Troy vs. Springfield
Wright State vs. Vanderbilt
.JPG)
Grammy Nominations Concert
Clearing the air costly to county
Comments: Do you think Ohio's smoking ban is working?
Related: Which local businesses have the most smoking complaints? Updated
Thursday, May 08, 2008
DAYTON — Enforcing Ohio's indoor smoking ban costs big bucks, and the fines issued to violators don't come close to paying for it, local health department officials have discovered.
Officials with Public Health — Dayton & Montgomery County say they've shelled out roughly $70,000 on the effort since May 3 last year, when Ohio began enforcing the law voters approved in November 2006. Costs stem from extra man hours, mileage and other added expenses.
Extras
Photos
But to date the health department has banked just $450 of the $3,800 in fines it's issued to violators since last year, said Mark Case, Public Health's director of environmental health.
"We got our first check this morning," Case said Wednesday, May 7.
Since last year Public Health has issued 93 warning letters, 18 $100 fines (second violation) and four $500 fines (third violation), according to ODH data. That's out of more than 2,100 alleged violations in the county in that time.
Violators have been slow to pay, said Case, noting the $450 check received Wednesday represented five $100 fines issued at least six months ago, minus ODH's 10 percent cut for billing and collecting.
Another concern: Health inspectors believe some bars are deliberately violating the smoking ban to attract customers, which also leads to more complaints phoned in to the state's enforcement line, (866) 559-6446. The bars are also tipping off neighboring bars when inspectors are on their rounds, said Alan Pierce, supervisor of general services.
But inspectors are catching on, Pierce said, and they can double fines for intentional violators.
"When people start getting invoiced with thousand dollar fines, word will get around and the complaints will start to dwindle," Pierce said.
In neighboring Warren County, meanwhile, inspectors have had "no real hassles" with enforcement, said Dan Collins, director of environmental health for the Warren County Combined Health District.
The county had eight complaints in April, compared to 37 in May last year, and it's issued no fines to date, according to ODH.
"I guess people aren't calling in the complaints, or people (bars and other public places) are complying with the law," Collins said.
Back in Montgomery County, Health Commissioner James Gross said the cost is worth it.
"While it's costing us more at this particular time, it will pay off in the long run," Gross said. "Our community is going to be a healthier place."
Contact this reporter at (937) 225-7408 or agottschlich@DaytonDailyNews.com.
Comments
By Michael J. McFadden
May 7, 2009 12:36 AM | Link to this
Phil man wrote, “It’s not someone else’s right to dump formaldehyde down your throat”
A few weeks ago Johnson and Johnson said its pbaby shampoos were perfectly safe because they only had “traces” of formaldehyde: just 610 parts per million (ppm). Perfectly safe?
The concentration in a smoky bar is .007 ppm which means the “perfectly safe” baby shampoo has 87,000x the concentration as the bar. .
Michael J. McFadden, Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
By Reverendcrash
May 5, 2009 5:18 AM | Link to this
Most are unaware that as the Law is written it is not a violation for an individual to merely smoke in a public place.In addition enforcement personel are prohibited from issuing citations to an individual. Next, if bans don’t hurt business and the majority prefer non-smoking environments how could a non-smoking business lose patrons to a smoking business?
By Michael J. McFadden
May 5, 2009 1:51 AM | Link to this
IChooseFreedom’s posts show the lies about putting antismoking lobbyists into Obama’s government. The 2,000% SCHIP tax on the poorest RollYourOwn smokers showed the $250,000 no-tax pledge lie. And the Ohio smoking ban shows the lies behind the vote that was supposed to exclude family owned businesses and private clubs. The Antismokers lie about all this and lie about the “deadly health threat” of wisps of secondary smoke too. . - . Michael J. McFadden, Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
By ichoosefreedom
May 5, 2009 1:26 AM | Link to this
Did anyone read the Wall Street Journal article today titled ” Nomination Tests Antilobbyist Policy”? This same “non” profit foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, paid 99 million dollars in grants to the ACS, ALA and AHA for smoking bans. The AMA doled it out to the ACS, ALA and AHA for tobacco “control”) Only providing tobacco education got grant money taken away from grantees. The RWJF wanted tobacco “control” (aka BANS). Why? RWJF, in 2006 when Ohio’s ban was bought and paid for by RWJF via the ACS/SmokeFree Ohio, RWJF owned 55,983,308 shares of Johnson & Johnson stock valued at $3,696,018,000.
