be just like your living room. How about you STAY in your living room? You probably were not that much fun at a bar anyway… How about the fact that Tracey Sabetta is NOT the general public (representative for a special interest group- don’t make her out be ANYTHING but that!). How about the fact that both Issue 4/5 were placed on a ballot during a non-Presidential election – when there is low voter turn-out, how about the fact that non-smoking ads continue to run on TV and radio (why? Are the rabid non-smokers afraid of what is going on at the State capital?) I know what’s going on – I bet you don’t… Funny for people who supposedly “support” the working man and HATES big business – did you realize that by endorsing the smoking ban that you ENDORSE your favorite- Big Pharma? Who do you think makes $$ on smoking bans? That makes me laugh hysterically ever time any of you post on this issue. Follow the $$ - you will see how foolishly you have been led down a “primrose” path.
By Dwight
November 19, 2007 10:04 PM | Link to this
What a bunch of facists. It’s a shame I went to Vietnam and served my country and put my life on the line for freedoms and rights only to have my personal rights; and freedom of choice, taken away from me by a bunchy of two bit jerks and wimps.
By Glen
November 19, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this
….continued……to take away the personal freedom of smokers when instead non-smokers could have spoken with their dollars and supported non-smoking establishments. This type of action is disturbing. personal freedoms are something that should not be messed with, even if it’s something which seems as inconsequential as the right to smoke in a business establishment. Hopefully this is not a stepping stone to further rights being lost…
By Glen
November 19, 2007 9:39 PM | Link to this
…continued….the point is, that before the ban took place why didn’t non-smokers support more businesses with smoke-free policies? Instead a law was passed to simply ban smoking everywhere and for everyone. In other words, non-smokers who had the choice to support a business that endoresed a smoke-free environment had that right. now, smokers do not even have the right to support a business which would allow them to do what they enjoy. Living in a free/capitalist society, non-smokers chose…
By Glen
November 19, 2007 9:34 PM | Link to this
If people were so in favor of smoke-free environments, why in the hell weren’t there more smoke-free bars/restaurants? There were never any laws stating that a business couldn’t have a no-smoking policy in place. If the demand for smoke-free environs was so great, where were all of the smoke-free businesses? Surely a restaurant or bar could have opened up and catered to those who didn’t want to be subjected to second-hand smoke, yet such businesses were rare. beef O’Brady’s comes to mind…
By dez
November 19, 2007 9:25 PM | Link to this
let me guess dave your as big and rednecked and stupid as they come right? i bet you one of the many drunks that says its ok to go out to applebees toss back a few infront of the tube and then go out into you lil crappy car thats mufflers fallen off and drive your butt home. yea its illegal but it not really inforced and ppl still do it. realize reguardless of what lwas say ppl break them you idiot!
By Dave
November 19, 2007 9:20 PM | Link to this
Dez, I hope you’re not as ignorant as you act. What does smoking in public have to do with drunken driving? And for the record, drunken driving has been, and still is, very much against the law.
By dez
November 19, 2007 9:17 PM | Link to this
which btw i do drink but i stay my happy butt at home and do it. also wanna worry about your lungs? think of the exhaust fumes cars and trucks put out think of that crap you breathe in ok! everytihng causes cancer and kills you anymore even kids toys (lead paint) but do ppl quit no! i smoke and it DOESNT impare my judgement, ability to function, or my driving skills. so those of you who voted for the ban just remember. would rather smell a lil smoke or die at the cost of a drunk driver?
By dez
November 19, 2007 9:11 PM | Link to this
yes lets support drinking and driving in public. i really want my kids to see that when we go to dinner and i sure as h*ll wanna die in a car accident because some loser who doesnt smoke but can sure get drunk left the bar and hit me. god forbide you smoke but can sure drink yourself stupid and definatly endanger the lives of everyone around you. why not ban alcohol as well a lot of places become dry towns. no smoking no drinking. that way everyones happy. but i doubt that will happen.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 8:50 PM | Link to this
“This proposed amendment would prohibit smoking in enclosed areas except tobacco stores, private residences or nonpublic facilities, separate smoking areas in restaurants, most bars, bingo and bowling facilities, separated areas of hotels and nursing homes, and race tracks.”
Where did you see anything about a separate enclosed area in a restaurant?
By jasonm
November 19, 2007 8:44 PM | Link to this
If you don’t agree with the majority,you must be wrong? Watch out minorities of all kind? BIG BROTHER IS AFTER YOU!
By Tired of being lied to.
