Celebs at Broadway event
2 accidents close I-75 southbound
.jpg)
Glamour's Women of the Year
Ohio's new no-smoking law
Are people obeying the ban?
Many restaurants comply. Some bars and taverns do not, sparking complaints.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
So, is Ohio's new ban on smoking really in effect? Depends who you talk to.
Many area restaurants began complying with the voter-approved measure when it went into effect Thursday. Some bars and taverns have ignored it. But the Ohio Department of Health insists the law is in force even though its agents can't enforce it yet.
Extras
"Businesses are required to prohibit smoking, remove all ashtrays and post signs that display the number to call for reporting violations," health department spokesman Kristopher Weiss said.
That number (866 559-OHIO) had a full voice mailbox Monday.
Talegator's, a sports bar in Centerville, went from barring smoking Thursday to allowing it Friday.
"We were jammed on Thursday night, when we allowed no smoking. But we were showing the Cleveland-Pittsburgh game, which you couldn't see on Time Warner cable," manager Matt Fowler said.
"We were just as jammed on Friday when we allowed smoking," Fowler said. "We've had two complaints from customers unhappy about the smoking and lots of thank- yous from others."
Kevin Canfield of Washington Twp., who visited a bar on High Street in Columbus on Sunday, said several customers were smoking. "It didn't look like Dec. 7 had changed the world there."
Joe Castellano of the Amber Rose said, "We're normally busy around the holiday and we're busy now, so it's hard to say."
Martin Jacobs was glum about the law's effect at Brownie's Tavern in Huber Heights: "We've gone no-smoking, and it's killing us. The weekend was very slow, especially for the football games."
Bob Byers, owner of Carmel's on Shroyer Road in Dayton and four Cold Beer & Cheeseburgers restaurants, estimated that receipts were down by 15 to 20 percent.
"Some people who would usually come here for lunch and a drink are now going to a neighborhood bar because they can still smoke there. That's the problem," he said.
"Some bars are allowing smoking because they feel they have nothing to lose. No one is enforcing it."
Byers considered bringing a dry ice machine into Carmel's to retain the previous "smoky atmosphere." To help retain customers who do smoke, he's handing out Nicorette.
Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2377 or
tmorris@DaytonDailyNews.com.
Comments
By Mike
December 16, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
“Why do people keep saying “the government” passed this law? This law was initiated and passed by citizens who are sick and tired of not being able to go out and enjoy themselves without being subjected to inhaling cancer-causing chemicals in every breath they take.”
True. passed mostly by soccer moms and dads who apparently can’t wait to take their kids to their local smoke-free drinking establishment after the game!
By crackerstacker
December 15, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this
Ohio’s smoke-free law along with the other 15 statewide laws in other states will end up saving countless lives and billions in medical cost in the next 10 years. By 2020 the ACS hopes to have the entire American smoking population down to less than 5%. It will be nice to see your love ones and friends live to their potential of over 70 years. No longer will you have to attend the funeral of someone in the prime of their life who suffered through a horrible death due to tobacco smoke.
By George
December 15, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
At the Lodge, he complained that he had to go outside to smoke but did. He smoked one cigarette quickly and returned to the lounge. If he had been allowed to smoke inside he would have smoked 4 or 5 cigarettes by the time he left. He wants to quit but says it is so hard. Maybe for him and for so many other smokers who acknowledge it is a stinking, expensive, nasty habit that offends many people including their loved ones, well maybe these smoking restrictions will make it easier for them to quit
By George
December 15, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Regarding my visit to the Miamisburg Moose Lodge. I had another Lodge member with me, a smoking friend of mine. He has previously had surgery to remove a growth from his lower intestines found during a routine colonoscopy. His doctor told him the tumor, which was cancerous, was caused by the poisons ingested while he smoked. He was told to quit smoking and intially following the surgery he did. Continued, read next post……….
By George
December 15, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
I am a member of the Moose Lodge. The Lodge, although it is supposed to be a “Family Center” had allowed smoking. The smoke was terrible. I would have never brought my family into the club. To be honest I was about to drop my membership and would not have recommended the Moose Lodge to anyone. Last night I visited the Lodge in Miamisburg. WOW. Was it nice. Now smoke free, you could actually breath clean air and see the other side of the bar. I have decided to remain a member. Great Lodge!!