RWJF was created by the founder of J&J. J&J owns Nicorette, Nicoderm and Commit - the ONLY over-the-counter NRT products. Ask yourself why the ALA (Ms. Kiser’s organization) printed a publication (funded by the RWJF) ENDORSING J&J products
3 studies have proven that these products: 1) only have a 1.6% success rate for quitting smoking 1 year Yes-that’s a 98.4% FAILURE rate (however it is interesting to read the authors of this study laud this rate as a success compared to the placebo-and the authors are tied to Big Pharma) 2) the gum and lozenges, in a study, are now linked to possible oral cancer 3) 80% of the kids who attempted to buy NRT products were successful at doing so (maybe it was the candy flavors of the gum that the anti smoking cartel uses against the tobacco companies saying they enticed the under aged) Here’s one more question. Why are they having such a fit over dissolvable tobacco and the electronic cigarette? ANSWER: because Big pHARMa isn’t profiting from them. Remember, this is all supposedly about the fictitious secondhand smoke? Dissolvable and electronic tobacco wouldn’t harm anyone by secondhand anything. And yet? Now do you see what this is all really about? Money for Big pHARMa and the non-profits. NO money for the bars and private clubs that are closing. More and more people are discovering the truth behind this social engineering they call “denormalizing” our behaviors. And it’s not going to be pretty when this all blows up. Anyone involved is going to be covered in it.
By ichoosefreedom
May 5, 2009 1:19 AM | Link to this
This is for “Um” who said even though it’s been 2 years, people will get used to it eventually. Are you SERIOUS? Who is going to reimburse the business owners who have been losing vast amounts of money waiting for people “to get used to it” and eventually patronize the businesses? Jeez.
By History Buff
May 5, 2009 1:09 AM | Link to this
They spent $70,000 to collect $450 when that money could have helped the ill, the homeless, and the hungry? NUTS!!!!!
I hope people realize that no law ever said that a business HAD to allow smoking. Businesses owners COULD set their own policy and customers could make their own choice.
Now there is NO choice BUT you can eat nicotine in any restaurant and school cafeteria (potato, tomato, cauliflower, green pepper, chili’s, eggplant and more).
By marleneb
May 5, 2009 1:02 AM | Link to this
A private property owner should choose what happens in his own place that HE pays for, NOT you or me. When big nanny driven by big pharma starts taking, they don’t just stop there. But don’t worry, there will be a cessation product for everything, just better hope it’s not something you like, like food, or water, or sex! Oh yeah, there is one for that!
By Michael J. McFadden
May 5, 2009 1:00 AM | Link to this
Clarification on my post below: The Google Search should bring you to the Sloan Kettering Cancer Assessment page. They have a “Calculator” button/box on the top right that you click to enter those figures. - MJM
By Michael J. McFadden
May 5, 2009 12:58 AM | Link to this
Dummy wrote, “smoke 2 packs/day in a small room with another person in a small room with another person for 20 years…You’ll both get lung cancer.” Nope. Go to Google. Enter “lung cancer risk assessment” in quotes like that. Click Calculator. Enter age 50, smoked 25 years, 2 packs/day, quit ten years ago. Your lung cancer risk is LESS than 1%. They don’t even HAVE a button for secondhand smoke because it’s so small! . - . Michael J. McFadden, Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
By brogers
May 5, 2009 12:53 AM | Link to this
The state has shelled out $70,000 dollars to collect $450.00 in fines? How is that working for ya Ohio? How dumb can anti-smoking propaganda get?
By TKidding
May 9, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this
Hey lets ban cars to because sitting in traffic is just as hazardous as second hand smoke. I wanna be just like a Nazi so Im spying on my neighbors and reporting them to the SS. I cant wait till they take away everything from us because I am unable to think for myself. I cant believe they will give me a gun because I am totally unable to control myself. And they should definitely take away cake from me because Im liable to eat the whole thing thank goodness for our kind and generous goverment
By Joe Everette
May 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
….Continuing….. The other thing is the law is not just stopping smoking in bars and restraunts… it stops smoking in all WORK PLACES. No one seems to be complaining about it except bars. Restraunts say they have not noticed much difference.
By Joe Everette
May 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
I want to clear the air to begin with. First I was a smoker for over 20 years. I did quit smoking and have been a non-smoker for over 24 years. It does not bother me to be around smoking. But it does bother some people.
What you are calling a “Smoking Band” is just wrong and sounds as an uninformed person. The law passed was not a smoking band law, it was a SMOKE FREE WORK ENVIRONMENT.
I wish I had more room to write. But the point is it is not a ban on smoking, it is a smoke free work pl
By Gunther
May 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
LMAO@ strawboss….well I smoke, but I dont go to bars, or out to eat…drinking will kill ya, and restaurant food makes you fat…I guess that doesnt really matter to anyone.
By B.J.
May 9, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
issues 4 and 5 were written in a way to confuse the public. It was not a fair vote. I am a smoker and have always tried to be courteous and not smoke around the non-smokers. I say all us smokers should buy our cigarettes in Kentucky. It saves you approx $2.00 a pack. Ohio taxxes would then be increased on the snobs and hidden alcoholics that think they have the right to look down on us. We’ve been paying their taxxes tooooo long!!!
By B.J.
May 9, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
issues 4 and 5 were written in a way to confuse the public. It was not a fair vote. I am a smoker and have always tried to be courteous and not smoke around the non-smokers. I say all us smokers should buy our cigarettes in Kentucky. It saves you approx $2.00 a pack. Ohio taxxes would then be increased on the snobs and hidden alcoholics that think they have the right to look down on us. We’ve been paying their taxxes tooooo long!!!
By B.J.
