Local bar owner challenges smoking ban

Thursday, lawmakers begin dishing out fines and citations to those who break the law, but the legal battle against the ban is still heating up.

Delaney's is a North Toledo spot with ashtrays at the bar "smoking permitted" signs on the walls and cigarettes in customers hands.

Bill Delaney says, "It hasn't been an easy situation, but it is well worth it."

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=local&id=5267422

No votes yet

business owners in Kentucky are eagerly anticipating an increase in clientele.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070502/NEWS01/705...

.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Is this not a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

If so, then on what basis can you challenge the law? Are they suggesting that it violates the US Constitution?

I'm just curious...

Personally, I say it's the will of the people, and sorry about Delaneys luck, so I haven't followed too closely, but this is just something I was wondering about.

...there are probably numerous legal arguments that can be made about the methodology and the language of the amendment...and it was to our state constitution so I'm not sure the US Constitution has applicability.

But I can see the dispute between the ballot language and implementation regarding the definition of 'private club' being an issue which may - depending on how courts rule - invalidate the ballot initiative....

Here's a link to the lawsuit in pfd format.

http://pjpohio.com/Documents/Hamilton%20Law%20Suit.pdf

Here, in my opinion, are the issues that are of merit:

Item 1A, page 6, and the citing footnoted on page 7. The US Supreme court defines private property and public property differently from Ohio law. Ohio cannot be in conflict with federal law, so Ohio laws that reference public property defined as places that are open to the public (as the smoking ban does) are inherently unconstitutional.

Item 4, page 16. With private property now properly defined the augment for unlawful regulatory taking now has merit, as the government and the voters of this great State should not have the right to majority rule on how a businesses chooses to operate their private property.

Finally, the vagueness issues which are cited from page 18 through 21. Read the first text paragraph to see exactly why the law is unconstitutional on this basis. Following paragraphs detail the specific areas where the law is too vague to be consistently enforced.

Courts will clear-up some of these areas as violations are appealed. Some will remain completely arbitrary and can never be enforced equally in all situations. For example, the law is too vague because it doesn't list exactly what a proprietor has to do in order to not "permit" smoking.

Additional examples are cited in the suit, including: that the law states "A proprietor shall take reasonable steps . . . to ensure that tobacco smoke in any area directly or indirectly under the control of the proprietor, does not enter any area in which smoking is prohibited." While Grossman will probably start fining business owners because people smoking are within 40 foot of the entrance to their business, there is no way that a business owner can control behavior in an area he doesn't control.

On a more personal note and for what it's worth, I think your "will of the people" argument is horseshit. Just because the majority imposed it's preferences on the minority and you agree with the majority doesn't legitimize the process or the outcome.

Given your comments and the fact that you haven't followed the issue closely, your "sorry about Delaney's luck" comment rings very hollow.

Big Jim

cannot pass legislation that infringe upon or diminish the People's Civil Rights as defined in the Bill of Rights as amended to the United Sates Constitution.

A local city or municipality may not pass legislation that diminishes or infringes upon the State's rights.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

First let me preface this by saying that NO, it was NOT the majority that voted this smoking ban in. LESS than the majority turned out to vote, etc. (shame on the non-voters who wrongly assumed 'this'll never happen here'). Forgive my ignorance of this - but isn't it written somewhere that the majority is not supposed to be allowed to decide for the minority? I mean, according to our founding fathers & all? Personally, I think our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at how their Constitution & Bill of Rights is getting mangled. That said - shanew, you damned well SHOULD care about this smoking ban because it is simply Step ONE in the PLAN. Next comes fattening foods, alcohol, perfumes, grilling food outdoors, wood burning fires, cell phones, etc. - there are already places in THIS country that have or are trying to ban these things.

The neo-prohibitionists will not quit until they have imposed their view of morality and what is "healthy" on the masses. The tobacco ban is just one step. I expect that the anti-everything cabal, led by MADD and others, will start working next on lowering the DUI level from .08 to .05 or lower. Their ultimate goal in all these programs is absolute prohibition.

We must understand their worldview and hopes for the future: they want everybody to live an antiseptic existence where everything dangerous or health-threatening is abolished. It's going to get ugly in the future for a lot of the supporters of the smoking ban. They have opened a Pandora's box that they won't be able to control.

but isn't it written somewhere that the majority is not supposed to be allowed to decide for the minority?

People misuse the "right of the minority" all the time. The right of the minority really only applies to constitutional issues. For example, freedome of religion is a constitutional amendment, so government can't prohibit the practice of Wicca even though they are the minority. Another one is that the government can't prohibit Nazis from peaceably meeting in their homes even though the majority of the country finds them despicable. The right to assemble is a constitutionally protected right. Smoking has never, and will never, be a constitutionally guarenteed right. Much like shooting guns or fireworks aren't constitutionally protected rights (owning guns is, but you can't shoot them in downtown Toledo), smoking isn't a constitutionally protected right. It can be regulated however the majority of citizens want it to be regulated. They do this through their elected representatives or through referendum.

First let me preface this by saying that NO, it was NOT the majority that voted this smoking ban in. LESS than the majority turned out to vote, etc.

But every citizen had the opportunity to vote if they chose to do so. The percentage of people that show up is a moot point as long as they had the opportunity to let their voice be heard.