By crackerstacker
December 14, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this
Last Friday evening I took my family to a local bar/resturant that NOW bans smoking. The place was packed with lots of families enjoying themselves. I was told by a friend that it was the same way both Saturday & Sunday. Now, no longer do I have to have my clothes, hair and coat smell like an ash tray in order to have dinner & a drink at my favorite Mexican resturant. Smoke outside if you must. That’s OK. Thanks smoke-free OHIO & it’s citizens.
By crackerstacker
December 14, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this
4 months ago, 3 friends and I stopped in a BAR in Dublin, Ohio for drinks and a sandwich.It was just before 5PM. We ordered and sat back to relax. Within 20 minutes the place was backed with families- kids, babies & grandparents. Everyone enjoying themselves. It remained that way for the entire 1 & 1/2 hours we were there. Guess what, Dublin is smoke-free. Has been for about a year. Point is, bars serve not only drinks but also food so that “FAMILIES” can be together.Smoke-free is here to stay.
By Cyn
December 14, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
In response to the person who said- “If you smokers want to kill yourselves..be my guest..but not at my child’s expense” we’re talking about smoking IN BARS HERE… if you’re child is hanging out in bars I think you have more important things to worry about!
By Sam
December 13, 2006 07:25 PM | Link to this
” If you smokers want to kill yourselves..be my guest..but not at my child’s expense. The people have spoken and it’s clear that the people no longer want their health at risk. So smoke it up all you want in your own home.”
I hope you ride a bike!! A car is a million times worse than any smokers. But its ok because its your right to drive a car but just remember your family AND mine have to inhale it.
By Dave
December 13, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this
cont) Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against smokers, and I wouldn’t support a complete ban on smoking. I’m just saying all this discussion about “rights” is off-base, because we have no guaranteed right to smoke, nor do we have a guaranteed right to breathe smoke-free air. It’s all about common sense and consideration.
By Dave
December 13, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
George, I agree with you completely. I guess the difference is, when you tell somebody they can’t do something, they take that as an infringement on their rights. I guess I can understand why. But the truth is, nobody has the “right” to smoke anywhere. The fact that it’s legal doesn’t make it a right. It just means it’s permitted. There is a difference. And now, it’s not permitted everywhere it used to be.
By George
December 13, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
BOB, you said> “I am a veteran. I think when our soldiers return from Iraq they should have the right to sit in their favorite pub or eatery and have a beer, and a smoke. We have defended other countries freedoms, and whittled away our own.” Let me ask you something. Why do you think the returning U.S. Vets who do not smoke should have no right to have a beer in a smoke free enviroment? Why is it you think smokers should have rights and non-smokers should have none??
By Dave
December 13, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
In fairness, if you read the law’s definition of a private business, any establishment with even a volunteer bartender doesn’t qualify. If a person provides a service, whether compensated or not, they’re considered to be an employee. I believe the intent was to head off those clubs that would charge a $1 annual membership, then let you smoke. But, if you read the letter of the law, no club can be truly private unless you serve yourself.
By George
December 13, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
The ONLY reason ALL bars have been smoking bars is, not because the smokers outnumber the non-smokers; But because, IF THERE HAD BEEN A NON_SMOKING BAR and a smoking bar next to each other, and a group of six people(2 smkrs, 4non-smkrs) were going out together AND had to choose which bar to enter, the 2 smokers would whine/cry/moan so badly that the 4 non-smkrs would defer to their poor decision and all would enter the smoking bar. Times have changed! Now the smokers have to defer; :)
By George
December 13, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
Jimmy……. Regarding your “Private owners of bars” comment. You are right, the bar is privately owned but it is a PUBLIC establishment and is operational through a limited number of licenses issued by the state(Public). PRIVATE establishments are exempt from the law, but they must truly be PRIVATE and not a PUBLIC establishment claiming to be private.
By George
December 13, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Spent $700- today for meds to keep breathing. Not one smoker chipped in to help buy them. I have never smoked in my life but I worked in an enviroment full of smoke and smokers. In addition, EVERYTIME I would step into a public place some inconsiderate, “thinks he/she has all the rights type person, would light up their stinking cigarettes and blow their smoke on others to breath. No one lost any rights here, we ALL gained a right. A right not to be forced to smoke SOMEONE ELSES SMOKE.