May 9, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
issues 4 and 5 were written in a way to confuse the public. It was not a fair vote. I am a smoker and have always tried to be courteous and not smoke around the non-smokers. I say all us smokers should buy our cigarettes in Kentucky. It saves you approx $2.00 a pack. Ohio taxxes would then be increased on the snobs and hidden alcoholics that think they have the right to look down on us. We’ve been paying their taxxes tooooo long!!!
By Joyosity
May 9, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
The fact that this is an issue for you is amazing all unto itself. It is apparent that the state of Ohio couldnt care less about the people who are affected by breathing in cigarrette smoke from the burning garbage of others. I will stand up and fight for the right of anyone who so chooses to be able to destroy their lives and their health. But NO ONE has the right to take me down with them. How dare you think differently. Why am I not surprised? Its called EDUCATION. GET SOME!!
By Trudy
May 9, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
It sure is nice to be able to go to dinner without sitting in harmful cigarette smoke. I love the smoking ban.
By no
May 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
(continued) to smokers because they have to walk through them to get into an establishment, try to be a little more patient because everybody’s still getting used to it. They had to change what they do for us non-smokers!
By Um
May 9, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
I think it’s going to take a couple years, maybe more, but Ohioans will get used to the ban.
If you want it overturned, write to your representative. Slamming other peoples on the Dayton Daily News board will get you nowhere, I can tell you that much.
Personally, I don’t mind walking through a group of smokers to get into a bar/club/restaurant that is smoke-free. To the people who have to go outside to smoke, besides inclement weather, it’s not that bad. And to the people who are snotty
By Myself
May 9, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Ok, we must remember that smoking bans were inspired due to the increase of individuals who are smokers suing the tabacco companies for them getting cancer, obese/ill people suing fast food chains for there ill health or overweight issues, criminals suing homeowners for getting shot during robberies. States must now protect themselves with laws as to avoid further financial loss due to lawsuits and such based on these so called rights that we abuse daily. You have a right dont abuse it or others
By Mark
May 9, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
I couldn’t agree more (w/ the non-fellow smokers out there). We need to repeal this law for multiple reasons. First, population control. There are way too many people on the planet. I’m all for thinning the herd. Unfortunately it’s arbitrary thinning. Second, while I’m all for good health, it doesn’t make economic sense unless you try to argue health costs are reducing which is a tough argument to make with any real facts. Finally, the law obviously cannot be enforced. So smoke em if you got em!
By EggHead
May 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
The way i see it is if you don’t like smokers then don’t go to places that allow smoking. Very simple……
By Rach
May 9, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Also, I like just as much as the next person coming home from a bar and not reaking like smoke but lets be serious I’m pretty sure there are just as many poluting harmful stuff floating around in the air everyday. I think that if something is going to happen to me, its going to happen no matter what I do, so I dont complain.
By Rach
May 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
I think that everybody needs to stop their crying, first is there really that much anyone can do either way?! NO. Also people are forgetting that smoking IS legal there for it is a persons right to smoke or not. As far as bars go for many people drinking and smoking in a bar goes hand in hand and like I said before, it is that persons right. It is also a person right to go into a bar or not go into a bar, that is your choice.
By Matt
May 9, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
I am a former general manager of a nightclub that went out of business, as a result of the smoking ban. While I did enjoy the smoke free environment, I also enjoyed having a good paying job, which I obviously lost. The bars and nightclubs in the Dayton area Thrived for years with Smoking. Once the Smoking Ban went into effect, Many bars lost out big. I am for keeping it out of restaurants and other places where children are permitted, but how many club hoppers have you met that go to a bar
By Bishop162
May 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
It is not short sited smoking causes cancer. However, remember you postion when you income and property taxes go up from minimized tobbacoand alcohol sales and then keep the same attitude. This issue is choice. Smokers you consitutuional right of choice..gone. Women forget your right of choice they are soon to be gone with this supreme Court. How about obese people? There is a bill in NY to ban all trans fat food and it has big support. What rights will you let someone else take from you next?
By Bishop162
May 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
It is not short sited smoking causes cancer. However, remember you postion when you income and property taxes go up from minimized tobbacoand alcohol sales and then keep the same attitude. This issue is choice. Smokers you consitutuional right of choice..gone. Women forget your right of choice they are soon to be gone with this supreme Court. How about obese people? There is a bill in NY to ban all trans fat food and it has big support. What rights will you let someone else take from you next?
By Bishop162
May 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
It is not short sited smoking causes cancer. However, remember you postion when you income and property taxes go up from minimized tobbacoand alcohol sales and then keep the same attitude. This issue is choice. Smokers you consitutuional right of choice..gone. Women forget your right of choice they are soon to be gone with this supreme Court. How about obese people? There is a bill in NY to ban all trans fat food and it has big support. What rights will you let someone else take from you next?
By Bishop162
May 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
It is not short sited smoking causes cancer. However, remember you postion when you income and property taxes go up from minimized tobbacoand alcohol sales and then keep the same attitude. This issue is choice. Smokers you consitutuional right of choice..gone. Women forget your right of choice they are soon to be gone with this supreme Court. How about obese people? There is a bill in NY to ban all trans fat food and it has big support. What rights will you let someone else take from you next?