I voted for the smoking ban, but I am sorry that it has caused so much pain to the addicts. I will not mind if the law is overturned (I can always go to the section of those restaurants that make an effort to have a

Old South End Broadway

Shane - you strike me as very young, naive & trying very hard to come across as bright & witty & failing miserably. Your example of marijuana leading to harder drugs - that is called a GATEWAY drug (which I don't believe for one minute that pot is a gateway drug) - it is NOT a 'slippery slope'. YES, this smoking ban IS a slippery slope - and there's a wealth of proof out there. I don't have the time or patience to rehash so much of what's been said on these forums in the past - you're a big boy, read the archives & do your own damned homework. You want to check out ban damage? Even in California? Here are some sites that will answer a lot & save my breath.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/

http://www.forces.org/smokingbans/smoking_bans.htm

http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html

http://cantiloper.tripod.com/canti12.html

http://cantiloper.tripod.com/canti2.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6835

(I do realize it's wasted on people like you though - this is a game to you, you don't seem to grasp that this is an assault of a private business owner being allowed to conduct his business the way he chooses. You want to talk stupid, ask jimavolt or bill delaney these questions. When you're ready to put down YOUR money to open a restaurant, bar or bowling alley (and bowlers are NOT allowed to 'step outside to smoke' because of the shoes) - you can run it anyway you choose. The point is - a private business owner invites you to come in, but as long as you are made aware that smoking was permitted, you had the choise to enter, or not. How dare you suggest that this private business owner has to change how he runs his business to accomodate YOU. It is not YOUR money, sweat & time being ruined.

oldsouthend - the restaurants DID have separate smoking sections - many of which were fully enclosed prior to the ban. Non smokers already HAD their way before the ban in restaurants.

Or a medical researcher who has studied the minds response to and addiction to altering substances over the last - gee whiz - 40 years?

The mind learns very rapidly how to like to be 'high'. It also learns rapidly how to suffer while not being high.

This isn't news people. Where have YOU BEEN???!!!

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

"A local city or municipality may not pass legislation that diminishes or infringes upon the State's rights."

Under the principle of Home Rule a city or municipality may pass legisaltion as long as it does not conflict with state law.

"Adopted in 1912, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution sets forth the powers exercised by municipal corporations within the state. It is widely referred to as the

Unless I am reading some of these postings incorrectly, some of you seem to think the smoking ban is a state constitutional amendment. The ban is a new chapter of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC Chapter 3794) and not a constitutional amendment. It just happens that instead of being created by legislative act, it was passed by referendum.

I've found that those who have invested their own hard-earned money, time and effort in a small business are much more respectful of a business owner's rights to make decisions than are folks who were never involved in a business venture. Many who have never invested in a business are more apt to accept "majority rules" and
call it a day. Maybe because they have nothing at risk ? ? ?

I'm hoping that Ohio businesses will be re-defined as private property.

Big Jim

Starling02, I was aware of this. I eat at the Bob Evans chain a lot, and when I went to Springmeadows Shopping Center tried to stay as far from the smoking area as possible (not a problem in Toledo).

What I found was a problem (though not a serious one) was when a non-smoker took a smoker into the non-smoking section, and he/she lit up. I sometimes saw this at the Frisch

Old South End Broadway

My problem with the smoking ban is the negative effects have far outweighed the benefits.

The state has taken away some owners rights, put itself into the defense of many costly legal battles, and must now pay for enforcement as well when the postive factors: people will be healthier is in dispute.

It would have made much more sense to allow smoking to establishments that pay a "smoking tax" which would have partially paid for the legal defense and the enforcement of the tax.

MikeyA

MikeyA

shane said: "If you don't like it, well, I hear the jobless rate is pretty low. Go work for somebody else, and let THEM worry about it." - Why didn't that arguement apply to the poor waitresses & barstaff this law was supposed to protect? The ban people kept saying it's for the protection of the employees - they always had the choise of working there, or not. Nuff said on that one.

You don't think there's been serious ban damage all over the damned world (even California)? This slippery slope DOES exist - take the damned time to read up on ban damage on that link I posted. There ARE places in this country that HAVE banned outdoor grilling of food (has to away by a certain distance). They are deciding custody of children. They banned TAG on the playground for God's sake. You keep mentioning the minors - are you telling me that the minor's jobs are safe? There are a huge number of UNSAFE jobs in this country - factory jobs where they breath horrible chemicals everyday, are in physical contact with corrosive chemicals every damned day - OSHA knows this. And yet, the employer posts the 'no smoking' signs like it's going to make a difference. Do you realize how many veteran Jeep employees are getting strange cancers? But ya can't smoke. Shane - you're naive, and you strike me as being a smart ass right out of college who thinks he knows it all. Either that, or you're just an obnoxious asshole & you'll be one the rest of your life.

sister lives in kalifornia, and she tells me the smoker ban is defied and broken there all the time, not only by small bars and restaurants(who want to stay in business) , but some large ones, and many other businesses too. the media just won't cover it. She says all it did basically was cause a disrespect for police , government, and the law in general.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

I understand that the Michigan hospitality industry is really picking up now that Ohio has banned smoking. They're packed over there. We seem to miss the boat every time. I also see carloads going to gamble up there on Friday night. Staid, conservative, never-take-a-chance Ohio loses.

California also has nicer weather than we do in Ohio - patios year round. However, they are trying to ban smoking in apartments; Some places have banned smoking in condos (which you paid for like a mortgage) years after you moved in; banning of Scents; and California is now planning/attempting with about 70 percent in agreement to ban fireplace wood burning. Site to follow (along with a few other good sites of current ban news):

Violating Smoking Ban with wood-fired pizza oven
The smoking ban states no one shall burn tobacco or "any other plant,"

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4074

People ban damage - Murdered
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/4.html

Scent ban
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2574

Why We Die (Great Site - facinating stuff)
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/3.html

I agree with most of ShaneH's points. People voted, businesses have risks, and outcome is ?

Only thing I see here (and I'm interested to see how CA did it) is enforcement as well as trying to repair OH ballot language after the vote (at what point does the changes invalidate the intent of the voter).

The only slippery slope is what constitute's a private busineess. Do busineess that cater to private members have different rights than those that cater to the public, i.e, if I pay $18 K for a membership at a private club, can I expect to smoke?

On the flip side, if an owner charges $1 annual dues to patrons, can he claim the same rights?