November 19, 2007 8:36 PM | Link to this
No Issue 4 would have required a separate enclosed room if a restaurant was to allow smoking.
The Issue 5 campaign was dirty about leaving that fact out and the definition of a private club was well hidden in their proposal.
No one saw the true definition of what they meant by a private club at the ballot box.
There in no private club on God’s green earth that fits the definition the Issue 5 SmokeFree Ohio lobbyists invented.
By Doug
November 19, 2007 8:35 PM | Link to this
I favor the ban but the concern I have is that the health boards need to have appropriate funding and staffing to enforce it. This is ridiculous. Many bars offer smoking after a certain hour in the evening knowing that they will not have a visit by the health board during this time. Its unfair to the places that are following the passed law. If the health board does not pick up their enforcement, a lot more businesses will start to alllow smoking and risk the fines.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 8:17 PM | Link to this
Two things I’d like to know. First, if you’re complaining about the law, did you cast a vote? A lot of people have said, “I didn’t vote because I didn’t believe it would ever pass!” Sorry about your luck. Next time maybe you’ll get up and speak for yourself.
Second, those who are complaining about the rights of business owners to do what they want, did you vote for or against the minimum wage increase on that same ballot? Just wondering.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 8:06 PM | Link to this
Stu, you need to do your homework. Issue 5 proposed a complete ban on smoking in public places, but provided an exemption for some private clubs. The problem there is how the state defines a private club.
Issue 4 proposed nothing more than we already had (required smoking sections in restaurants - that was already law), but it would have enacted a Constitutional amendment preventing any future legislation against public smoking.
Not fair? Your side lost, that’s all.
By Stu
November 19, 2007 7:53 PM | Link to this
That wasn’t a fair vote from the start. The vote was for a total ban or a partial ban. We never had a chance to vote to allow or ban smoking. The petition was started by a no smoking activist group going around to each state to outlaw smoking. It was not started by Ohioians. That’s where this law is not fair to Ohio business owners.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 7:28 PM | Link to this
Bob - I’ve enjoyed most of your posts. But honestly, do you think a boycott of bars is going to reverse this law?
Mike S - the name calling has come from both sides. A shame people can’t express themselves in any better way. But does somebody actually have to die of second-hand smoke before you’ll agree it’s unhealthy? That’s pretty extreme.
And Joe - every business is subject to laws and regulations. You can’t, nor could ever, run your business any way you want.
By Bob540
November 19, 2007 7:14 PM | Link to this
As others noted, regardless if we agree with the ban, its law. The only recourse is for smokers (and non-smokers like myself) to show our opposition by not patronizing businesses. Instead of going to a bar, get together with other smokers and have BYOB parties. The drinks are cheaper, and you can smoke if you want. A fraction of non-smokers who patronize bars will not be enough to offset the lost business. Money talks — don’t support people who take away your rights.
By iron worker
November 19, 2007 6:53 PM | Link to this
that in America the one matters but not as much as the whole. all you have to do is smoke outside or at home or in your car. smoke in your own personal space. really folks its not that hard i do it everyday and by god its just the same thing as it always was. what im trying to say is those of you on both sides of the subject who are going off the wall about it, your acting like my four year old sister. im a 20 year old welder for the local 290. building America
By iron worker
November 19, 2007 6:47 PM | Link to this
ya know, im a smoker, and i am for the ban honestly. because we the people won something for the people. if you dont like it then continue to whine. it wont change anything till its on paper, anyone witha brain knows this.me, im going to continue to smoke a pack or so a day of either Marlboro red or light cigarette’s. im 20 years old and when i want to stop ill stop. the issue isnt that we cant smoke inside its that someone else is telling us to do it. just get over yourselves and realize
By Joe
November 19, 2007 6:28 PM | Link to this
What about us business owners…I paid for my place and was quite content with the patrons I had. Now thanks to a group of people, I have now lost my right to run my business and to make my own decisions. How would you like it if I came to your house and told you that “your no longer in charge? and youll live with my rules.”
By Mike S
November 19, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this
Like I said earlier; all emotion and no fact or logic.
Name a factual report that quantifies those who died of ‘second hand smoke.”
Pay attention to the posts. Those who call names or talk about feelings, are in favor of the legislation.
It’s pretty simple if you study the facts and think.