By Bishop162
May 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
It is not short sited smoking causes cancer. However, remember you postion when you income and property taxes go up from minimized tobbacoand alcohol sales and then keep the same attitude. This issue is choice. Smokers you consitutuional right of choice..gone. Women forget your right of choice they are soon to be gone with this supreme Court. How about obese people? There is a bill in NY to ban all trans fat food and it has big support. What rights will you let someone else take from you next?
By Bishop162
May 9, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
It is not short sited smoking causes cancer. However, remember you postion when you income and property taxes go up from minimized tobbacoand alcohol sales and then keep the same attitude. This issue is choice. Smokers you consitutuional right of choice..gone. Women forget your right of choice they are soon to be gone with this supreme Court. How about obese people? There is a bill in NY to ban all trans fat food and it has big support. What rights will you let someone else take from you next?
By Mary
May 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
Am I the only one that thinks the concern over the cost of enforcing the no smoking ban is absurdly short-sighted? There is absolutely no question that cigarette smoking & second hand smoke causes lung (and other) cancer. The cost of treating cancer is astronomical compared to the cost of enforcing a no smoking ban.
People who must work in bars, bowling alleys, etc., have the right to their health - that right takes precedence over the right to smoke in a public facility.
By Alice
May 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
jane 8:59 PM: I’m from Dayton, but currently live in Tennessee. Our smoking ban down here includes all restaurants & public areas, but let’s bar owners choose. So far it works for everybody. Smokers have their bar, and the non-smokers as well…and no one lost their business over it like in Dayton.
I agree. I think this should have been on the ballot. This is the best option.
By Glock
May 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
I like Hamburgers
By Glock
May 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
I like Hamburgers
By lovinglife
May 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
Am I the only one that thinks the concern over the cost of enforcing the no smoking ban is absurdly short-sighted? There is absolutely no question that cigarette smoking causes lung (and other) cancer. The cost of treating cancer is astronomical compared to the cost of enforcing a no smoking ban.
People who must work in bars, bowling alleys, etc., have the right to their health - that right takes precedence over the right to smoke in a public facility.
By Dummy #2
May 9, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
…got cut off. in a small room with another person for 20 years, guess what? You’ll both get lung cancer. This is not rocket science. But you cannot tell me that when little Johnny eats dinner at a restaraunt in the non-smoking section and catches a whiff of smoke from someone seated away form him that he will get lung cancer. That said, the smell is offensive and restaurants should choose to ban smoking, but leave the bars alone.
By Dummy #1
May 9, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
I am a non-smoker. The smoking ban arguments are a smoke screen for people’s real feelings. The bottom line is that non-smokers don’t like the smell of smoke (ex-smokers are usually the worst complainers) and don’t want to be around it. One excuse goes, “My granpa, aunt, cousin, neighbor got cancer from smoking and their husband/wife got it too and they were a non-smoker. Why should we expose kids to that in a restaurant?” Um, if you you smoke 2 packs a day in a small room with another person
By Rachel J.
May 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Great news to hear of more smoking bans! I used to live in Ohio (born and raised there) and currently live in Nova Scotia. There are smoking bans here not only in restaurants, bowling alleys etc., but also in “motor vehicles”, meaning… car, passenger van, pick-up truck or commercial automobile moving or stationary that contain “youth”, which means any child eighteen years of age and under. There are many places that have similar laws. The sun still shines and business still prosper! :>)
By Larry
May 9, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
I don’t smoke and never have, but I think that the small business should decided if they want people to smoke in their place or not. I have friends that smoke, we all enjoy going to places that have both smoking and no smoking. If a place that allowed smoking, them it up to me to go to that business or not. It should’t be up to the government to decide who smokes or not. I believe drinking cause more harm then smoking, and I do enjoy my beer.
By Ford
May 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
So many right comments, so many comments that just leave me shaking my head. It is quite simple… I do not smoke. Before the ban, I did not go to any establishment that allowed smoking. I felt that I won twice; my health is not impacted negatively, and the owner of the establishment did not get any of my hard earned money. The sad thing about this entire law is that it amounts to another avenue of allowing the government to dictate personal responsibility.
By 12penguins
May 9, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
Peacemom62.. You have the audacity to call others ignorant. Go back to school and take course in writing our language. What a joke!
By Bar Owner
May 9, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
I am a bar owner. Employees and myself loved the ban, but our business dropped significantly. Our customers were leaving for bars that allowed smoking. What do we do? Voluntarily allow our business to walk out the door and close shop? Right now, the county does not have the resources to effectively enforce the law, which creates a UNEVEN ECONOMIC PLAYING FIELD. Without enforcement, there is no law. When the county gets their act together and truly enforces the law, complaints will go down.