When ShaneH says that owning a business is inherently risky and you just have to take your lumps, he is saying nothing. Business cycles and a shifting economy are an inevitable aspect of anybody's life. Those financial downturns can be anticipated and planned for. That is what makes business risky. But nobody should expect the political ground rules to change by fiat and turn what was once a legitimate business activity into an illegal one. Saying "tough cookies", shrugging your shoulders and telling the business guy to go work for someone else is cynical and doesn't address the real question here.

Shane, I've read your posts on this thread. You've endorsed more than one socialist ideals. Specifically, that the majority should be able to vote their preferences on the rest of society and that wealthy people should be taxed more than other classes. Finally, your crazy advise to business owners; that if they don't like the societal rules that the majority has engineered, they should go work for somebody else.

Have you ever been in a position where you've had to make strategic decisions that affect lives of others? Do you think you could?

Big Jim

We just need to ride it out. Folks with ideas like this WILL NOT GET IT until they are standing with a ticket in their hand saying 'but I'm standing on my own property!!! I'm not doing anything illegal!!'

Then they'll have some clarity I believe.

Another couple dozen nanny initiatives and they'll have hit everybody.

It's far too simple to just patronize businesses that don't allow smoking if you don't want to be around it. It's just too hard to start your own, oh say, bowling alley, if you don't like that there aren't non smoking allies. This used to be the American way.

Just pass a law with a dishonest marketing campaign to get what you want. It's the new American way.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Is the result of a small mind trying to express itself.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Looks like the people who begged for the smoking ban aren't going out in droves like they said they would - this is the third article I've read about an ad in a newspaper like below - bought & paid for by Ohio Clear to beg for non-smokers to go out to restaurants & bars. Also read an article about a barmaid - said their business dropped off over 70 percent - then, 4 women came in praising how 'smoke free' the air was in the bar, and sat down & ordered 4 cokes - left a quarter tip. I don't believe 4 women are going to a bar to order cokes - I'm sure they were looking for smokers to report.

On page A16 of the Columbus Dispatch today:

An "advertisement" picture of three people toasting and the chef smiling. At the bottom it says:

Now that Ohio voters have overwhelmingly spoken to make workplaces smokefree, you can go out to your favorite bars and restaurants without being exposed to Secondhand smoke. Its the same good times - just alot healthier. So get out there and enjoy. odh.ohio.gov
Presented by Ohio Clear

In an advertisement in the May 6, 2007 edition of the Dispatch it was stated that "Ohio voters have overwhelmingly spoken to make workplaces smokefree." as if it were a fact. It seems the definition of "overwhelmingly" is stretched a bit, as I could hardly consider a mere 58/42 split overwhelming. If any other voting majority were needed for this law to pass, such as a three-fourths or even a two-thirds, this law would have fallen far short, as it does not even reach a three-fifths majority. Calling this scant majority "overwhelming" would be akin to calling a tiger's coat "overwhelmingly orange", and thus would make using the word "overwhelmingly" misleading.
When the voter turnout, which was about 55 percent, is taken into consideration, a mere 31 percent of registered Ohio voters voted "yes" on Issue 5. While those who produced the "no" votes numbered only about 24 percent of the total, both groups were clearly outnumbered by the 45 percent of Ohio's registered who did not even bother to vote. With such gross discrepancies, it is truly baffling to me that those who support this law seem to think there is a virtual consensus behind them. Support and opposition to this law seem quite even.
Aside from the deceptive nature of the advertisement, why did it need to even be placed at all? If the supporters of Issue 5 are correct, patrons should now be rushing to the smokefree establishments in droves. So why should they need to be encouraged to "get out there and enjoy" when they were just waiting to do that already? If the law is so good for business, it should sell itself. Obviously its supporters are worried that it will not, and that is the most realistic belief I have noticed from them.
Issue 5 may not have failed on paper, but it can still be made to fail in practice. And all its opponents need to do is to emulate the 45 percent who didn't vote either way--and stay home.

Top Ten Reasons why statewide smoking ban threatens private property rights.

Copied & pasted from following link. Worth the read.

http://forestfire.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/ten-reasons-why-statewide-smo...

."..............There has been some recent debate over the statewide smoking ban among my fellow Republicans. I can read about it in many local blogs, newspaper articles and etc. Some in the GOP argue for the ban and some in the GOP (like myself) argue against it. I decided to counter point all ten main arguments/points for a statewide ban and show how they are wrong and a threat to conservatism.................."

I understand exactly what socialism is. Redistributing wealth and allowing the rule of the people to control everything is EXACTLY what socialism is. Don't take my word though, here are some other sources:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] Shane appears to favor these re-distributions through government programs and a desire to have more such programs.

Geocities goes further, with several definitions: CUMPULSORY ALTRUISM
This is a belief of socialists that you

Big Jim

The dishonest way they collected the signatures. I was asked and someone else was asked to sign so no one could smoke in preschools.

The whole thing was underhanded. You already couldn't smoke in preschools.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

to anyone who doesn't like smokers, non-smokers who believe in freedom, private property rights, etc; just kindly stay out of the smoking threads-DUDES! LOL Very simple, actually, but they won't do it, because their ego demands they name-call, gloat, insult,and feed their constant need to feel superior to others.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

