News feeds
E-mail alerts
Mobile
Text alerts
Twitter
FacebookSome pushing for changes to Ohio's public smoking ban
Lawmakers propose exemptions in response to complaints from small business owners, private clubs.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Jerry Badders has been fined for allowing smoking in his Englewood bar, the Courtyard Lounge. Florentine Brzozowski smoked for 40 years before quitting and now she takes daily breathing treatments for a lung condition. The last thing she wants is Ohio's lawmakers weakening the state's 18-month-old ban on indoor public smoking.
"Keep the law the way it is," the Riverside resident said last week.
But Gerald Matthews, a Riverside resident who said he used to be an "enthusiastic supporter" of Ohio's smoking ban, says he now has "mixed emotions" about the law. "I have seen small neighborhood bars forced either to risk going out of business or risk the fines for allowing smoking in their bars ... Maybe we should allow the owner (of the bar) to make the decision."
Sen. Tom Roberts, D-Dayton, wants to reopen the smoking ban issue because of complaints from small bar owners who say they are losing business and private club members who say they thought the law had allowed them an exemption. Roberts is one of 13 state legislators co-sponsoring Senate Bill 346, legislation that would carve out new exemptions in the state's smoke-free workplace law for private clubs and family-owned businesses that don't allow minors.
"Small business is the backbone of our economy," Roberts said. "A lot of these mom-and-pop places are important to their neighborhoods."
But allowing some establishments to decide on a ban for themselves would create confusion among customers and "an enforcement nightmare" for health officials, said Ana Titus, a spokeswoman for the Ohio division of the American Cancer Society.
"From what we see, the (current) law is working," Titus said. Of some 280,000 workplace and leisure establishments in Ohio, the state has received 36,340 complaints of smoking violations since the law took effect 18 months ago, said Kristopher Weiss, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Health.
"The vast majority of businesses are complying, and they're doing it voluntarily," Weiss said.
But of the 21,648 investigations into those smoking complaints, only 5 percent (1,090) have resulted in fines, according to state health department data. Many of those fines are being appealed in court.
Jo Risk, owner of BoJangles in West Carrollton, said the law isn't working, which is why she prefers to pay fines to the state rather than ban smoking in her establishment. BoJangles has garnered the most smoking complaints (93) and fines ($5,000) in Montgomery County since the ban began.
Risk said that when she tried to comply with the law, she lost more than half her customers and revenue. And when she discovered her competitors weren't enforcing the ban, she decided to defy it as well.
"The state is taking a lot of my money with these fines, but if I don't allow smoking I don't have customers," she said. "I could lose $5,000 in a week."
Jacob Evans, legal counsel for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, said its member bars and restaurants have reported a loss of 650 employees since the ban took effect in May 2007. He admitted, however, that it's hard to separate the impact of the state's smoking law from the economic downtown.
Consumption of wholesale spirits in Ohio (those purchased by bars, clubs and restaurants) declined 5 percent from June 31, 2006, to June 31, 2008 — from 3.34 million gallons to 3.17 million gallons, according to statistics from the Ohio Division of Liquor Control. In the two fiscal years prior to the ban, wholesale consumption had increased 5 percent.
State legislators must look carefully at the total economic impact of the new law — including the cost savings in health care — before deciding on any changes to the smoking ban, warned Karen Levin, executive director of the Dayton-based Levin Family Foundation, which provides health-care prevention services to the poor.
"If you look at all the harm that could be done by picking away at this law, it can't be justified," she said.
Roberts said he has heard from many members of private clubs who say they voted for the law because they thought it would exempt them if employees at the clubs worked as volunteers. Some voters, too, believed that family-owned bars and restaurants would be exempted if all their employees were family members, he said.
"That's what the language basically said on the ballot," Roberts said. "People are asking, 'What did we really vote for'?"
Titus said surveys by the American Cancer Society showed that 97 percent of Ohioans who voted on the issue "knew exactly what they were voting for."
State and local health officials concede there has been some confusion about the law, but they say the bottom line on the ballot issue and in the current law is that workers must be protected from second-hand smoke, a proven cause of cancer and other chronic diseases.
In writing the rules for the new law, the Ohio Department of Health tried to exempt private clubs with volunteer workers, as promised on the ballot, Weiss said. But the Ohio Attorney General's office struck down the exemption and the Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.