By PEACEMOM62
May 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
IT’S NOT REAL COMPLICATED…”YOU” DO NOT HAVE THE “RIGHT’ TO POLLUTE MY AIR; I THOUGHT PEOPLE WENT TO BARS TO DRINK???…YOU DRINKING DOESN’T POLUTE MY AIR BUT YOUR SAD LITTLE HABIT OF SMOKING “DOES”….TOO BAD MANY ARE PUTTING THEIR CIGS IN FRONT OF FEEDING THEIR KIDS….SURE IS A LOT OF IGNORANT PEOPLE AROUND !!!
By Concerned Taxpayer
May 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Have any of you tried to bowl lately around the miami valley? I think that is one industry that is thriving in the wake of the ban. I have tried 4 times in the past 5 months to go bowling at 3 different places for open bowl. They had waiting lists hours long! There were actually families in there and I didn’t have to worry about my clothes stinking of smoke when I left.
By Docta
May 9, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
I don’t smoke but I am of the opinion that this is rather short-sighted and draconian. Businesses like bars and restaurants often have a difficult enough time making a go of it without such restrictions being placed on their clientèle. For every non-smoker who is tinkled pink about coming home from a bar sans smell of smoke (and btw, you’re going to a *%#!ing bar! What did you expect to smell like when you came home?!)there are probably a half dozen smokers who simply opt to stay home.
By Phil Man
May 9, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
Do we attribute new restaurant openings to the smoking ban as well? The whole “oh no, smoking made all the restaurants close” thing is garbage. If you put 20 chain restaurants within 2 miles of each other on Miller Rd, something has to give.
It hasn’t been all negative, new businesses are opening too.
By des
May 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
cry babies…They have had a no smoking ban for years in other states like california and the bars and other establishmenst are doing just fine..get over it…i like going to places like waffel house now that there is no smoking…and yes i like that you cant smoke at the bowling alley…my kid bowls every saturday and the smell is so much better now….have a great day
By Chuck
May 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Sweep around your own door before you sweep around someone else’s. If you joined a private club where smoking was OK, and then complained, be ashambed of yourself. Suppose smokers “insisted” on smoking somewhere it was preiously not allowed. No No Ron, you can stay home.
By the Strawboss
May 9, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
Don’t give up, Smokers! I think you need to continue your fight for the right to nurture an addiction that is just as hard (if not harder) to beat than a cocaine or heroin addiction. It is heroic of you to sacrifice your health for the protection of Democracy. FREEDOM ISN’T FREE! Wait… what was the question?
By Andrew
May 9, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this
Shouldn’t business owners decide on their own whether to allow smoking or not? Okay, maybe not JUST like that, but I am trying to make a point here. Make cigarettes illegal! But telling a business owner that they have to stop catering to a spcific crowd of law abiding citizens is ridiculous. As the sign says on a small bar in north Dayton…Where are all the non-smokers at? My co worker said how nice it will be to go bowling now without the smoke. He bowls once a year.
By JIM
May 9, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Ron I beleive you an your bible should stay at home!That must be the dumb—s statement of the year!
By Phil Man
May 9, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this
As far as banning alcohol goes. Me drinking a beer doesn’t inconvenience multiple people with fumes and stink when I’m drinking it. Cigarattes can be smelled 100 yards away while they’re transmitting carcinogens into the air. Drinking can be dangerous and affect others if someone is careless and drinks and drives. Cigarettes are dangerous to everyone in their proximity.
By Phil Man
May 9, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
Hugs don’t cause cancer
By Tom
May 9, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this
Is the ban working, not if complaints are still coming in. I agree that it needs to be enforced. This will be a level playing field when everyone follows the law. If you think this doesn’t apply then maybe the other post has it right, close them down and throw out everything, make them paint the walls and replace the flooring, fines aren’t working for businesses with multiple complaints. Every industry has regulations ( that seem like government interference ).
By Debbie
May 9, 2008 7:31 AM | Link to this
I am a smoker and I don’t appreciate some of you non-smokers calling me lazy, now you wanna talk about being rude!! You don’t know me, so why would you call me lazy? We all know that cigarettes cause cancer. What I’d like to know is, can anyone tell me ONE thing that doesn’t cause cancer????????
By Ben
May 9, 2008 7:02 AM | Link to this
Hey Ron, ya didn’t have a choice with your parents, you might not have had a choice in the military, but you sure as heck have a choice as an adult now. The choice is don’t go in a bar that permits smoke, if it doesn’t permit smoking, the non smokers will arrive, if it does, the smokers will show up. It’s simple, the morons who want to dictate common sense have none of their own.
By Tom
May 9, 2008 6:58 AM | Link to this
Who can afford to drive anywhere with these gas prices? I hate when any business is forced to close. I normally go out to be with friends, some would have avoided places that made them uncomfortable with smoke. Why are some places doing better and some worse? Maybe the emphasis needs to be on something other than crying about the ban. I have an uncle that told me several years ago, “I’d rather die smoking, than live non-smoking”. Is that the mentality of smokers?