shane - I don't know if you post on toledotalks, or for how long, but rather than banter about things that have been bantered to DEATH on toledo talks, ad nauseum, I suggest you take a couple of hours & read the archives on toledotalks. You smugly run your mouth like a cocky 18 yr old who just got an "A" in his first year of college, like you're enlightening people here with your "wisdom", like this is a new hot topic that entertains you. It is not a new hot topic - it's been bantered to death for a good year already & you aren't saying anything new, that some other young smug smart ass hasn't already said - and said better, by brighter people than you. You are a waste of time even trying to talk to because of your self righteous attitude. Do you even take the time to read the links posted? Or do you just enjoy pushing buttons? I'm not wasting my time arguing with you about private business owner's right - allowing smoking or not is NOT the same as building codes. A lot of these businesses have been running for decades - it is not right that they are now being told what they can & cannot allow with legal activities just to make the non-smokers happy. You are so painfully mis-informed, it's impossible to even talk to you, especially since you obviously refuse to even read the articles on ban damage, etc. Your mind is a steel trap all right - closed tight. You made a remark about how the smoking ban just started to get enforced so how can there be business lost - that's just stupid talk. Since the FIRST smoking ban in Toledo (and several other Ohio towns & cities) - ALL places went smoke free to comply, so they've had a lot of time to show lost business. The only places that did not comply were a handful of bars, bowling alleys, etc. in each town. The testimony from business owners from all over the country (and world)who's business suffered or died is available to read - if you take the time. I would assume that the business owners would know first hand if their business suffered or died - that you can play armchair quarterback & deny what they say is absurd. You are not in a position to know. There's so many that have been in business for 50 or more years - booming business - and are now shut down due to no business - and yet you say 'ain't so'. Do not reply to anything I post on this board - I sure don't intend to reply to anything you post anymore. You've got a lot to learn about how to talk to & treat people - and your 'knowledge' is not as vast as you assume it to be. Bigger & brighter men have done better than you are on this board - you have not said one original thing that hasn't been said dozens of times by others before you. So save your breath, do your homework & go to bed.

Your mama should wash your mouth out with soap, kid.

I would suggest to anyone who doesn't like smokers, non-smokers who believe in freedom, private property rights, etc; just kindly stay out of the smoking threads-DUDES! LOL Very simple, actually, but they won't do it, because their ego demands they name-call, gloat, insult,and feed their constant need to feel superior to others.

In other words, if we don't agree with your side of the smoking ban argument, JUST STAY OUT THE THREADS. I see, you'd much rather just talk amongst yourselves.

And you call US THE NAZIS.

Shane - you grossly misunderstand the situation. The issues that you listed "Slavery, Labor laws, OSHA, organized labor, etc" all INCREASED the publics freedoms, protection from abuse (in some cases horrific abuses in the work place - and if you equate that to smoking, you have never studied American history) and ability to negotiate for themselves.

The smoking law DIMINISHES personal liberty. You have never - EVER been required to be around smoking if you didn't choose to be.

You have a great deal of maturing to do if you can even make the connection between freedom from slavery with a dishonest proposal put in front of voters to curb public and private smoking.

It's actually insulting to minimize the issue of Americans having owned people with a smoking bill.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

I came across this by accident on another board and thought it pretty much said it all. I believe this particular one was for new mexico.

http://forestfire.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/ten-reasons-why-statewide-smo...

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Absolutely impossible to grasp where you pull this stuff from. When did I ever talk about dying? When did I EVER know how old you are? If you posted it somewhere, I missed it. But I could care less. Your age is very evident by your lack of understanding. But every one matures with age and experience. It's not like you did something wrong.

But where do you this from: "And once again, someone pulls out the "I'm going to die much sooner than you, so therefore, you're not able to wrap your head around this"

or this: "Me being 24 doesn't make me any less able to grasp this concept than you being a WOMAN does."

a. you don't know how old I am, so obviously this statement is either irrational or intended for someone else - but then you
b. expound on it as coming from a woman?

Doesn't make any sense. Maturity comes from age and experience. It's earned. You can't try to shame someone into bestowing it on you.

You have to earn it.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Ok, I would have bet money today that I wouldn't break out laughing at my computer today.

Thank you Shane. That's priceless. Oh I'm howling. I thought you were being serious.

Now I'm sorry for calling you a troll. Truly.

Ergo and sugar tits. Oh my....

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Wow! I haven't heard (seen) that term since I was a bartender and some macho moron (partaking of a LEGAL substance) tried to grab a handful! LMAO

Sugar tits! YeeeeeeeeeeeHawwwwwwwwwwwww

BTW - did you know there is a drink called an Angel Tit?

Against my better judgement & a waste of my time I will simply say this to shane: Do you have a crystal ball so you know who's going to die first? I could outlive you by decades easily - you could be hit by a car tomarrow. You say you don't care about business lost - everybody in Ohio should damned well care about business lost; we have some of the highest foreclosures, bankrupsy, micro pollutant, unemployment rates in the country & this ban will only make it worse. Ohio should be doing everything possible to prevent small businesses from closing - not the other way around. This smoking ban (to me) is not about my 'right to smoke' - it is about the rights of the private business & property owners, who have invested their time, sweat & money - have run their businesses for decades only to have this ban swoop in & dictate the new 'rules'. A business owner should have the right to decide what legal activities he wants to allow - or not. Shane - You ALWAYS had the right to not be exposed to SHS, before this ban. Nobody ever forced you (since you reached the age of 18 at least, not presuming to know where your parents took you) to EVER go into a bar, restaurant, bowling alley, etc. that allowed smoking. These businesses always had the option of being smoke free even before the ban. Put your money (or credit) where your mouth is & open your own smoke free bar. A LOT of these private business owners have invested a lot - a lot have invested huge money to pay for the separate, enclosed rooms with special ventilation systems that they required from the first smoking ban that are NOW worthless.