"Any (proposed) legislation has to take into account employers protecting employees," said Bill Wharton, a spokesman for Public Health-Dayton and Montgomery County.
Montgomery County Health Commissioner Jim Gross said the local health district will continue to enforce the law, even though state funding provides little more than half the cost of its 16 field investigators and two supervisors. Most other counties in the Miami Valley, including Greene, Mercer, Logan, Auglaize, Champaign and Preble, have returned enforcement duties to the state, which has only two investigators covering 30 health districts across Ohio.
"We certainly think this program is worth the effort," Gross said. "We're committed."
Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2437 or jdebrosse@DaytonDailyNews.com.
Comments
By lavidjio
January 27, 2009 5:52 PM | Link to this
lavidjio
By RufusVonDufus
December 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Can’t wait until “The One” makes marijuana legal but continues the ban on smoking as he smokes in private in the WH! That will be priceless.
By b rogers
December 17, 2008 8:17 PM | Link to this
KAF, Just out of curiosity, why in the world would you have a problem with cigar bars being exempt? Guess it must be “All or Nothing” for you anti’s even if it means businesses closing.
By b rogers
December 17, 2008 8:01 PM | Link to this
Yep KAF, I read it. They won’t exempt cigar bars without exempting the other places listed on the ballot. Stay tuned.
By KAF
December 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Breaking news from Columbus: as reported by the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio’s voter-approved clean indoor air legislation will survive the lame duck legislative session unaltered. The only change that made it onto the legislative agenda was an exemption for so-called cigar bars, but this proposal was stripped from the bill to which it was attached. More importantly, the Republican leadership of both the House and the Senate have publicly expressed an unwillingness to alter a law overwhelmingly supported by voters. As Senate President Bill Harris stated, “To pass a law that would go against what they [the voters] passed…I don’t think that would be right. It wasn’t just my feeling, as it was for a large portion of our caucus.” Gov. Strickland has also publicly expressed an unwillingness to alter what the voters have approved. Without the support of the Republican caucus, any changes to Ohio’s smoke-free legislation is highly unlikely. This is great news from Columbus!
By kybriar
December 16, 2008 7:47 PM | Link to this
Didn’t smoke free Ohio tell Ohio lawmakers that there will be no harm from a smoking ban and also that raising cigarette taxes will be good for Ohio, the state will make money? What a crock of BS lies. Look at the taxes Ohio has and continues to lose and that is big harm. Bet those lost taxes they continue to lose would look real good now.
I think The Governor and legislators should throw both those damaging lies away and bring back common sense to the state.
By b rogers
December 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Harry, did you know that some countries that signed up with the WHO to ban smoking are fining smokers as much as $20,000? I believe it was Kenya (?)who put a man in prison for 40 years for smoking a cigarette. This goes waaaaaayyyyyyy too far. Do we need to see smoking cessation commercials on TV every half hour? They aren’t just banning smoking, they are banning people for no good reason other than to pad their own pockets.
By kybriar
December 16, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
By Harry F. Dunn
“Ask yourself, why are these other countries enacting smoking bans?”
Simple Harry, its about profits from smoking cessation products
By kybriar
December 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
Michael, bar owner in Cleveland, email truth@opponentsofohiobans.com
By Michael
December 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
I am owner a bar owner in Cleveland. In 2007 the smoking ban caused a drop in sales of approx 300k. This year it will be more. Of course, then there’s the loss of sales tax revenue to Ohio in excess of 20k from my bar alone. No wonder the state is in such financial trouble. After all, I am but one of many bar owners. Yet the state would rather see its businesses fail and tax revenues decrease than do what’s right: protect freedoms granted under the Constitution and foster free enterprise!
By Harry F. Dunn
December 16, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
y kybriar
December 16, 2008 7:19 AM | Link to this
Oh Harry, the water needs to be muddied, big time. The WHO, don’t make me laugh, they make big tobacco look like angels.. And these paid flunkies are setting it up for them. A world health group of everybody having an interest in profits, funding, and control. Has history not taught you anything? Enjoy, if you like to be at their mercy
It sounds to me like you are not happy about anything. Did you know that stress causes sickness?
By kybriar
December 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
They can’t wait until they stop screwing the smokers to start the obesity push. Guess who owns Splenda and lap band surgery? LOL But..the public is gonna pay dearly starting with NY
Guess who will profit from splenda!!