By Marie
May 9, 2008 6:56 AM | Link to this
We just had the occassion to travel into Indiana and Michigan and had to eat in both states.Of course they allow smoking. How dirty and nasty the restaurants felt when we went in. The smell of cigarette smoke was overwhelming and any good smells that may have been coming from the kitchens were overtaken by the nastiness of the stale and fresh cigarette smoke. We say ban smoking in public in all states!
By stingers
May 9, 2008 6:45 AM | Link to this
Even in communist Russia you could smoke. Guess the smoking ban means that Ohio is worse than the communist.
When I was growing up there was a thing called “tolerance of others”. Today it seems that everyone is supposed to look alike (be vanilla).
Personally, I am more offended at having to look at fat and ugly people or people who dress funny. It hurts my eyes and I want an Ohio law that allows only the beautiful people out in public.
By Phatts
May 9, 2008 6:43 AM | Link to this
Wake up Ohio smokers-the way this smoking ban is not making any money the cigarette sales tax is likely to go up. Those of us living close to Indiana and Kentucky will have to become “smoke runners” to cross the state lines and load up on our illegal demon sticks to avoid Ohios already high tax.
By Tom
May 9, 2008 6:23 AM | Link to this
I’d happy to vote NO again and I think the losing side should have to pay for all costs associated with the issue ( I’m pretty sure how the outcome would be obviously ). I once read that smokers needed to drink more to get the same buzz as non-smokers ( you think that is the goal for a night out? think bar owners don’t count on it ). If a business needs a product not associated with it’s main purpose to succeed, something is wrong with the business. This is fair to all and will work out.
By boxter
May 9, 2008 6:12 AM | Link to this
“Slow to pay”? What the hell is that? They pay or CLOSE THEM DOWN. How hard is that? Close them and I bet they find their checkbook then. This has to be yhe stupidiest issue I have ever seen. If you know they are in violation and issued a violation to them, give them X amount of days to pay it or SHUT THEM DOWN. I wish the police would accept “slow to pay” next time I get speeding ticket.
By Jeff
May 9, 2008 5:23 AM | Link to this
Joey is absolutely right about the smokers/public drinkers not showing up to vote. The people who are really pissed off about this are the ones who didn’t bother going to the polls. Not many 22 year-old kids are going to go vote with a hangover from the night before.
By Ron
May 9, 2008 5:09 AM | Link to this
My mother, father, grandmother all died from smoking related problems. I had to inhale that second hand smoke for 17 years before I left the area and then returned for visits. I had to inhale the second hand smoke when I was in the military. I never had any problem with smoking in the small mom and pop bars that don’t sell food. I do think the workers shouldn’t be subjected to the second hand smoke in any work place.
By jagr686610
May 9, 2008 5:08 AM | Link to this
Hey ‘deez’: I am going to take the high road here and simply make my point, not insult you like you did me. I am a non-smoker. I believe in small government, and therefore individuals should be able to determine the direction of their own business. If a bar/club owner (where people have to be at least 18 to get in -the same age to buy smokes) wants to let people smoke, then they should be allowed to. Conversely, I completely agree with the restaurant ban due to the presence of children.
By Ron
May 9, 2008 5:06 AM | Link to this
My mother, father, grandmother all died from smoking related problems. I had to inhale that second hand smoke for 17 years before I left the area and then returned for visits. I had to inhale the second hand smoke when I was in the military. I never had any problem with smoking in the small mom and pop bars that don’t sell food. I do think the workers shouldn’t be subjected to the second hand smoke in any work place.
By Jammin
May 9, 2008 5:04 AM | Link to this
Same tree hugging mentality rules here that helped ruin industry in these United States. We want jobs and a vibrant economy, but we don’t want the side effects-you can’t have both. We have lost businesses and tax revenue due to this BS and the state now is even wanting to raid the smoking cash cow from the tobacco settlements-In the end we will be left with another broken mess created by idiots.
By John
May 9, 2008 1:09 AM | Link to this
The smoking ban has been successful in killing business for bars. Several have closed. The upside is that DUI’s have dropped in proportion as well. It’s better to just stay at home where I can drink and smoke (if I want to) with friends.
By gctavern
May 9, 2008 12:57 AM | Link to this
How about about the fact family owned businesses and private clubs were supposed to be exempt? The ballot language (not the hidden language but the language on the machines that people read when they voted) said nothing about no paid employees, nothing about only family members in the building and no customers (what kind of business has no customers?). IT WAS ALL BASED ON LIES and the ballot AT THE POLLS PURPOSELY LEFT OUT KEY LANGUAGE. They LIED to sell Issue 5. THE LAW IS A LIE BASED ON LIES.
By gctavern
May 9, 2008 12:46 AM | Link to this
The question shouldn’t be “do we think the ban is working”, the question should be “should there be a ban”? Let me bring this point up. Didn’t Issue 5 say there would “be no harm to business”? Didn’t they SELL voting for Issue 5 on the premise that businesses would still thrive (in fact, they promised ALL us business owners “new” customers). If they LIED about THAT to sell the ban, what ELSE did they LIE ABOUT?