By TBA
December 13, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
WOW! What a heated debate. I think the most important part is … “Byers considered bringing a dry ice machine into Carmel’s to retain the previous ‘smoky atmosphere.’” How nonsensical is that? I would rather smell cigars and pipes than a smoke machine while I’m trying to eat. He just doesn’t get it. It’s not the haze people are missing it’s the rigt to smoke their cigarettes.
Too funny.
By Bob
December 13, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
I’m a non-smoker, also a veteran,and I think when our soldiers return from Iraq they should have the right to sit in their favorite pub or eatery and have a beer, and a smoke.We have defended other countries freedoms, and whittled away our own.Is saying “Grace” in a eatery next? Afterall that may offend some folks.Wake up people, we as a nation are destroying ourselves from within.
By Jimmy
December 13, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
First of all this new non-smoking ban is for the birds. Yes we all have our right for the “pursuit of happiness” as some put it but in all actuality don’t you think that some of the restuarants or bars for that will lose some business. I am a non- smoker but when i do go to the bar i do like to smoke while i drink. I am with the smokers on this one. i believe the private owners of bars should be allowed to decide whether they are a smoking or non-smoking establishment.
By Austin
December 13, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
All BW3’s and Milano’s Atlantic City Subs are complying with the law….non-smokers who are looking for a place to go that is following the law - there is an option.
By Patrick
December 13, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
hey Carson get a life. Saying we are going to jail for smoking and that we “stink”. He was asked to leave, didn’t and was arrested, end of story. At my local bar I go to if someone is asked to leave and they refuse (smoker or non-smoker) they are arrested the only reason this story is hyped is because of the new ban so get over yourself
By john
December 13, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
I belong to a private club which runs a charity Bingo. We used to give to 6 charities, but gambling laws now restrict us to 3, only 1 of the original 6. All volunteer workers with an average attendance between 20 and 30. Average age … close to 70. We have a 15 foot ceiling with 6 fans. Can you really expect these seniors to go outside in winter weather to smoke? Oh, in case you didn’t know, private clubs usually have a secretary or treasurer (an employee).
By carson
December 13, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
power to the people. Don’t be a slave to the man. You smokers are all going to jail! You smell.
By Nonsmoker
December 13, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
I have great appreciation for this new law as I have a child who has asthma. It’s nice to be able to go to a restaurant and not worry about her inhaling smoke when we are sitting in a non-smoking area. If you smokers want to kill yourselves..be my guest..but not at my child’s expense. The people have spoken and it’s clear that the people no longer want their health at risk. So smoke it up all you want in your own home.
By George
December 13, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this
I think the ban is bull… but a question for all those who support it… let’s say we enforce it strongly, then a year from now say, okay, restaurants and bars, you’ve seen your business for a year w/o smoke. Now you have the opportunity to choose, and let those who want to return to smoking 6 months later, but they have to post their intentions clearly. Do you think a lot would switch back? Do you at least think non-smoking establishments would have had their fair chance?
By JJ
December 13, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this
As with the gun control law-do local communities have the right to determine their own smoking ordinances? A lot of Southern Ohio counties have made their living from tobacco crops for years-do we have the right to take away their right, smokers or not, to keep their local economies intact when our economy is not in the best of shape now anyway.
By Big Johnson
December 13, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this
I would like to know what everyone is going to think when most of the smokers quit and the state loses millions in tax revenue and decides it is time to raise taxes on fuel, or even start taxing food. Like it or not, the smokers have been paying a lot of the states bills for years.
By carolyn
December 13, 2006 07:36 AM | Link to this
What was the point of passing this law? I don’t understand this, this was put before the people to vote and the people voted; so accept the law and go on. There is nothing that can be done and to defy the law makes everything worse. Look at the law that was passed recently with regard to helmets are required to be worn that has proven to save someone’s life than to have your brain look like a scrambled egg? The law was reversed and look at the people who have died because of this.
By vincent
December 13, 2006 05:20 AM | Link to this
Instead of whining about it, I took action. I moved to The Netherlands , a country that is really free. Not only can you smoke cigs in the bar here, you can also order a big fat joint for 2 bucks and smoke away. Everyone has health care, yes people its a right here. No drinking age, great for the economy I must say, sixteen year olds in the bar getting drunk, thats freedom.I now realize that Ohio is not free, its a Nazi regime compared to the Dutch paradise of freedom.