You keep repeating the rants to us that we're against you because of your age - or that we're idiots because we are just too dumb (or old) to understand what you posted - & keep telling us to GO BACK & REREAD IT AGAIN. Nobody here has issues about your age - it's NOT your age, people younger than you have posted on controvercial threads here & on toledotalks without a problem - people younger than you who have disagreed fiercely with other's opinions. It is NOT your age - it is how you talk to people. Go back & browse your posts - every single one of them has an air of sarcasm, smugness. You even open your comments with sarcasm - it's like you're looking to pick fights or push buttons. You have every right to disagree with anybody here - nobody has a problem with that. But it's HOW you come across - as a smart ass, insulting, smug kid. You're clearly a bright guy - but it's how you come across. You're a rude little shit to be honest. When I told you that you haven't said one original thing that bigger & brighter people haven't already said, I meant it & still do. I suggest that you browse toledotalks archives (under smoking ban) - may take you a while, these posts go back over a year. You can ask anybody on this forum - even those who disagree with me on the smoking ban - that there were a LOT of arguements & disagreements over the smoking ban - loud ones, some from people younger than you. The trolls ended up disappearing - the ones who could argue a point intelligently without insults & a smart ass, smug, self righteous attitude are still around. You behave like a brat is my point - and that makes you maybe seem younger than you are. 24? I'd have guessed about 19. I have a 25 yr old son who could debate most anything with you & never once lose his cool, resort to insults - he is able to calmly, intelligently discuss & debate topics & doesnt' go out of his way to push people's buttons just to piss them off. In fact, he never pushes people's buttons - he's too cool headed.

As for us being too stupid to understand what you said - we HAVE read (and reread) them - perhaps it is that we are understanding what you're saying, or perhaps you haven't been clear. How can it be that you presume almost everybody on this forum is just too stupid to understand what you wrote? Perhaps it's you. It's one thing to debate a topic - it's quite another to be an asshole while debating it. I have disagreed with mccaskey a lot (and others) - and he has never stooped to just be an insulting asshole to me (as far as I recall). At any rate - it's a waste of my time to bother with talking to you because you really don't see how abrasive you come across. You really do believe that you're the brightest bulb in the box here, and the rest of us are just too stupid to 'get' your wisdom.

Shane,

When you wrote about the law gives freedom back to those who choose not to smoke, you missed a key concept. Each of your freedom lines should have more clearly defined the freedom you wanted by adding a few key words, specifically, "AT EVERY PRIVATE BUSINESS WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME". I've taken the liberty of adding them to your earlier posting and it's a lot more accurate now.

This law GIVES freedom back to the MAJORITY OF US who are non-smokers. The freedom to breath air free of secondhand smoke "AT EVERY PRIVATE BUSINESS WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME". The freedom to be able to eat dinner "AT EVERY PRIVATE BUSINESS WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME" without breathing in toxic chemicals wafting thru the invisible barrier between the "smoking" and "non smoking" section. The freedom to go "(sic) INTO ANY PRIVATELY RUN BAR THAT WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME" and drink without having to breath your smoke.

There - that's better.

I don't think businesses should be allowed to play classical music and I'm not fond of sushi either. How can I get every private business I may choose to enter from time to time to conform to my wishes?

Big Jim

I knew we'd agree on if we bantered long enough.

Now we need to form an alliance get together to get rid of that damn sushi that's contaminated with that mercury that you seek to avoid.

Big Jim

I want the government to save me from having to deal with the issue at all. Maybe we'll allow private clubs to serve sea urchin and yellow fin tuna so long as they aren't opened to the public.

Will you sign my petition to protect children?

Ha!

Big Jim

I personally demand a ban on all household cleansers - that would free me up of the chore of scrubbing tubs, etc. It's a documented fact that household cleansers, bleach, etc. are some of the worst carcinagens of all - worse inhaling that stuff than smoking cigarettes even. I just cleaned two bathrooms today & the fumes about knocked me on my ass, cannot be good for me. I will most likely die of exposure to household cleansers. And eggs, wheat & peanuts - LOTS of people have serious allergies - lets ban them all. And BEES - God I hate bees. Some people can die from bee stings. I know we need them to pollinate the crops, but surely there's a more scientific way to be found. And Rush Limbaugh's voice gets on my last nerve, gives me a headache. Why should I be responsible for switching to another station? Ban Rush Limbaugh.

^^^^^^hoisting Maggie up on my shoulders^^^^^^^^

Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. Now it's all about having some government entity hold your hand and make the world right according to 'your' standards.

Thanks, Maggie! Always a voice of reason - and responsibility. ;)

Shane overexposure to UV rays causes cancer too.

The paint on cars reflect and refract that light to where it could be directed at me. That means I am more likely to get cancer from your car.

Your car should be banned from existence. Public roads and on your own public property because there's is the slim chance that I may pass by it and it may deflect a little bit of UV rays onto me it may one day possibly increase my chances of getting cancer.

How dare you use such a unsafe product!

MikeyA

MikeyA

Shane has already stated that SHS is a noxious substance akin to asbestos and mercury poisoning, and that laws against smoking are the equivalent to the laws against slavery. I don't think a bit of sarcasm will get through to him. He's a True Believer. You may as well tell the pope that God is a funny man behind a curtain with a wicked sense of humor.

Loud applause for maggie!!!!!!!!! Expressed better than I ever could have. Thank you.

http://www.physorg.com/news97950836.html

Oral sex may increase risk of throat cancer: study
A common virus, believed to be transmitted during oral sex, is the
cause of a rare throat cancer in both men and women, US researchers
said Wednesday.

The study is the first to prove the link between the human
papillomavirus or HPV -- the leading cause of cervical cancer -- and
oropharyngeal cancer, according to the paper published in the New
England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, who studied 100
men and women newly diagnosed with the rare malignancy and 200
healthy people found that a common strain of HPV -- HPV 16 -- was
present in 72 percent of tumours.

Patients whose blood or saliva samples indicated that they had prior
HPV infection were 32 times more likely to develop oropharnygeal
cancer, which affects the throat, tonsils and back of the tongue.

And those people who had had more than six oral sex partners were 8.6
times more likely to develop the HPV-linked cancer.