By Dean
November 19, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this
Gee - it’s funny how some idiots think that when citizens put an issue on the ballot and other free citizens exercise their DEMOCRATIC right to vote and CHOOSE to vote for a smoking ban that it is somehow socialism?? Democracy has worked on this issue. A majority feels that public places should be non-smoking to protect the health of ALL people. This sounds like Democracy to me. If you think it is socialism then you are just a stupid as the smokers who say cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 5:12 PM | Link to this
Shane, I don’t completely disagree with you. But this law was not the result of governmental legislation. It was drafted by private citizens - yes, a special interest group, but then so was Issue 4. It was placed on the ballot by voter petitions, then passed by popular vote of the general public. That’s not big brother - it’s your next door neighbors.
This is the part too many people seem to be missing.
By shane
November 19, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this
Just wait for Hillary Clinton to get elected with her socialized health care, then all you non-smokers will be paying for new lungs for the smokers hahaha
By Shane
November 19, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
People are missing the point completely. It’s not about smoking or not, its about the government telling you what you can and can not do. It’s obvious smoking is bad. By free will you chose to goto those places that smoked. Soon the government will clamp down on everything, alcohol, checking pack lunches for kids, forcing you out of your homes for businesses, are just a few. Personal rights? those will soon be things of the past. It’s for the greater good of big brother now baby.
By Tony
November 19, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this
The whole point is for both sides: No one wants to be told when and where they can or can not participate in a legal activity. More and more people quit smoking every day. I voted for the 90/10 because that was honestly the fairest one. Regardless, this passed, and people abide or not. One good thing about living in Dayton….Indiana is about half an hour away.
By dpkdayton
November 19, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
I’m a non-smoker who lost a mother to lung disease. But here is my problem with the smoking ban.Why not let the individual owners decide like big boys and girls?I get sick and tired of do-gooders cramming what they believe is “good for everyone” down our neck. Would it be better for the world if smoking didn’t exist?, sure.But we could say that about alot of things people do on a daily basis. Let people decide whether or not they want to work at or spend money at a place where there is smoking
By Dave
November 19, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
Don’t presume to read my mind, or even begin to understand what I support. I just get tired of people like you who, every time they don’t get their way, hide behind words like socialism and communism. What happened here is democracy, exactly as it was intended to be. Accept that or not, it really doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that Ohio voters decided the 22% who choose to smoke have to show a basic level of decency to the 78% who don’t. Too bad it couldn’t happen without a law.
By funnything25
November 19, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it strange that the people most supportive of a total state and its little state-sponsored snitches are whining about the definition of what they support? Take a look, people. Who are the most supportive of big government? Which type of politicians tend to like the idea of using the power of the state to regulate such products? You don’t see it coming from the business schools or the libertarians for a reason. I have more respect for the ones who at least admit what they are.
By Karpis
November 19, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
There will always be people who are happy with the ban; people who voted but are sympathetic to those who choose to smoke; and smokers who feel their rights have been violated. And then there will be dolts like Jimmy who post idiotic diatribes just to irritate everyone. I voted for the ban, but do not support being abusive toward those who smoke
By Dave
November 19, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this
“Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation.”
Don’t use the word if you don’t know what it means.
By funnything25
November 19, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this
Just one more advance for socialism. And like their Commissar friends of old, their system encourages people to snitch and rat people out to sick law enforcement on others for lighting up. Of course, you don’t mind taking smokers’ tax money. That’s OK. You don’t mind drinking your liver into an oblivion with no smoke, or killing each other with polluting industries and your cars. It’s not as low class, so marginalizing the smokers allows these little comrades to feel better about themselves.
By jasonm
November 19, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
Where is it that you are finding clean air at in this free enterprise country? I forgot, we are living in a socialist country without the healthcare. If you uppity non-smokers want to fix something, try education, health care, and crime. I am just a non-smoker trying to make the USA a better place wthout discriminating against honest, hard working Americans.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
And DM StFelix —- you don’t think tobacco companies have funded studies that came up with results favorable to them? This stuff goes on both ways. Try something new for a change. Use your own brain. Can you honestly say you don’t believe there are ANY adverse health effects associated with breathing the same smoke proven to cause cancer in smokers? Come on.
By Jimmy
November 19, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
I’m glad the smoking ban is in place AND I’m really glad that there are huge taxes on cigarettes. I’m also glad that smokers are finally being treated like the dirty, addicted, wheezing, coughing, polluting, inconsiderate, disgusting, low-life, uneducated, stupid scum bags that they are! Non-smokers have had ENOUGH of your crap so deal with it. If you don’t want to be “discriminated” against then stop smoking. Smoking is a dirty habit NOT A RIGHT!!!