A number of other public health programs will come with savings by, for instance, taxing non-diet sodas under an “obesity tax” that will raise $404 million. http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=750267&category=REGION
By kybriar
December 16, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
I guess pay for play can come in more forms than one
By kybriar
December 16, 2008 7:19 AM | Link to this
Oh Harry, the water needs to be muddied, big time. The WHO, don’t make me laugh, they make big tobacco look like angels.. And these paid flunkies are setting it up for them. A world health group of everybody having an interest in profits, funding, and control. Has history not taught you anything? Enjoy, if you like to be at their mercy
By b rogers
December 15, 2008 11:58 PM | Link to this
Harry, I cannot read your full message. It has been cut off mid way.
By Harry F. Dunn
December 15, 2008 11:10 PM | Link to this
By kybriar
December 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this
Harry Dunn, should water be banned also?
Arsenic in Drinking Water
If you are so concerned about the water, contact the World Health organization and ask them to take action on it just like they are with smoking. Lets clear one issue up at a time.Don’t muddy the water.
By Harry F. Dunn
December 15, 2008 11:04 PM | Link to this
To B. Rodgers
By kybriar
December 15, 2008 6:46 PM | Link to this
and reproductive problems. http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.asp#health
By kybriar
December 15, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this
Harry Dunn, should water be banned also?
Arsenic in Drinking Water
According to a 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences, arsenic in drinking water causes bladder, lung and skin cancer, and may cause kidney and liver cancer. The study also found that arsenic harms the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as heart and blood vessels, and causes serious skin problems. It also may cause birth defects
By b rogers
December 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Harry Dunn, the World Health Organization had many countries sign an agreement to ban smoking. The US has not signed to my knowledge. The pharmaceutical companies that push patches, pills, lozenges and nicotine gum are making HUGE profits in these coutries as well.
By b rogers
December 14, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this
Harry Dunn, money, money, money….Follow the money.
By Harry F. Dunn
December 14, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this
Smoking bans are being enacted not just in the United States but in countries all over the world. It is going to eventually just be a way of life that we will all have to adjust to. What are we going to do if our new president decides to pass a smoking ban for the United States just like other countries? Ask yourself, why are these other countries enacting smoking bans? Did the United States surgeon general convince all these countries that they should do this or did they make their own decision
By kybriar
December 14, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is JnJ who profits from smoking cessation products
By kybriar
December 14, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this
Smokeless States This chapter describes SmokeLess States®: National Tobacco Policy Initiative, one of the largest investments made by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, with $99 million authorized in grants since 1992. Primarily, grants were awarded to non-governmental organizations, with the intention that they would educate the public and policy-makers about the tobacco problem. Two features about the program are significant: (1) the Foundation encouraged its grantees to be activists; (2) advocacy was emphasized to bring about policy change. The program relied heavily on three major health voluntary organizations: the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. They provided financial support and, in particular, funds to help lobbying efforts which the Foundation could not support directly. In addition to insight on the effects of advocacy, this chapter offers a window into the role of coalitions in bringing about social change. The program ended in 2004 and its lasting impact has yet to be determined.
By kybriar
December 14, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
If its truly about health, will they enforce full medical exams on every person before they enter a business to ensure that they have no contagious illness or disease to inflict on other persons in that business?
No nose blowing, sneezing or coughing permitted. And for heaven sake, no breaking wind, people do not wish to share your obnoxious body odors
By kybriar
December 14, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
Bt the way, if health was the concern in a restaurant, the ODH would post its employees outside every restroom door in every restaurant to ensure the employees was their hands and properly before preparing and serving your food. Strange that ODH & smoke free Ohio have not mentioned Hand washing after a bathroom visit
By kybriar
December 14, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Truth is, smoking bans have nothing to do with health. If health was a concern, our arsenic loaded water would be banned. We are drinking arsenic and other peoples medicated urine. If it was about health, they would be working hard to get the dangerous Chantix and other killer medications off the market.
Just think, they are pushing nicotine to replace nicotine, I guess what matters is who profits from which nicotine..what a concept!
By Harry F. Dunn
December 13, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this
All they’re saying is that SHS increases your chances of having breathing and heart problems that could possibly kill you. They are not saying that it always kills people but if you get any of these deseases from SHS then you could possibly die. Quit blowing things out of proportion.
