DaytonDailyNews.com

State Sen. Tom Roberts, D-Trotwood, is a nonsmoker. He says he's in favor of protecting service workers from the dangers of secondhand smoke. So why is he one of a small group of lawmakers leading the charge to exempt some clubs and restaurants from Ohio's public smoking ban?

He says it's a matter of principle. And he does appear to have a point about a ballot language problem. But if the bill he is pushing becomes law, it will be a setback for public health, and the will of the voters would not be served.

In 2006, Ohioans statewide approved a new law banning smoking in most public places with 59 percent voting in favor of the idea. The ballot issue did create exemptions; one purpose was to make clear that private smoking would be permitted, but there were other purposes.

The last two of seven exemptions listed on the ballot were for "private clubs, and family owned and operated places of business."

But the very next paragraph states that approving the ballot issue will "authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke."

These two sections are in conflict. If Ohio has established minimum standards protecting workers from secondhand smoke, how can it allow exceptions that expose some workers to environments that threaten their health?

The Ohio Department of Health ruled that worker health trumped the exception in the case of family bars and restaurants and applied the ban to them, too. And, while the health department was willing to let members of private clubs smoke, courts have overruled that, saying the same logic used for family bars and restaurants should apply.

So, as things stands, the ban officially applies to all restaurants and clubs.

An exception for truly private clubs — with no employees — would be defensible.

But Sen. Roberts says smoking should be allowed in family restaurants and in clubs, unless a new law is proposed that clearly extends the ban to them. He says voters were confused about what the ban meant.

Curiously, Sen. Roberts said he would probably back a second law extending the ban and even said he could envision himself proposing that law. His point is that whatever laws prevail should be clear.

But if all that occurs, Ohio will be back to the way the rules are interpreted today.

Let's take a deep breath. While the ballot language had problems, there is no evidence that voters were confused about what they wanted. A strong majority wanted smoking banned in public places they frequent. The law remains very popular today, according to surveys.

The evidence actually suggests voters were careful. On the same ballot in 2006 was a proposal backed by tobacco companies and designed to lure voters into approving softer rules regulating public smoking.

Voters did not fall for that. They intentionally picked the tougher rules.

And they made the right choice. Workers should not have to breathe toxic smoke that can shorten their lives, no matter who owns or operates the businesses where they work.

It's certainly true that Ohio has problems enforcing the smoking ban, given the resources needed to do that. Here we see a flaw in how the state has used the billions of dollars in legal settlements it won from tobacco companies. The money has gone to some good causes, but only a small percentage has been set aside for the important battle against smoking. A few more millions would have come in handy now.