By Dave
November 19, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this
Jason, we’ve lost a lot more jobs to government-subsidized outsourcing than if smoking were banned completely. How many other businesses have closed this year? The numbers are up across the board, not just in the bar business.
Sales are down for several reasons. Let’s start with the economy. In the same year that smoking was banned, gas prices are up 50% and record numbers of people are losing their homes due to foreclosure. The impact on recreational spending is a natural consequence.
By D.M. StFelix
November 19, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
Per your article titled ‘Ohioans support the smoke-free law’. When people are polled at locations FOR the desired replies, that’s what you get.
Now how about doing a legitimate article. Start with how those who grant money FOR a desired study result, get the result or the study is trashed, stopped and no more funding to the institution is given. You may actually find some HONEST studies and stop with the paid for propaganda.
By Bob540
November 19, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
The saddest thing to me is seeing these folks on here who use the right of free speech so frivilously. All of these attacks and nonsense show great immaturity. I wonder if that is the real reason why Ohio is going down the tubes . . we have too many people who struggle with the slightest level of intelligent/adult discourse. Like I said . . sad.
By Joe Camel
November 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
Hell yes I support the smoking ban in PUBLIC places. All you yellow-tooth cry baby smokers can still smoke in your PRIVATE places like: YOUR house, YOUR car, YOUR yard, and ANYWHERE OUTSIDE. I’d say that still leaves you dirty cough-up-a-lung smokers more places that you CAN smoke than where you CAN’T smoke. So what the hell are you crying about? Give some of us non-smokers who don’t want to die of cancer a break you selfish bastards. You are the ones denying us of our right to breath clean air!
By jasonm
November 19, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
The trickle-down effect of the smoking ban will be more harmful than a little second hand smoke. I deliver to these establishments and many of them are realy hurting and are cutting employees.A couple places have closed and there are a handful in jeapordy. My orders are down, therfore my hours are also down. The bartenders aren’t making the tis they are used to making. Sales tax are down, wages are down, business owners are in trouble.Wake up America we have bigger problems.
By Todd
November 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this
By reading all of this, clearly the country is heading in the wrong direction. Divided we fall.
By Billis
November 19, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Interesting…I am glad that I do not have to breathe stench when my children and myself eat dinner. Either wait to smoke until finished eating or go out back by the dumpster. Either way, the battle is lost so you should direct your brain power to another agenda. Posting on this site will not win your “right” back. Likewise it is my right to vote you off the island, which I have done. Now go and eat some goat poo.
By Karpis
November 19, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
Too many people read too much into this. I voted for the ban for one reason, plain and simple: smoking in restaurants bothers me and causes me displeasure. That’s all there is to it. I couldn’t care less about your health, your political beliefs, your supposed rights or any of that. I simply want to be able to go into ANY restaraunt and enjoy my meal. If smokers could have just gone one hour without having to smoke, maybe less people would have voted for the ban.
By to happy diner
November 19, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this
To Happy Diner,
I can’t tell you what 2nd hand smoke really is. They are watching me. And that hamburger really isn’t hamburger either, but that is another conspiracy involving the govt invention of mad cow disease to regulate the price of beef in the US by infecting the cows in other countries. What was that?…Did you hear that?…Oh, no….gotta go.
By Happy Diner
November 19, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
To Elivis isn’t dead:
If there is no such thing as second hand smoke, than what was that raunchy odor and taste on my hamburger at smoke-filled restaurants?????
That same hambuger tastes so much better now!
By Tara
November 19, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
I just have one question for all you smokers out there? Have any of you seen someone who is dying of lung cancer? Well, I have and from what Im told its one of the most painful ways too die. How would you feel if it were yourself or your children lying their suffering till there final breath. Espically if that person you are watching die has never smoked a day in there life. How would it make you feel too know that your habit killed someone due to your selfishness? Quit Crying and grow up!!
By Eileen hooks, too.
November 19, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
Eileen, get real. Simply agreeing with your sista in prostitution doesn’t make it legal.
By dc
November 19, 2007 2:18 PM | Link to this
As a result of the passage of Issue 5 on the Nov. 7, 2006, ballot, Ohio became the 12th state to protect all workers and the public from exposure to secondhand smoke in workplaces and public places. The law took effect Dec. 7 and full implementation of the enforcement rule will occur before June 7, 2007.