By Pam
December 12, 2008 11:34 PM | Link to this
I might add that no where on the ACS website do you see research “to find a cure to Cancer in my lifetime”. NOWHERE! BUT, research money goes to:
“Behavioral Research Center (BRC) The Center was established in 1995 to conduct original behavioral and psychosocial cancer research, provide consultation to other parts of the Society, and facilitate the transfer of behavioral and psychosocial research and theory to improve cancer control policies.” PSYCHOSOCIAL RESEARCH?
By Pam
December 12, 2008 11:08 PM | Link to this
Excuse me. On the ACS property taxes I meant taxes should be collected on the properties VALUED at $3,440,000. The schools (kids) NEED that money.
By Pam
December 12, 2008 11:02 PM | Link to this
The ACS con’t: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/ACSCombinedFinancials_FY2007.pdf FY2007: public support: $1,039,325,000 government support: $ 13,300,000 salaries: $ 370,621,000 benefits: $ 75,158,000 payroll taxes: $ 29,329,000 Paychecks to ACS employees & taxes: $448,718,000 Spent on research since 1946: $3,300,000,000 = less than 3 years of public support or just over 7 years of salaries, benefits, etc. Tax profitable NON profits!!
By Pam
December 12, 2008 10:43 PM | Link to this
I agree with Kybriar. We need a ballot initiative to have non-profits (especially profitable ones) pay their fair share of taxes. For instance, the ACS owns 2 properties in Franklin County-5555 Frantz Rd Mkt Value $2,700,000 and 870 Michigan Ave. valued at $740,000. They claim they care “about the kids”, right? Isn’t that why they don’t want smoking? Do you know they pay $0 in property taxes? You don’t think the State of Ohio could use taxes of $3,440,000?
By Pam
December 12, 2008 10:39 PM | Link to this
Best Buddy Bowler - email me at truth@opponentsofohiobans.com
By b rogers
December 12, 2008 8:42 PM | Link to this
Does anyone remember when black people were considered to be toxic, like second hand smoke? Think about it. Remember Dorothy Dandridge? She stuck her toe into the pool? Remember that one? The pool had to be drained. Just think about it anti’s.
By History Buff
December 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Link to this
It was said on the news today that during 2009 1 in 10 homes will be in bankrupcy. I hope the radical non-smokers ENJOY being out ‘in the cold’. They voted for the smokers to be there. KARMA is nice!
By kybriar
December 11, 2008 9:22 PM | Link to this
thats OK bill Jarrett
http://www.superbowlnky.com/erlanger/indexe.html
By b rogers
December 11, 2008 8:08 PM | Link to this
Personnaly, I think Senator Tom Roberts is excellent.
By b rogers
December 11, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
Best Buddy Bowler, I honestly never dreamed that I would see the day when so many of our citizens would have such blantant disregard for their business owners. It truly is a sad time in America.
By kybriar
December 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
while we’re at it, lets vote to abolish smoke free Ohio, its a drain on Ohio’s economy
By kybriar
December 11, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Lets get it on a ballot for a vote to make the Ohio division of ACS & the other nonprofits for “profit” and declare them taxpayers at both the federal, state, & city level, no special interest or out of state funding, Lower paychecks including replacing current employees with new ones from top to bottom. rules & regulations pertaining to the ballot language must not be on the ballot and can be made up as we go along.
Their taxes could help the economy
By kybriar
December 11, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ooob_SB346/
By Best Buddy Bowler
December 11, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Spent 4 1/2 million dollars building a new business so employees would have jobs. I have now been legislated out of business by the totally misinformed and uninformed public. Definition: Democracy—Mob Rule.
By b rogers
December 10, 2008 10:13 PM | Link to this
In comparison, Chantix causes people to go temporily insane and dozens have committed suicide. Nicorette chewing gum reportedly makes a persons teeth and hair fall out. Gee, have a cigarette and live till you’re 80 or so or take the alternative.Oh me oh my, what shall I do????