By Kettering
December 13, 2006 05:16 AM | Link to this
Establishments that continue to allow smoking are opening themselves to lawsuits. If an employee were to quit because he/she expected non-smoking, the owner could be sued and the law is on the side of the employee. Though probably less likely, even a patron could probably sue and win.
By Mari
December 13, 2006 02:43 AM | Link to this
As a smoker, I don’t mind the smoking ban, but I did vote aganist it. I have never smoke in a resturant, because when eating, like most non-smokers, I can’t stand smoke around me. In bars, yes, I smoke in there, but I don’t mind stepping outside. Smokers, like myself, can still smoke, but just have to step outside. I don’t think anyone rights are being voilated. Times are changing and the non-smokers of Ohio want us smoker to step outside, I don’t think that is to much to ask.
By Dave
December 13, 2006 12:47 AM | Link to this
Communism: An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class.
Chew on that one a while.
By smoker
December 13, 2006 12:43 AM | Link to this
Dave, thanks. You are the first non smoker who didn’t dish out an insult. There are many rude and inconsiderate people in the world, and maybe this is how we got here. If everyone considered others, this probably wouldn’t ever have been an issue. But it is what it is. The big picture to me, is that this is about rights being taken away. Right now it’s smokers, tomorrow it will be something or someone elses. Have a good night.
By freedom
December 13, 2006 12:36 AM | Link to this
Thats where your wrong Dave when you took away the right to do it on your own property it did take away my freedom!You are correct in saying I can’t smoke anywhere I want, but the law was already clear on that point. Alls this new law is saying is that property owners aren’t allowed to do what is already legal and thats communism!
By smoker
December 13, 2006 12:35 AM | Link to this
Clint. I am a smoker who quit and then started again after the death of a loved one. If non-smokers really believe that smokers don’t consider anyone else than you are even more ignorant than you sounded in previous posts. You cannot seem to post a thread without insulting someone. I am a nurse, and I am so thankful I do not work with “doctors” like yourself. I don’t know where you practice medicine, but I hope it’s the Cracker Jacks box on the “other” side of Ohio.
By Dave
December 13, 2006 12:34 AM | Link to this
Smoker, I don’t disagree with you. I wish there was a practical way to accommodate both sides, but apparently there isn’t. I have absolutely nothing against smokers - I smoked for most of my life. And for what it’s worth, I voted against both issues. But Issue 5 won, and people should respect the law.
Oh well, I really have to call it a night. You folks have fun.
By Dave
December 13, 2006 12:27 AM | Link to this
Mr Freedom, who has taken away your freedom of choice? You’re still allowed to smoke. You’re just not allowed to do it anywhere you want. Just like you’re not allowed to pee anywhere you want, or watch porn anywhere you want. I agree, these things can be taken too far. But you’re right, we don’t agree on this one. And that’s okay.
By smoker
December 13, 2006 12:25 AM | Link to this
DAVE, I am a smoker, but I do not feel non smoker’s are out of bounds. I happen to be a person who has never smoked in rests. because I didn’t think it was fair to them. Nor have I ever smoked near anyone if I knew they didn’t smoke. I understand that it is very unpleasant to a non smoker to be around it. I just think there should be places for both smokers and non. I also think other pollutants should be targeted as well.
By Dave
December 13, 2006 12:24 AM | Link to this
Rod, your lack of a college degree isn’t your greatest detriment. You seem to think you have a “right” to smoke, but that nobody around you has any rights of their own. Your right to “pursuit of happiness” ends when it infringes on the comfort and welfare of others. That’s the basis of our Constitution.
Clint, I’m glad you’re back. I need to call it a night. Tag, you’re it!
By freedom
December 13, 2006 12:15 AM | Link to this
Dave look its clear we are never going to agree. But once you take away freedom of choice what else is left. Are you really that blind that you can’t see that?
By Rod
December 13, 2006 12:12 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been around the world I did not graduate collage but I seem to remember that the country was founded because people wanted freedom but people are getting to the point that the people of this country are now trying to force laws on us that control everything we do and even the freedom that we wanted. so where is the freedom of happiness that we all were promised.I have the right to smoke why don’t we pass a law saying non smokers have to smoke at home it makes the same amount of sence!