This site will provide you with information regarding the statue, the rule-making process and the draft rules as they move toward implementation. Additionally, you will find information on how you can report a violation of the statute; what organizations the director of health has designated to enforce the statute; sample signs that meet the requirements of the statute; a summary of violations and findings; and areas exempt from the statute.
Businesses can find information on the benefits of a smoke-free workplace and model policies that they can implement so their employees know what the rules are related to smoking at work. There is information on the dangers of secondhand smoke from the 2006 report of the U.S. Surgeon General, and information is available to assist Ohioans who smoke through the quitting process and give businesses reasons to assist their employees quit smoking.
This new law will protect the health of all Ohioans by prohibiting smoking in workplaces and public places with a very few exemptions. Please refer to the statute and the rules for specific information on those exemptions. To adhere to the statute, affected businesses and public places must do three things:
Prohibit smoking in any “public place” or “place of employment” Post no-smoking signs with the toll-free enforcement number, 1-866-559-OHIO (6446)at all entrances and conspicuously throughout the building. Remove ashtrays and other tobacco receptacles
By Eileen
November 19, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
I totally agree with Tammy! There day will come!
By Elivis isn't dead
November 19, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
There is no such thing as 2nd hand smoke. That is something the government created so they could cover up the real killer of JFK. It was created by SAMMEC, ACC, MTV, CMT, GAC and KFC. They have a lab hidden under that big hill in the VOA park next to 75. I heard there were a bunch of kids sledding on that hill and the secret service came out to make the stop. One of the kids was an older teen who was smoking, and they shot him for smoking. I have to go, they are probably monitoring me….
By Doco
November 19, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
BARS ARE NOT GOING TO CLOSE! EVER! THEY SERVE ALCOHOL! All these good samaritans are concerned about bar business? People are always going to drink socially. You might lose a few holes-in-the-wall, but there will always be a market for social drinking. Business owners need to stop crying and adapt. I didn’t stop going when there was smoking, my friends won’t stop going because there’s not. After hundreds of years of inconvenience to people like me, now is the smokers turn to be inconvenienced.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
Tammy, you’re right - eventually something I enjoy will be taken away, and I won’t be happy about it. But let’s not forget that living in civilized society means occasionally sacrificing personal comforts for the good of those around us. Surely you can understand why people who choose not to smoke don’t want to be subjected to somebody else’s, health issues or not.
And for those who believe tobacco will someday be banned altogether, I say you’re probably right.
By Tammy is a hooker
November 19, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
Tammy, FYI, prostitution is illegal. You should come inside now and be quiet.
By Tammy
November 19, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this
The government should not have this much control of our personal lives. If the owner of a business wants to claim it as smoke-free then by all means do so. Some day the people who allowed this law to pass will be sorry. The government will eventually pick something you enjoy doing and make it illegal.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this
Mike, you’re making a very broad generalization. Can you back that up?
The fact is, people have lived with second-hand smoke since the first person crammed tobacco in a pipe and smoked it. Here we are, centuries later, and people have finally said “enough.” You call that a knee-jerk reaction?
By Mike S
November 19, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this
No one who beleives in individual rights, and the constitution, can support this obvious intrusion by the nanny state. What’s next? Twinkies, colas, SUVs? Oh, I guess we are already there.
Those people that support this type legislation operate 100% on knee-jerk emotion and never believe that they won’t eventually be affected.
They are very short sighted and can’t think outside of a thimble.
By Please delete Bob540
November 19, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
To the moderator: Please block Bob540 from posting. He/She is whining far too much. I think he/she is really an 11-year old girl who should not be allowed to post.
By Bob540
November 19, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
I think the person who keeps posting the same thing repeatedly should be deleted, possibly banned, by the mods. What a small person to think that no one but yourself has a right to an opinion. Same thing with the personal insults: If you don’t have the intellect or emotional maturity to contribute to a discussion instead of attacking others who disagree with you, perhaps you should refrain from posting.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
Doreen, you’re forgetting the fact that the government didn’t do this —- the bill was introduced and passed by Ohio’s voters.
As to the question of business owners’ rights, should restaurants be allowed to choose whether to obey health laws? Should crop dusters be allowed to decide whether to use DDT? Should toy makers be allowed to decide whether to use lead-based paint? Get real folks. Business owners don’t always care what’s best for you.
By Stay home, Bob540
November 19, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this
Bob540, the best thing for veryone involved is for you to stay home. We have enough idiots roaming our city (Union folks, I’m looking at you!!!).