By b rogers
December 10, 2008 10:09 PM | Link to this
Hehe, they claim is causes sexually transmitted diseases too. Apparently, someone did not take sex ed 101.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 9:49 PM | Link to this
if one really wants a good belly laugh, just read the news (propaganda) being pumped out like, if you smoke your boobs will fall off and ya can’t have kids. it goes on and on with stupidity
By Michael J. McFadden
December 10, 2008 9:47 PM | Link to this
KYbriar asked, “M McFadden, what about the other health & safety factors, what sane person who really cares about health & safety would force human beings out o be killed, raped, beat up, mugged Robbed, kidnapped?” Simple answer: fanatics who believe the end justifies the means. Of course their “end” is statistical hocuspocus for the most part, while the real and named body count among their “means” continues to go up. - - - Michael J. McFadden, Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 9:45 PM | Link to this
If shs harmed or killed, life would have ceased to exist quickly after the first person smoked. Another thing, the big premature death scare, people are not born with a known death date so how can any person claim a death is premature?
I suppose a hearse & ems was parked at all businesses at all times prior to the smoking ban
Reading their claims is an adventure in comedy if one pays attention LOL
By Pam
December 10, 2008 9:33 PM | Link to this
KAF - let’s put your “proof”, these bogus studies to the test in Federal Court. According to the Judicial Reference Manual I posted, your studies or “proof” would go down in a blaze. Let’s do that so the whole world knows that your true intent is get smokers to quit by forcing them into the cold and sleet by using bogus “proof” that it’s about others. You can’t force smokers to quit so the WHO Conference in 1975 said “we have to make it about the perception that children & infants are harmed”.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this
Its suspicious that any group would organize as a world group and control of any kind is their aim/purpose..that’s scary as hell
By brogers
December 10, 2008 9:24 PM | Link to this
Pam, several years ago I donated with a group of friends $1,700.00 to the ACS. Now that I realize they are merely a social engineering organization, I will never donate another dime. There are some much smaller orgs out there that are far more worth while. I believe the top dog at ACS pays himself in excess of $800,000 per year. Directors earn more than $400,000 per year. I would rather give to my local food bank. The ACS has become excessively greedy.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 9:19 PM | Link to this
Pam, bet those lobbyist to lobby legislature and pump out rhetoric don’t work for free. I used to donate to ACS but no more wasting my money, I would rather give directly to someone and make sure it don’t get used for manipulation, lobbyist, salaries & I read provided cars etc.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 9:10 PM | Link to this
B Rogers, you are so right, its about the business owners. If anyone does not wish to enter where smoking is permitted, they have the right to not enter and are never forced to enter the owners property.
What next, will they get a mob to force the Chinese restaurants to only serve hot dogs against the owners will?
By Pam
December 10, 2008 9:08 PM | Link to this
HERE’S where your donations go: “The Center was established in 1995 to conduct original behavioral and psychosocial cancer research, provide consultation to other parts of the Society, and facilitate the transfer of behavioral and psychosocial research and theory to improve cancer control policies.” http://www.cancer.org/docroot/AA/content/AA21_Research.asp?sitearea=AA They learn how to MANIPULATE us! And even THAT research (61 yrs) = LESS THAN 7 YEARS OF THEIR SALARIES.
By Pam
December 10, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this
KAF-I have yet to get a straight answer from the ACS on actually HOW MUCH they’ve spent since 1946 (61 years) on FINDING A CURE (in our lifetime, remember?). I don’t mean preventing us for eating, smoking, playing or any other act in preventing…I mean honest to God white lab coats, petri dish research to find a cure. Afterall, isn’t that why we GIVE to them?
By brogers
December 10, 2008 9:01 PM | Link to this
Darren, I am glad you have been reading the posts. As hateful as so many of them are you can witness the hostility and utter ugliness that this ban is creating. I feel our priority should be our business owners and their freedom to do what they do best whether it be smokefree or not. The choice should be theirs.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 8:52 PM | Link to this
Richard Doll took those under the table payments for at least 20 years and he is reported to be the inventor of smoking is the cause by questioner
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 8:48 PM | Link to this
As long as special interest funding is involved to target smoking, we can hang it up. Like Richard Doll taking money under the table from chemical (asbestos) company’s to question 200 hospital patients,,wow, its smoking. ACS, prior to the so called “grants” in about 1956 and real scientist, not mechanical engineers (Stanton Glantz) made many headlines which they found the cause of lung cancer (not smoking) but I guess, social engineering to purposely target tobacco took over regardless
By KAF
December 10, 2008 8:43 PM | Link to this
It’s interesting that the American Cancer Society and the entire medical/scientific community is labeled as a fraud by the pro-smoking lobby. But the only medical/scientific fraud regarding smoking was perpetrated by their beloved cigarette companies. Big Tobacco was forced to close down its pseudo-scientific Tobacco Institute. The Tobacco Institute maintained that smoking was not addictive or harmful and that secondhand smoke was also harmless. The Attorneys General closed it down!