By Craig
December 13, 2006 12:10 AM | Link to this
Freedom- some how I seriously doubt that you served in the military. That line about your family pedigree sounds like bull too.
By Clint
December 13, 2006 12:08 AM | Link to this
Rod- Actually yes people can say that they were arrested for smoking and driving. A friend of mine was broad-sided by a lady that dropped her cigarette on her lap while driving. While trying to pick it up, she ran a stop sign and hit my friends car. She was cited and arrested for multiple violations, I sure she did not spend much time in jail, but the point is still the same. As for the rest of your rambling history lesson, please try to put together your thoughts before typing them.
By Dave
December 13, 2006 12:07 AM | Link to this
You know, about the time I start to like you, you try to act ignorant. Please don’t, it’s not becoming. Yes, you are “we the people.” But for that reason, you should respect the will of the people, and in this case, the majority spoke. This isn’t communism. It’s the majority of voters saying they want somebody to respenct their rights, too.
By Clint
December 13, 2006 12:05 AM | Link to this
JEANNIE- Its called a Caps Lock.
By freedom
December 12, 2006 11:54 PM | Link to this
Dave was it prison you served 12 years? Cause you sound like an inmate to me
By freedom
December 12, 2006 11:52 PM | Link to this
That a good point Dave but am I not we the people because I smoke? By the way, my Grandfather served in WWII my Father in Korea, my brother Vietnam, and I myself Desert Storm. I have every right to say what I say.
By JEANNIE
December 12, 2006 11:51 PM | Link to this
HOW MANY OF YOU GO TO THE KY. DERBY THE FIRST WEEKEND IN MAY IN LOUISVILLE. IN JEFFERSON COUNTY- THERE IS NO SMOKING EXCEPT FOR CHURCHILL DOWNS. SO IF ANY NON-SMOKERS DECIDE TO GO DON’T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SMOKING. THERE IS SMOKING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE AT CHURCHILL DOWNS. IF SMOKERS ARE GOING ENJOY AND HAVE A GOOD TIME. NON-SMOKERS DON’T GO TO THE GAMBLING BOATS CAUSE THERE IS SMOKING ON ALL OF THEM.
By Rod
December 12, 2006 11:42 PM | Link to this
To you non smokers… Who was the first to start whining! everytime you think that some one is doing something you do like you start up whining wanting to take something away from someone else. first taking away Drinking, you see how well that worked, then the separation of church and state, now smokers can’t smoke in places where they feel confortable. because it makes you feel unconfortable then you call smokers selfish! can anyone say they were arrested for smoking and driving!
By Dave
December 12, 2006 11:37 PM | Link to this
I served twelve years to protect your right to say that. How about you? Do you know any words besides “communist” and “freedom”? Like maybe “democracy” or “we the people”??? Just wondering.
By freedom
December 12, 2006 11:33 PM | Link to this
You can rest assured that any property owner that will allow smoking in their establishment will have my patronage and I will be the first to light up!!!
By freedom
December 12, 2006 11:28 PM | Link to this
Spoken like a true communist Dave
By Dave
December 12, 2006 11:24 PM | Link to this
Mr Freedom, here’s the problem with your statement —- smoking in a public place is no longer legal. And bar owners do not have the right to decide for themselves whether they will abide by the law.
By freedom
December 12, 2006 11:19 PM | Link to this
JRingo you are right its not right to qoute yourself. “Your rights should not displace someone else’s.” So where do you get off telling a property owner they can’t have their rights?
By JRingo
December 12, 2006 11:13 PM | Link to this
Government is off the hook, however if smokers would care even just a little for the rest of us, we would not be having this problem. An addict of any sort has no concern for society, only their “right” to do as they please. When you have some compassion for other’s health, then you will start to “get it”. Your rights should not displace someone else’s.
By freedom
December 12, 2006 11:12 PM | Link to this
Dave its communism when property owners aren’t allowed to let a leagal activity occur on their own property. If no smoking is such a majority rule why do we have to have a rule from allowing it?
By Christy
December 12, 2006 11:06 PM | Link to this
Elaine-
The Pour Haus in Centerville is the only bar I’ve been to that has enforced the new law.