The figures establish HPV infection as the greatest risk factor for
this type of cancer, overturning previous theories blaming a pack-a-
day smoking habit for 20 years, or regular heavy alcohol consumption
over 15 years.

"It is important for health care providers to know that people
without the traditional risk factors of tobacco and alcohol can
nevertheless be at risk for oropharyngeal cancer," said Gypsyamber
D'Souza, a co-author and assistant scientist.

Most HPV infections clear with little or no symptoms, but a small
percentage of men and women who acquire cancer-causing or "high-risk"
strains, such as HPV 16, may develop a cancer.

"People should be reassured that oropharyngeal cancer is relatively
uncommon and the overwhelming majority of people with an oral HPV
infection probably will not get throat cancer," said study author
Maura Gillison.

Scientists are still puzzled as to why some people shrug the virus
off, while others get sick from it, but they say that there is good
reason to believe the virus is transmitted through oral sex.

HPV can be found in saliva, semen and urine, but has a particular
affinity for the mucosal skin cells of the penis and vagina.

Oral cancers linked to HPV have been on the rise in the United States
since 1973, a trend that may be driven in part by the popularity of
oral sex among American teens, the authors said.

In the light of the increasing incidence of the cancer, authorities
should consider programs to vaccinate boys as well as girls against
some of the most dangerous strains of HPV, the authors wrote.

Another study published in the journal Wednesday, showed that the
first vaccine against cervical cancer, which went on the market in
2006, has proved nearly 100 percent effective.

The vaccine, known as Gardasil, developed by Merck and Company was
tested in a large clinical trials of 12,000 women aged 15 to 26, who
had not been infected by HPV, and were followed for three years.

Half the group, in hospitals across 13 countries, were vaccinated,
the other half received a placebo.

"These clinical trials have consistent efficacy around 98 percent.
And severe reactions to the vaccine appear to be rare," said Dr Kevin
Ault, one of the co-authors of the study.

Cell Phones Cause Colony Collapse Disorder of Honey Bees
http://community.verizon.net/thread.jspa?threadID=1700001582

This could be disasterous worldwide - so we need to ban cell phones. Personally, I hate phones, never even turn my cell phone on so I'd never miss it. I'm good to go on this one.

And haven't they proven a connection to sterility in men over cell phone use?

... And they call this science!
THE LIST OF ALL THE STUDIES ON LUNG CANCER BY CATEGORY UPDATED TO 2006 ON PASSIVE SMOKE: NO DANGERS

http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm

shane said "...my freedom to go where I pleased was abridged by the minority and that doesn't sound 'fair.'

.........so what you're suggesting that a private business owner should be expected to bend to your wishes - that your wishes on how he runs his business hold more weight? A restaurant or bar owner may invite you in, but you are not required to enter. Here's an example of how I see this (as it seems that you see it): If I want to take oil painting (or glass blowing, metal sculpture, etc.) class at the museum & have 'issues' with how toxic the pigments & mediums are (and most artist's pigments & mediums are toxic, can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin - if I don't die from household cleansers, I will surely die from paint & medium fumes) - should I be allowed to dictate that the museum/university no longer be allowed to permit the use of artist's pigments & mediums & instead use non-toxic tempera or poster paints so I can take any class I want and not have to be exposed to the hazards of the more toxic pigments? Or if I have breathing problems - but I feel it's MY right to take any damned class I want, so they will just have to change the techiques to satisfy me. That would include a prohibition of most pigments & mediums - Including the pigments in pastels (lots of dust), encaustics, etc.

Or pool chemicals - What about parents who think little Timmy should never be exposed to Chlorine, Bromine or whatever they use in public pools? Do those parents have the right to demand public pools stop using chemicals because they feel it's their right to enter that pool as long as they have the money & desire to enter it?

Or, homes/subdivisions built right next to superhighways where there's a huge amount of exhaust from semi trucks & buses? Do those homeowners have the right to demand that superhighway be diverted so little Timmy doesn't have to be exposed to the possibly deadly exhaust fumes? (this is a stretch, I know - but I'm trying to make a point at how absurd this could get.)

Or - Vegans who are repulsed to the point of nausea at people eating meat & dairy products - the very idea flies in the face of all they believe in. Do they have the right to dictate what a restaurant may put on the menu? Or those with peanut allergies - NO restaurant will be allowed ever, to serve anything with any trace of peanuts - just in case.

Simply put shane - I do think I 'get' your point. But you seem to take the stance that the private business owner has no rights, and customers 'invited' to enter should be able to dictate policy.

"part of society for the better. Nobody gave away any rights or freedoms. Nobody". - Yes, this ban DID strip the rights & freedoms of private business owners to decide for themselves what legal activities to allow in their private businesses.

Shane also said: "You say I have no "right" to clean air, and even if that IS true, why do you think you have a "right" to smoke? I'll make it easy for you: YOU DON'T." - Sure you have as much 'right' to clean air as much as anybody - given how high Ohio's micropollutants are, & exhaust, etc., etc. - but your 'right's to such end when you make the choise to enter a business that allows smoking. You have the right to not stand next to a smoker, you have the right to walk away. You have the right to open your own non-smoking business. You have the right to not get in a car with a smoker. YOUR rights do NOT trump another persons rights to use their private property as they choose (legal activities here). You have the right to not pass into that private property. This is about the rights of private business owners to allow legal activities - it is not about my right to smoke. They aren't banning the sale or use of tobacco in this country shane because there's too much money being made with it - it is huge money & they have no way to replace that money if they ban it. Wellbutrin? I personally can't take shit like that. And if & when I quit - it would be cold turkey & not by giving my money to a pharmacutical company who profits hugely from this ban. The pharmacutical companies are behind these bans for that reason. Check out the archives in toledotalk in the smoking ban threads - find the thread "Follow the money". It's all there, with links, proof. And these same pharmacutical companies will profit when they go after overweight people (and they are, right after alcohol). They will profit from the drugs for alcoholics. Also when they suggest/require all pre-teen girls to get vacinated against cervical cancer (they are).
When they suggest/require all school age kids to be tested for depression/mental illness/add (they're trying) - most parents will ok these 'free' tests because being parents, they want to 'help' their kids, and just maybe, their kids problems can be blamed not on them - and when those kids are diagosed with 'mild depression', add, & suggestions made for 'treatment' & meds - the pharmacutical companies get richer. We are fast turning into a drugged nation - a drug for everything. (if you doubt any of this - all of these statements have had links posted on either this forum or toledotalks - do the digging in the archives yourself). Many of these smoking cessation drugs can have serious effects - my sister knows 2 women who work at American Airlines who had to be hauled out on stretchers due to smoking cessation drugs. They can cause instant stroke, tongue & throat swelling, slurred speech. Many people can't tolerate these drugs. And insurance pays for none of it - they're also expensive.