By KAF
December 10, 2008 8:34 PM | Link to this
The aforementioned organizations know that “fighting” cancer means prevention as much as finding a cure. I wonder what cancer fighting health organizations pro-smoking advocates give their money or time to that also share their misguided beliefs about smoking? No hospitals I know of. No cancer research organization. No colleges or universities. No medical foundations. Is there a RJ Reynolds puff for the cure foundation?
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 8:25 PM | Link to this
Kaf, working for a cure would be wonderful..will they be working for a cure or just working to pump out propaganda reports for control..funny you called it control.
By KAF
December 10, 2008 8:15 PM | Link to this
Yesterday the Lance Armstrong Foundation and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation joined the American Cancer Society and the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in releasing the World Cancer Report. These organization agreed to work together to fight cancer. They will work together on comprehensive tobacco control, including clean indoor air which will prevent deaths and disease from secondhand smoke. They will also work for the adoption of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the most widely embraced international treaty in history, by the US. So I guess Lance Armstrong and Susan G. Komen will be the next recipients of the pro-smoking smear campaign of lies and hate.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 7:58 PM | Link to this
Bill Jarrett, if that business owner wishes to remain smoke free, great, he should do so as long as it is his decision without force. I will respect his decision as the owner..no problem. SB 346 does not force any owner to give up their right to decide smoking or non smoking Peace!
By Darren
December 10, 2008 7:45 PM | Link to this
I work for a member of the Ohio legislature. Part of the job is gathering comments on issues in the state. Reading through comments on this board over the past several days has certainly been of assistance in gathering some information about this issue. While some of the comments were not of great use, some were and I thank you for them. I know not all commenting are constituents of the member for whom I work, but all comments are helpful regardless of location.
By Pam
December 10, 2008 7:40 PM | Link to this
Some studies showing NO causal relationship: 1. A large World Health Organization Study authored by more than 24 researchers in 1998 published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found no cancer or death risk from second hand smoke. 2. James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat published in 2003 in The British Medical Journal their finding of no second hand smoke effect in a large group of elderly Californians.
Do your own research before believing the ACS propaganda.
By Pam
December 10, 2008 7:37 PM | Link to this
A few of the studies that show second hand smoke has no death or disease effect (part 2):
Enstrom and Kabat published in 2006 in Inhalation Toxicology an analysis showing no heart disease or cancer risk from second hand smoke.
Stranges and his group from Buffalo and the Roswell Cancer Institute published a study in 2006 in the Archives of Internal Medicine that found no risk of heart disease from second hand smoke.
By Bill Jarrett
December 10, 2008 7:37 PM | Link to this
THUNDERBOWL LANES IN ENGLEWOOD DOES NOT ALLOW SMOKING AND WILL REMAIN NON SMOKING. IF SOME PEOPLE DESIRE TO KEEP KILLING THEMSELVES BY DEGREES THEY CAN DO IT WITHOUT CONTAMINATING THE AIR FOR ALL OF US. CANCER AND HEART DISEASE CURES THE SMOKING HABIT.
By Pam
December 10, 2008 7:29 PM | Link to this
Did you know that the many of these studies to which you base your fears, would not hold up in a Federal Court? Dr. Deon Gordis, the United States’ most famous man of public health research, writes in the chapter on epidemiology at page 384:
The threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the
cause of an individual’s disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0.…
A relative risk greater than 2.0 would permit an inference that an individual plaintiff’s disease was more likely than not caused by the implicated agent.
In a scathing 1998 opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen condemned the EPA’s secondhand smoke research. The same unreliable research has been trotted out by SmokeFree Ohio as justification for our smoking bans. There IS no research that shows thousands of deaths from secondhand smoke.