By snoops
December 12, 2006 11:05 PM | Link to this
Ok, I have read most of the posts in here about the whole non-smoking thing. I can respect the no smoking in restaurants. Have no problem with that. But what bugs me is that here I live in a country where we have freedom and soldiers fighting for us, the right to burn the flag(which I am totally against) but yet I can’t walk down the street and smoke or go to a bar and enjoy a cigerette and a drink. seriously what is this country coming too.they gonna vote on what we can wear on public next?
By Christy
December 12, 2006 11:00 PM | Link to this
I’m not a smoker, but I don’t agree with the law. My favorite bar is jammed packed on Thursday nights because of the drink speacials. There were probably about 10-15 people in whole bar the day the new law came into effect. Pretty pathetic. A lot of people are casual smokers. I have friends that wouldn’t touch a cigarette on a daily basis, but like it when they’re drinking. The law is dumb.
By Dave
December 12, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this
Why is it communism when the majority of free voters say they want equal rights? For some reason, a few smokers seem to think bars are their domain, and that anyone else is out of bounds. Can someone explain that to me?
By Becky
December 12, 2006 10:56 PM | Link to this
I understand you all the nonsmokers are coming from, but the problem I have with this is making the smokers stand out in the cold, snow or rain to smoke. If it was where there was cover outside from the weather elements I would not be so upset with the law. We are making the non smokers happy by going outside to do it that you should make us happy by providing us cover and protection from the weather. That way both sides would be happy.
By freedom
December 12, 2006 10:39 PM | Link to this
Its not the point of drinking and driving is Illegal its that I hear alot of non smokers cheering about going to thier favorite bar and not having to smell my smoke. How hypacritacal is that?? Vincent doesn’t it make you just as pathetic as I am for posting, “Idiot”. One more thing, I’ll never let you communist loving people over run this goverment. Remember America was made by a revolution!!
By Scott H.
December 12, 2006 10:35 PM | Link to this
Now I know why I moved away from the Buckeye (Red) State!
By JRingo
December 12, 2006 10:33 PM | Link to this
Smokers just do not care about the rest of us. It stinks!!! It gets in your nostrils and you smell it for days. It gets in your clothes, in your hair and ruins your day, not to mention health concerns. Finally a law that makes sense, and smokers are so self concerned, now they just whine and whine and whine some more because they are addicts.
By Paul
December 12, 2006 10:06 PM | Link to this
Sorry CAMEL lovers!!! For seventy years I have lived with your SMOKE!!! Now you’ll just have to live in my grouve. If you like smoke at home or fifteen feet from any doorway. But never again in my face or the other seventy percent who dislike your foul smelling smoke. JUST THOUGHT YOU’D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ME!!!
By Dave
December 12, 2006 09:56 PM | Link to this
Nobody has cost anybody their jobs —- unless it’s a few smokers who would rather sit home than smoke outside. It was fair when the shoe was on the other foot, right?
I love the way this always degrades into a discussion on drinking and driving. In case some of you folks missed this little tidbit, that’s been illegal for decades. Are you saying only non-smokers will drink and drive? That smokers are responsible citizens who never disobey a law? Then prove it.
By Vincent
December 12, 2006 09:52 PM | Link to this
Freedom and smoker, you two are the most pathetic excuse for Americans. I am a smoker too, but I respect the decision of the people. Instead of talking smack with the non-smokers, go do something! Create a petition, get some signatures and try to overturn the law. Running numbers between each other and talking about how un-american the law is does nothing. Welcome to America boys!
By another smoker
December 12, 2006 09:45 PM | Link to this
I apologize to all smokers because I did not vote.I didn’t take the time. This is messed up. I can accept and respect some of the public places where smoking is banned, but to not even be under a roof? or in commercial vehicles? That is a bit too far. Bars and bowling alleys.. To all non smokers who had already had many places where smoking was prohibited, you cost folks their jobs. I say next, we ban cars, and factories, their polution is killing us.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 09:33 PM | Link to this
Right. There are already reports of declining business in both liquor establishments. Makes you wonder. Bar/drinking and driving. Bar/smoke in atmosphere. Yet they claim the reason for this ban stems from health concerns? If that were true, why not ban liquor establishments? MONEY. The state wants the money more than they want healthy people. Just more hiding behind something else, as usual.