By E
May 9, 2008 12:30 AM | Link to this
To Mike & others, the smoking vs alcohol comparison is pointless. If you and I are sitting next to each other and you light up but choose not to drink, I still inhale your fumes; it affects me. If I drink but choose not to smoke, my alcohol does not affect you. See the difference?!
By Mike
May 8, 2008 11:18 PM | Link to this
If it’s all about health, don’t stop at cigarettes…ban alcohol! What about these drunks on the road killing families instantly? It’s not ok for me to smoke, but it’s cool for me to load up on beer-at Chucky Cheese for God’s sake-and drive home? There are cops to stop drunk drivers, but just like smoke police-aren’t there larger issues in Dayton-they don’t get more than 10% of the offenders. Government officials institute popular policy to get re-elected and tie elections to these policies.
By Brian
May 8, 2008 11:07 PM | Link to this
I smoke and voted against the ban. The people who wanted the ban did a great job of confusing the voters to get what they want. Issue 4 and 5…good job. You got what you wanted. But hear this…dont come crying when your favorite resturant or bar closes, or your $10 meal is now $15 to $20. My wife, who smokes, and I choose not to go out anymore. Sorry to those who have lost thier jobs over the ban. Where I work we still smoke inside. Nobody complains, they want to keep thier jobs.
By Joey
May 8, 2008 10:13 PM | Link to this
Would you bonehead smokers stop blaming the government? There was a VOTE on the smoking ban, remember? Our government simply asked if we wanted a smoking ban or not. Either there simply are more non-smokers, or the stereotypical lazy smoker-non-voter has once again decided it’s easier to complain than make it down to the voting booth on Tuesday. There’s a pretty good argument for saying that the smokers voted FOR this ban simply by their apathy when it came time to vote for or against.
By Ken
May 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Link to this
From day one of the smoking ban I havn’t been able to get a cigarette lit. I really miss the cancer risk.
By Dave Hudson
May 8, 2008 9:57 PM | Link to this
For all of you who love your rights…there is no right to smoke. The Constitution (remember that?) does not contain to right to smoke and the courts (those darn activist judges) have consistently ruled that smoking is a privilege and NOT a protected right. The 23% of Ohioans who smoke lost the election fair and square; stop your whining and stand outside to smoke! NYC’s bars are making $ hand over fist and are all smoke free…i’m sure Ohio will survive.
By deez
May 8, 2008 9:11 PM | Link to this
Jagr is an idiot. That’s common sense? What about democracy? There was a vote dingus, so common sense doesn’t apply, although it appears you’re not sure what it is anyway.
By jane
May 8, 2008 8:59 PM | Link to this
I’m from Dayton, but currently live in Tennessee. Our smoking ban down here includes all restaurants & public areas, but let’s bar owners choose. So far it works for everybody. Smokers have their bar, and the non-smokers as well…and no one lost their business over it like in Dayton.
By bk
May 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Link to this
Imagine this….a left wing smoking law that the gov’t runs that is costing tax paying tens of thousands of dollars PER COUNTY!!! $70K is just what Montgomery county is losing enforcing this extremist pushed legislation. Multiply it by 88 times (88 counties in Ohio for you smoke Nazis) and you are looking a millions of dollars p#ssed away for you smoke whiners. What’s next…..you want everyone to powder your $ss for you because it’s a little red??
By BK
May 8, 2008 8:55 PM | Link to this
Did YOU put up the risk capital for this investment or me?? Who the hell gives YOU the right to tell me how to run MY business?? Just like casinos, strip joints, and porn. You don’t like the environment, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!! This is still America……for now. Wait until Hillary or Barack get elected, the move to Euro socialism will really kick in. Mediocre socialized health care will be next. Someone else telling me where to go to the doctor, what doctor to see, and when my surgery is approved..
By BK
May 8, 2008 8:50 PM | Link to this
As a 46 year old I am finally seeing the brown shirt Nazi’s in America disguised as the anti smoking lobby. Correct me if I’m wrong here: EVERY bar in Ohio had the right to ban smoking BEFORE this law was passed, right?? Every Applebees in Ohio banned smoking at least one year before this law was passed and their business was not hurt. It comes down to this, it’s MY business and MY choice if I want to ALLOW smoking. If my employees don’t like it, I can ban it. If my customers don’t like, ban it
By steve
May 8, 2008 8:42 PM | Link to this
just another example of the lame politicians and the loony left scamming us out of hard earned money ….What next ?????you throwing more welfare trash at us????Come on Government Wake Up !!!! WE the People are getting sick and tired of your constant scamming and stealing from us……
By KS
May 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Link to this
I agree with Ron,I sure alcohol must cause as many accident and deaths as second hand smoke, what about all of those people who sit in the bars and restaurants and have 3-4 drinks- and then drive home, so lets get the ALCOHOL OUT OF THE BARS, RESTAURANTS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES, so the people who doesn’t drink will feel safer on the streets. Yes smoking is a nasty habit, but so is the alcohol.