By Pam
December 10, 2008 7:28 PM | Link to this
I have to say that I find the comments made by ANTI smokers hateful, vile and disgusting. What repulses me more than the lies to get this ban passed (excemptions that never existed) and the lies that there’s no harm to businesses (BIG lie) is the hatred spawned by the lies told to people about secondhand smoke. Are any of you familiar with the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence? http://www.fjc.gov/library/fjc_catalog.nsf/DPublication?openform&parentunid=42E5BCA62EA1E03B85256CA30068A597
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this
http://opponentsofohiobans.com/news.aspx
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 7:14 PM | Link to this
laughing at the business is great propaganda pimps
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this
Lex and any business owners harmed by the smoking ban, contact truth@opponentsofohiobans.com
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this
The non-smokers are actually out in force. They are frequenting bars that give them reason to frequent them. What does it say about your “clientele” when they won’t show up anymore just because they can’t smoke there? It says you aren’t doing what you need to do to keep your customers, ban or not! The places I have seen close were “dives” in the first place. Other businesses have opened in many of the locations and are thriving. Just a matter of appealing customers.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this
Dallas air will be filled with the filthy stench of socialism and smoking cessation pimps. Ohio ban will go up in smoke, ah, a breath of fresh air for Ohio http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912
By Lex
December 10, 2008 6:25 PM | Link to this
Thank All You non-Smokers for voting on law that affect places you never step foot in!! Like my local tavern where 90% of the people smoke and 9.9% don’t care and .01% ruined it for the 99% by calling the non-smoking hot-line. Take the bowling alleys and restaurants and any place a child is allowed but give me back my bar!! It is greedy to take everything - You are hurting local businesses - My favorite was a sign on a closed down bar that read WHERE ARE YOU NON SMOKERS NOW!
GIVE BACK THE BARS
By KAF
December 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
The Dallas City Council voted 10-5 today to expand Dallas’ smoking ban to include bars, pool halls, and private clubs. Another victory for clean indoor air!
By Charles Darwin
December 10, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
Kybriar, you lost little lamb. Sorry that you have been led to slaughter. You have been repeatedly stomped into the ground. Your position has been compromised by your continued weak efforts to support it. Thank you for destroying your own arguements and showing us all that the smoking ban is, indeed, the way to go, while additionally providing information showing that a COMPLETE ban on smoking in Ohio is the best method available. I hope it comes to that. I truly do.
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
Kybriar, your brain can only hold the information of a small pamphlet? THAT EXPLAINS IT!!! You bring the term “small minded” to a new low! Congratulations.
And those persons who support the ban are having fun. Glad we don’t have to suffer from your filth any longer.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
By Anthony
Kybriar, at least Jesus loves you :) Clearly nobody else does! I am amazed you can put together a thought of your own. Rereading the same things over and over again from the anti-ban lemmings has me convinced they are all posting information from the same pamphlet.
Yes he does and your reference to a pamphlet…its called a brain
Y’all antis have fun now, ya hear
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
darwin, thank you for the insight you posted. You have shown that you believe that any thoughts that are not exactly like yours are incorrect and not acceptable to “YOU” who must in your own mind is the keeper of all thoughts
Tsk, you should seek help for that complex because you are only one of millions and millions of people on this earth. Thanks but no thanks to you for wanting to think for me
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Kybriar, at least Jesus loves you :) Clearly nobody else does! I am amazed you can put together a thought of your own. Rereading the same things over and over again from the anti-ban lemmings has me convinced they are all posting information from the same pamphlet.
By Shaun
December 10, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
I would love to see the ban go up for another vote. It has been shown that a majority would likely vote to eliminate smoking altogether in the state of Ohio if given the opportunity. It would be dynamite to not have to deal with smoking at all.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Hey Anthony, thank you for acknowledging it is my thinking, I appreciate my right to my own thoughts and your compliment
By Charles Darwin
December 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
Name calling? Sorry, those who know how life and the world works find it to be, and accurately, 100% the truth. The only person showing a level of evil concerning failure to get their way is YOU! That is 100% accurate. Smokers can dispute anything they like. However, until they dispute something with information not in the ilk of your mind-numbing obscurity, they will continue to be ridiculed as ridiculous. See how it works? Of course you do, it has been happening for several days on here!
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Anthony said; Certainly know about the things that Hitler did. However, health and welfare also includes legislating things concerning food preparation, waste disposal, and so on.
More excuses Anthony? Food preparation and waste disposal are to protect the public from things they cannot see, but hey, did the public vote on them? I thought health issues were already addressed by common sense existing smoking rules before the vote by the ODH without a mob and a defrauding ballot
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Now you jump on Darwin for ABSOLUTELY THRASHING your statements. You are a bona fide imbecile. The state of Ohio is laughing at you and those like you because of just how opaque your line of thinking is. Keep it up, though. You are providing a lot of laughs to the intelligentsia.