I'm not trying to be combative with you shane - I'm just suggesting to you, that there's often more than one side to things. Prohibition didn't work before, & it won't work now.

Just a side note: We were talking here the other day & concluded that this country was running just fine up until the 1990's - that's about the time the nanny state & political correctness police came knocking. Since then, it's been a downward spiral in every way, shape & form in this country. The nannys & political correctness police are going to destroy everything that was good about this country - it's already happening.

To those who say that smoking bans do not lead to further bans I say that you need to read a newspaper.

1. NYC, after passing smoking ban, passed trans-fat ban, metal baseball bat ban and a talking on cell phone while crossing the street ban.

2. California, after passing its statewide smoking ban, has allowed municipalities to ban smoking in private cars and anywhere outside (i.e. Fremont and Calabasas and etc).

3. Chicago, after passing smoking ban, has passed a ban on foie gras (I misspelled it but it is a food) and are now considering a trans-fat ban.

4. Dallas, Texas, after passing a smoking ban, is currently considering a toy gun ban.

I could go on and on. Once you let big/nanny government in then those who promote it use that 'in' to push the rest of their agenda. There is even talk of punishing those who CHOOSE to drive SUV's or trucks to pay a 'green house gas' even though the science behind man made global warming is still very inconclusive despite the media hype.

For those of you who believe that you have the right to go anywhere you want, even private property establishments, and not have to breathe in smoking....think again. BARS AND RESTAURANTS ARE NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY. YOU DO NOT PAY THE TAXES ON IT AND THE OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO ALLOW OR BAN ANY LEGAL ACTIVITY THEY WANT.

We are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Just because the majority want it doesn't mean they get it if it violates individual and/or private property rights. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this historical legal foundation of our nation in the 1970's in the case Lloyd Corp vs. Tanner. Even though the case was about free speech the highest court in the land re-affirmed the legal precendent and American legal tradition that just because the public is invited into a private property establishment (i.e. restaurants or bar) does NOT MAKE IT PUBLIC PROPERTY. You do NOT have the right to NOT BE OFFENDED. More importantly, you fail to accept the reality that IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHOOSE TO GO INTO A PRIVATE PROPERTY ESTABLISHMENT THAT ALLOWS SMOKING OR NOT. It is your responsbility, not the business owners. If you don't like to be around smoke then why still patron places that allow it? To go into an establishment that allows smoking even though you believe that secondhand smoke is dangerous is like allowing your hand to be smashed by a closing door yet refusing to remove it.

Sorry but the science behind secondhand smoke is still out and inconclusive:

1. The 1993 EPA ETS Secondhand smoke study was thrown out by known anti-tobacco federal judge William Osteen for biased science and manipulated statistics/research. The American Lung/Heart Association, as well as the U.S. Surgeon General in his 2006 pro-smoking ban speech, all use this thrown out study as their pretext for supporting bans today. How is this ethical?

2. A 1999 Environmental Health Perspective survey of 17 ETS-heart disease studies found only five that were statistically significantly positive. This study is important because it brings to the debate what many refuse to talk about, statistical significance. Statistical significance refers to whether an increased or decreased risk falls outside the bounds of what could be expected by chance.

3. A 2002 analysis by International Agency for Research on Cancer, Unit of Environmental Cancer Epidemiology, which looked at 48 studies regarding a possible ETS link to lung cancer found 10 that were significantly positive, one that was actually significantly negative, and 37 that were insignificant either way. Many may not want to hear it but the science behind how deadly secondhand smoke is still very much inconclusive regardless of the current roar of screaming propaganda.

4. The bottom line is that the hazard of secondhand smoke has been greatly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugura

"correlation does not imply causation." Nice try, but no cigar. Those who pushed the smoking ban on NYC, like Mr. Friedman NYC Health Comissioner, then pushed trans-fat bans. One of the leading attackers on tobacco and smoking in 1990s, trial lawyer Brazenhoff, helped lead the charge for the trans-fat ban and appeared on the ridiculous movive 'Super Size Me'.

Sorry, 'ShaneH' but your own arrogance on this issue is rife throughout this conversation. We in the anti-ban side are not the arrogant ones for we want business owners the right to decide for themselve and their establishments. We favor freedom of choice while people like you get to make snide remarks and attempt to ban in the name of the angry mob anything that you just don't like.

It is interesting that you didn't even try to consider all of the FACTS I presented. This only shows your great arrogance and how you wish to impose your own views on others.

Sorry, but YOU GET TO TRY AGAIN :)

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugura

A great report on the hazards of smoking bans:

The Case Against
Smoking Bans

THOMAS A. LAMBERT
University of Missouri

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugura

We live in a Republic, not a democracy. We can be oppressed by the angry mob or masses just as we can be oppressed by individuals rulers. Just because the majority of the public wants a smoking ban does not mean that they get it. The purpose of our REPUBLICAN form of government (not the party but the system) is too balance what the angry mob wants versus individual and property rights. This issue will not be decided by the people but by the courts who uphold the law, most times, even in the fact of public opposition.