By Doug
May 8, 2008 8:31 PM | Link to this
The major fault with the ban is that the lawmakers did not appear to plan any logistics for the investigation or “policing” of the ban. It took nearly a year for any fines to be written and the interpretation of outside patio areas is still unclear. If they want this ban to pay for itself then simply switch daytime employees to working nights, when the majority of violations occur. They simply need to create a “sting” team they would check establishments without warning in a random manner.
By Bryan
May 8, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this
Linda, what you fail to understand is that your right to smoke in public VIOLATES my right to a smoke free enviroment. While I don’t like to see the government get involved sometimes it is necessary. If for one as a NON-Smoker rarely went out because I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. Restraunts going out of buisness are the result of the local economy being continuing to add restraunts without increaseing the patrons. Too much supply……
By jagr686610
May 8, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this
I think the common sense solution to this situation is to repeal the current smoking laws and set up a tax system so that bar owners could allow smoking. Why not give each individual bar owner an option instead of forcing them to go non-smoking? I don’t know how it would work, but why not jack up taxes on bars and give a worthwhile tax break to bars that have less than a certain number of complaints (or are complaint free)? My final question: when did everyone become such whiny losers?
By Doug
May 8, 2008 8:18 PM | Link to this
The smoking bans intention of making a more healthy environment to work in IS working. It is a downfall for the average bar owner as they openly admit lower sales; however, judging by the state of the economy, I don’t believe the smoking ban is entirely to blame for the lessened profits. Many people just are no longer going out to eat or drink so that they can pay their mortgage.
By linda
May 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this
cancer is a genetic gene not from smoke. Get real people the ones that complain are whimps and just making trouble . what about guns, booze and cell phone usuage when driving. now these kill. You non smokers are allowing our government to dictate our rights. We are NO LONGER A FREE COUNTRY AND IT IS ONLY GETTING WORSE.
By rick
May 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Link to this
Thanks ,Julie for you’re honest opinion!Ohio taxpayers wil help us smoke while we ae laid off!!!
By T,Feeser
May 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Link to this
Our rights are what is at stake here not the fact they we are exposed to second hand smoke.It is a choice of every living citizen wether he or she is exposed.We have a choice but these laws are taking back that choice,and what about alcohol and the chioce to be around it or not and to see trouble resolve from that.What are the statistics behind how many deaths occur each year due to alcohol consumption???hmm Ill bet its higher.
By Freedom Lover
May 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this
As a former smoker, I hate cigarettes and what they do a person’s health. It’s the number #1 cause of lung cancer and other health ailments. HOWEVER, when government begins to dictate to people whether they may smoke, and whether a restraunt may or may not allow smoking, then government becomes intrusive and draconian. American’s don’t need the Nanny state to dictate every aspect of our lives. Smoker’s were first on the chopping block, whose next? Those who eat fried chicken?
By Citizen
May 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Link to this
“Clean” air haha - you people crack me up talking a whiff of cigarette smoke will kill you. You’re too lazy to get your fat butts out of the car, so you drive through for food, you drive through for pop, you drive through to do your banking, etc., sitting behind vehicles blowing KNOWN TOXIC FUMES right into your air intake in massive quantities. Duhhhh. Get real. It’s about our rights being taken away one by one, wake up people.
By Phil Man
May 8, 2008 7:01 PM | Link to this
LB, but it is a right to be in an area free of a known carcinogen.We make a choice to not be around it, that’s what the vote was. It’s not someone else’s right to dump formaldehyde down your throat via liquid, so why should they be able to be via smoke?
By Paul
May 8, 2008 6:35 PM | Link to this
Why is Ohio mutating into a knock off verion of California? What is the underlying rage that causes Ohioans to promote a “holier than thou” mantra? Is compromise to be avoided at all costs by the “control totalitarians?” Seems so. It negates their “power”. Ohio, did, at one time, relish individualism. No more. You are losing, control freaks, and in your loss, you think you are winning. Smokers are, generally, compromisers. Yes, they stink, but they’re “good stinkers”, until you p**s them off.
By ann
May 8, 2008 6:19 PM | Link to this
Renee: I try NOT to inhale fumes - as soon as I see the cloud or smell it, I cover my nose. I try to stay indoors as much as possible when traffic is high, or I travel to a larger city, because an attack is scary. I’ve tried entering banks, stores, my school buildings - through a pack of smokers in front of the doors. If you ask them to move, or cover your face, they give attitude. That makes me less concerned for their feelings and addiction. Smoke at home if you like, but stay away from me!
By Barry
May 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Link to this
Poor little government, losing money to enforce this law, what a joke. How many people have lost their jobs because of this law? How many businesses have gone out of business because of this law? How many people have cut back on the amount of time (and money) they spend in bars and restaurants since they have been “run out” by this law? Good job Ohio! There is nothing that more government meddling in your life and maybe a stiff tax increase cannot fix.
By DB
May 8, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this
My Father-in-Law died of smoking related causes. My Mother-in-Law, who never smoked, is dying of smoking related causes. It’s not a pretty death, there is much suffering involved. I’m all for anything that gets smoking away from the public.
As a teacher I can tell which kids have parents who smoke, they reek of stale cigarette smoke. Who is watching out for the rights of these children who live in homes with smokers?