By freedom
December 12, 2006 09:17 PM | Link to this
Everyday you live brings you one day closer to the grave. Lets ban any new day. That makes about as much sense as people trying to ban smoking from bars!! Idiots
By smoker
December 12, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this
Freedom, you are correct. My information said 1334. I don’t believe it either. Personally, I don’t even care at this point whether I can smoke in public places or not. It’s a done deal, and a very small problem in a country with huge issues, and it seems to me, this is a waste of time and money that could be better spent on more important things. Maybe we should focus on people driving drunk and literally taking lives.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 09:05 PM | Link to this
I’ll have my say here and then go somewhere that I don’t run into anymore non-smokers. Every message board I have seen has been filled with insults and hate from the non smokers. We smokers have a bad habit for sure. But for not having the smoking habit, non smokers have the habit of being rude and just plain miserable. They won the vote, but instead of being able to come in here and have their say in a polite manner, they ruin it for everyone. You may live longer but you sure are unhappy!
By FREEDOM
December 12, 2006 09:02 PM | Link to this
The same should imply here Thank you
By freedom
December 12, 2006 09:01 PM | Link to this
The survey was done by an out-of-state group (from anti-gun Conn., I think) and it was of slightly more than 1000 people which is a ridiculously small % of Ohioans yet they claim it is accurate to within 3%. I don’t believe that. One problem with allowing local governments to make their own “firearm laws” stems from the possible local abuse of the 2nd Amendment, which is a Federal matter. Communities do not, and should not, have the right to override the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
By Clint
December 12, 2006 08:57 PM | Link to this
Exactly my point
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:51 PM | Link to this
ok Clint. Oh I mean Sue. Whatever you say oh mighty one. Boy you non smokers sure are rude and nasty. I think you need a cigarette.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:46 PM | Link to this
sue. Actually, I simply didn’t have any desire to converse with you. I saw your posts as soon as I came in here and knew probably before you did, that you’d write something rude to me. I read everything there was to read, and I don’t see it the way you do. That’s life, deal with it. Are you going to post with my name again now? Better hurry before they kick you out.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this
sue. Actually, I simply didn’t have any desire to converse with you. I saw your posts as soon as I came in here and knew probably before you did, that you’d write something rude to me. I read everything there was to read, and I don’t see it the way you do. That’s life, deal with it. Are you going to post with my name again now? Better hurry before they kick you out.
By Clint
December 12, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this
Smoker- you are a jacka**! How about not reporting your stupid frivolous (look it up) complaints and start making any kind of educated response. Otherwise, I suggest you go back to work, they are backed up on Big Mac orders.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:39 PM | Link to this
hmm just thought of something. We pay enough in cigarette taxes…we should be able to smoke anywhere we like!! It’s ok though, all said and done, it will be one of their rights taken away next. Have a good night all, smokers and non alike. Happy holidays everyone!
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this
Well I’m not whining..my life isn’t going to fall apart because I’m not going to a bar. The non smokers must really want that drink badly since they inhaled all of OUR chemicals just to have one. When we all do finally quit smoking, they will be the first to complain…they are going to have to pay taxes all alone!
By sue
December 12, 2006 08:30 PM | Link to this
Bill, the law does not say that people cannot smoke; it simply says they can’t force everyone around them to smoke. And Brian, if you’d been reading these posts you’d know that LOTS of people have said the government put this law into effect. Smoker, your posts are too ignorant to even bother responding to. You don’t even know how the law came to be. I have no doubt you haven’t even read it. Educate yourself before you start spouting off about something. I’m done.
By Clint
December 12, 2006 08:29 PM | Link to this
Brian- The only whining is coming from the smokers. We got what we wanted. By the way everyone, if you did not vote, your opinion does not count. I currently work outside the State of Ohio, but I took the time to absentee vote almost 1000 miles away. I know that some of you voted, but Sue is right… this was voted on by the people, the government had little to do with it. However Issue 4 had the Smoking companies name (and money) all over it, nothing like trying to buy a law.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:25 PM | Link to this
sue, hope you enjoyed that. I just reported you for posting in my name. I don’t need to hide behind your name to tell you that you are an immature person whom I wish not to have more conversation with. You might want to try getting a life.
By brian
December 12, 2006 08:14 PM | Link to this
Thank you Smoker, Bill and Freedom! You are right - the banners DO NOT GET IT!