By Bob540
November 19, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
The only thing we can do is not patronize businesses. Sad to hurt business further, but when enough of them start going down the tubes, maybe the politicians will realize how foolish this ban is and declare the law an ecessive violation of civil rights. Until then, I don’t go out to such places. I am also a non-smoker.
By Bob540 is an idiot
November 19, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
Bob, I assume that the “540” stands for your weight. Don’t be such an idiot.
By Bob540
November 19, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
“Freedom” would be to allow certain places to have smoking and certain places that are smoke-free. What is more American than choice? As for “majority rules”, funny how that only applies in specific situations. Americans could never vote on what wars to fight, whether to secure our borders, about out-sourcing jobs — anything really important. But, to curtail smoking . . yeah we can vote on that. Just wait and see what else gets banned — this is only the start of the loss of freedom.
By RMH
November 19, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
You still seem to be a bit confused about the difference between a “right” and a “choice”. You do not have the “right” to disobey a law, but you may choose to do it. If you choose to do it, there may be consequences. And you are wrong, I do not “hate” smokers. I welcome any smoker to enjoy these establishments, just take your smoking elsewhere. You have a “choice” to smoke and suffer whatever health consequences that come with it, but you do not have the “right” to subject me it.
By Unsure
November 19, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
Not sure if bar/restaurant business is down due to the economy and/or the smoking ban. However, I’ve talked with numerous people (especially seniors) and they voted for the smoking ban and have no intentions of visiting bars and rarely go out to dine. I would just like to see poll results that actually mean something.
By Doreen
November 19, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
I don’t agree with it but there are PLENTY of bars in the area that don’t follow the law, so it’s not really a loss. We let the goverment now chose that we can’t smoke in bars, next thing you know, they will be telling us we can’t smoke in our own homes. all we are doing is handing them our rights. they are putting people out of business. Got the non smoking law to pass, now they are going for the strippers…lol
By RMH
November 19, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
This law was not about protecting kids in bars, it was and is about protecting society as a whole. I have my own beliefs about how to raise a child and not allowing them in a bar in one of them. Your raising a child, not a future alcoholic. Smokers were not discriminated against when smoking in public establishments was legal. Everyone has a choice: Non-smokers had a choice not to be in place where smoking was allowed, now smokers have a choice not to be in a place where smoking is not allowed.
By Jim
November 19, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Yep RMH, and we don’t care what you passed. We are standing up for our rights. We have the right to disobey that law, and we are. Go hate on someone else.
By chuck
November 19, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Voters are idiots, they voted for this, they voted for Bush and they will vote for Clinton.
By Connie
November 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
I am a smoker, I think it should be up to each bar owner if they want to allow smoking. I know alot of bars have lost busniness because there is no smoking allowed. As for eateries, I can see where no smoking would be allowed. Bowling alleys, I think after 11:00 pm you should be allowed to smoke in there, childern shouldn’t be up that late.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this
For a perfect example of why this law passed, check the related article in today’s DDN. With people like this representing smokers, it’s hard to feel sorry for them:
“Nonsmokers don’t go out anyway,” McFrye said. “They’re the cheapest people breathing air. I’ve been in business 23 years, and I know there’s nothing cheaper than a nonsmoker. I’m really upset with it. I wish the people who voted for it would get cancer.”
By Tom
November 19, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
Boy, non-smokers are real as*holes aren’t they? From now on, I’m blowing my smoke right in their face.
By RMH
November 19, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
Hey Jim! The “public” as you put it did make a choice and voted for the ban, or at least a majority of it. The minority not complying with the ban is the reason the bans now exists. We were tired of the some smokers being inconsiderate to the rest of society. Also, I am sure those who fought long and hard to win over true discrimination appreciate being equated to smoking in public.
By Dave
November 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
Wow Jim. Sorry to break your heart, but you don’t have the “right” to disobey a law. You have free will, but that doesn’t make it legal.
By TRM
November 19, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
I am a non-smoker. I favor this law to an extent, although I do not favor the fact that businesses lose customers over it. I have seen multiple signs on bars asking “Where are all the non-smoking voters?” There is a law that states that people cannot be discriminated against by participating in a legal activity. If the smoking ban is for families, then have a ban up until 8 PM when kids SHOULD be home anyways. The bottom line is choice. Choose to smoke or not to. Choose to obey laws or not to.
By Jim
November 19, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
We are forgetting one right we still have. We have the right to choose to obey a law, or to choose to disobey a law. The public has spoken in it loudest voices available. We have choosen NOT to obey this law. It’s refreshing to see Ohioians taken such a historical stance on discrimination.