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
Certainly know about the things that Hitler did. However, health and welfare also includes legislating things concerning food preparation, waste disposal, and so on. Your arguments are no more than a strawman. You are DESPERATELY reaching in your attempts to claim the smoking ban has done all harm and no good. To the contrary, it has been repeatedly shown the good that has occurred, while the harm you attribute to the ban is actually more attributable to other causes. Keep trying, though.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
ah darwin, does it upset you that people can actually think for themselves and find you ridiculous? Of course, how dare a smoker dispute you so you get all stupid with name calling and insults. I like it, you are really showing how evil you when you are when don’t get your way
By Charles Darwin
December 10, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
Kybriar is clearly not mentally stable. Smoking in a vehicle is not comparable to smoking at a gas station where gasoline vapors and spilled gasoline are bound to be more prevalent. You are a sorry excuse for your cause, comparable to the 9-11 terrorists. By definition, you are a terrorist. Unfortunately, your suicide mission is smoking and hoping to take as many people with you as possible via your secondhand smoke and the filth you spew. Hopefully the only life you take is your own.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Anthony ” History has shown us that legislating for the health and welfare of citizens is necessary.”
Kinda Like the one Hitler forced upon his people, or did you know that? Yes, history knows your kind and should be a warning for all people who want a society free of dictators
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
Kybriar,silly excuses? That’s all you can come back with? Look, anyone reading this comment board realizes you are steadfast against the ban, no matter how ridiculous your arguments and how absurd you have made anti-ban lemmings appear. To the contrary, a safer level of smoking ban would be a complete ban on all smoking. History has shown us that legislating for the health and welfare of citizens is necessary. EVERYTHING you claim is the fault of the ban can be attributed elsewhere just the same
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Darwin, Don’t you find it amazing that the highways are full of smokers riding on gas tanks filled with gas? One would expect many explosions every second according to your theory. But hey, I’m sure the smoker at the station was not hugging a gas pump, just minding his own business and look what happened. Gas & smoking didn’t harm a hair on his head.
Surely you have a more sensible theory than what you presented
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
More..
Pay attention Anthony, real people are being injured and killed because the owners are being raped of their right to offer safety to their employees and customers.
There are no safe levels of smoking bans which is nothing but force, greed, and the need to control. History has shown us their kind and the dangers your kind impose upon society
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Anthony, you’re making silly excuses for a draconian law of force placed upon private property business owners who are forced to force people out in unsafe conditions against their will. Speaking of children, don’t be silly, children do not belong in adult bars and the issue is not children’s homes.
Private property business owners did not invest in their own business to become baby sitters or health care facilities for people who have the option to not enter their property.
By Charles Darwin
December 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
I would like to present a Darwin Award to gas station clerks everywhere who decide that smoking around gasoline is a great idea. There is a reason why specific species go extinct, and you lead the way in providing reason for man to become extinct.
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Additionally, your logic is placing higher value on the life of a person killed while smoking than on the life of a child abducted and killed outside their own home. Heinous acts of violence occur all the time. Have any of the people in the stories you post say they killed someone or attacked someone because of the smoking ban? Doubtful. You present arguements compelling only to yourself. Your fellow anti-ban lemmings are surely cringing at your continued postings.
By Anthony
December 10, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Kybriar, I do laugh at those stories. Not for the fact that people were attacked, but for the fact that anyone with an iota of intelligence present in their brain would blame it on a smoking ban. Why not look into stories about persons attacked while being respectful and going outside to talk on a cell phone, or persons attacked while traversing the path from the front door of a business to their car. By your logic, I guess all parking must now be in an attached building to a business.
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Cleveland beating, hope it works http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=4488766&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
this link should work to the Cleveland story
http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7969986&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
OOPS
Feb. 19, 2005 – Hayward, California A gunman fatally shot a man outside a sports bar in unincorporated Hayward as the man took a cigarette break, authorities said Friday. Nicholas Bookhammer, 20, was shot about 9 p.m. Thursday outside Max’s Sports Bar at 21722 Meekland Ave., said Alameda County Sheriff’s Detective Ed Chicoine. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/19/BAG8BBDMJT1.DTL
By kybriar
December 10, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
Anthony, this should complete you laughing frenzy for the day