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:14 PM | Link to this
Sue, give it a rest. You are probably the only one here who truly doesn’t “get it”. I simply didn’t go places where smoking wasn’t allowed, and there were plenty of businesses that didn’t allow it. Non smokers could have done the same. I rarely ate out because I didn’t want to be rude and smoke where non smokers were eating. I thought the smoking/non smoking sections were a joke because everyone knew it traveled. You non’s could have done the same and stayed home like I did.
By sue
December 12, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this
you’re wrong…this was NOT initiated by any lawmaker. the lawmakers had 4 months to act on it after the first petition was put before them and they chose not to, so the people collected the additional signatures necessary to put the issue on the ballot.
By brian
December 12, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this
Wow, Clint, you’re clever. Do you use that one on your patients? I’m outta here, I’ve read enough whining for one night. Think I’ll stop off at the watering hole and light up a few before I call it a night.
By freedom
December 12, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this
The next thing to go is the bar and restaurant itself. When people drink and drive they become a direct danger to me. Since you have to drink and drive to go to a bar or restaurant. Its funny how all the non smokers that want to go to a smoke free bar leave that out.
By brian
December 12, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this
Sue the way you walk about more government control, you’re starting to sound like Kim Jong-Il.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:10 PM | Link to this
I am sorry, but I am slightly slow… I wish that I had an education about 6th grade so I could understand what is going on around here.
By brian
December 12, 2006 08:09 PM | Link to this
Sue, no one said the government passed this law, but they are (wasting our tax money) enforcing it. We live in a mixed republic/democratic system unfortunately (as opposed to just republic, the way it was intended), and the majority of the people don’t know much if anything about individual freedoms and rights put to us in the constitution.
By Clint
December 12, 2006 08:08 PM | Link to this
RC and Brian- I think you two are the smartest people on this board. My god, the idea of a wall in a sports bar to separate smokers and non-smokers… just think of it!!! I love the idea of going to watch a game with a couple of my buddies that smoke and not see them the entire game because they are forced to the other side of the wall. Great Idea!!! By the way, I think all the places you are referring to have a wall, it is called a door.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:08 PM | Link to this
sue..give it a break already. Trust me…you are probably the only one who REALLY doesn’t “get it”.
By BILL
December 12, 2006 08:06 PM | Link to this
People when will you all get what the government is trying to do here. How long will it take before you start hearing about a ban on Alcohol. Being a former smoker myself, its just amazing to sit back and watch as our rights are being taken away, one after another. Remember this right (The pursuit of happiness).. So even though i no longer smoke, i can still appreciate someone else`s right to do that! One thing is for sure, it sure has sturred up alot of people, that was never heard from Before!
By Freedom
December 12, 2006 08:05 PM | Link to this
Most people are to ignorant to see past their own selfish wants. We will just have to buck the system the best we can untill the ignorant cattle get led into a communist stae that no one will be able to stand and then they will come crying to us to save them from the hell they created.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 08:04 PM | Link to this
GEEZ. I’m so tired of hearing about how overwhelming the vote was! It wasn’t. The VOTERS didn’t take it to the table, some law maker did. I have always been the polite smoker, never smoking in a place where other’s didn’t. But after listening to all of the selfrightous non smokers…I wish I had. What a bunch of whiners! I don’t hear you complaining about the smoke stack next door, or stink and chemicals from the rivers in your backyard. You got your way…now zip it.
By sue
December 12, 2006 08:01 PM | Link to this
Smoker, you’re right…you don’t get it. How many bar owners do you know of who chose to be non-smoking before the ban? I know of none, so how were the non-smokers supposed to choose to go to a place that didn’t exist? And by the way, nobody’s rights have been taken away…we have a new right, the right to NOT breathe someone else’s smoke.
By brian
December 12, 2006 07:59 PM | Link to this
RC I agree with you whole-heartedly. The responses on here lag…although it looks like I was responding to you before I wasn’t. Ironically I only smoke when I drink at a bar to see music or at one of the hole in the wall places. I do think sports bars should provide at least half of a smoke-free establishment out of courtesy, but they shouldn’t be forced to do anything. It’s his bar, not theirs.
By smoker
December 12, 2006 07:54 PM | Link to this
Another comment board and I still don’t get it. What would have been so damned hard about giving the owners the right to have either a smoking or non-smoking establishment? People could then choose where they wanted to go. Instead, they had to be greedy…the whole point behind it really has nothing to do with anything, except seeing how far they could go. They wanted to see if they could take rights away and they found out they could. Period.