Mob rule was feared by our Founding Fathers as well as one tyrant. Hamilton and Madison write about the dangers of mob rule in the Federalist papers. Why do you think that only property owners were allowed to vote when our Republic started? Why do you think that from the 1790s til the early 20th century state legislatures elected U.S. Senators and not the people? Why do you think that we still have an electoral college decided who our President is? Because majority rule needs to be properly restrained.

I encourage those of you in states that have passed a statewide ban to file lawsuits because we can win this battle in the courts. Especially since our current U.S. Supreme Court has a majority of strict constructionists/traditionalists now.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugura

From Perrysburg Messenger Journal Dated May 9, 2007

Effective May 1, in abidance with Ohio's new smoking ban in public places and places of employment, The Town Center at Levis Commons has become a Smoke Free environment.

In addition to inside the stores and restaurants, smoking is prohibited in ALL outdoor common areas at The Town Center, including:

Sidewalks;
Boulevard and Fountain Areas;
Patios;
Back Door Service Areas; and
Parking Lots.

The rest of article goes on, but I don't want to type it all out.

It goes on that the Security Staff will patrol in addition to Ohio Department of Health to enforce ban at Levis Commons.

It then goes to say "Under this new law, The Town Center at Levis Commons is considered an outdoor public arena and therefore must abide by the rules outlined in the statutes".

"Outside arena" or area is not defined in the law and is not regulated. The closest definition of anything outside is "enclosed", where smoking IS permitted.

*QUOTE*
3794.03 Areas where smoking is not regulated by this chapter.

The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

(F) Outdoor patios as defined in Section 3794.01(I) of this chapter. All outdoor patios shall be physically separated from an enclosed area. If windows or doors form any part of the partition between an enclosed area and the outdoor patio, the openings shall be closed to prevent the migration of smoke into the enclosed area. If windows or doors do not prevent the migration of smoke into the enclosed area, the outdoor patio shall be considered an extension of the enclosed area and subject to the prohibitions of this chapter.

(F)

Gotcha.

The reason I mentioned the US Constitution is the idea that our state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution. I didn't realize the fight was over ballot language.

I don't much care how "hollow" my comment rings.

But I do think it's funny that the many of the same people exulting their constitutional right to bear arms abhor MY new-found constitutional right to eat or drink in a smoke free environment. Is it a lesser right because it's new? I say that's horse shit.

And for what it's worth, I voted FOR the weaker law and AGAINST the stronger one. I didn't support it. But I also don't really give a damn. This is a democracy. Will of the majority, right of the minority. You don't have a right to smoke. Sorry. Just my $0.02.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you really do have a RIGHT to smoke. If so, and if this gets overturned, I won't much care about that, either.

I've never bought into the "slippery slope" myth. Marijuana is not a slippery slope to Heroin use. A smoking ban is not necessarily a slippery slope to a "grilling food outdoors" ban.

And for what it's worth, the meme is "The Will of the majority, the Rights of the minority." In this country the majority is very well allowed to "decide" for the minority, so long as minority RIGHTS are protected.

And regarding your first comment, it doesn't matter if the majority of CITIZENS didn't vote for the ban. The majority of the ELECTORATE did. And THATS what counts.

This sounds fun, let me try....

In the future the government will ban all use of adverbs and make it illegal to split infinitives. The neo-spellcheckologists will go back and edit every Star Trek episode to say "Boldy to go where no man has gone before" instead of the (now felonious) "To boldly go where no man has gone before"

Then the pro gay cabal, led by GLADD and others, will start working on making it legal to marry inanimate objects because hey, there's no reason marriage has to just be between a Man and a Man in 2100. If I want to marry a potted plant, that should be my right. After all, we're BORN as potted-plant lovers, we don't BECOME that way.

I do always love the people who claim that their "right" to smoke is somehow greater than my "right" NOT to have to breath their smoke. They say "you can walk away" or "you can go somewhere else" but at the same time balk when I tell them "you can stay home" or "you can go smoke outside."

California has the 5th largest economy in the world. Businesses are doing just fine in California. And California is smoke free and has been for YEARS.

I agree, bigjim. The anti's have no real stake in this matter, except a philosophical one. They risk nothing. The owners and employees of these businesses risk everything.

One other point I'd like to raise: can't our society leave some room for a sizable minority and its habits? Can't society provide some place for like-minded people to gather peacefully together unmolested or have we as a people adopted a completely intolerant, "I win-you lose" position? What happened to compromise?

You strike me as old, paranoid, and elitist enough to think that you can predict the future. California has had a statewide smoking ban for what, almost 15 years now? And yet, none of these ominous predictions (aka "scare tactics and fear mongering") about "Outdoor grilling will be banned", etc, have happened, have they?

The truth is you don't KNOW, you're just PRETENDING to know. You're sharing your OPINION and dressing it up as FACT.

As for business owners, well, sorry about their luck. The law changed. If we passed a law raising taxes on businesses, you know what? It would take some of that "hard earned money, sweat and time" out of their pockets, but oh well.. this is life.. things are not static.. they chose to do business in a state where an informed electorate made a decision about the kind of place they want to live in. DEAL WITH IT.

You know, if the voters passed an amendment making it constitutionally illegal to levy any tax upon business, these same people bitching would be singing praises about the genius of the voters. However, they do something you don't like, and they're "sheeple."

And you can't actually suggest that "smoking sections" made a bit of difference. For businesses that complied with the original Toledo ban--enclosures and all--well, that was a shitty deal for them. But as for having a "smoking section" like most restaurants did--in the same general space as the non-smoking section--that's just a joke.

And as for your being pedantic enough to point out that MJ is called a "Gateway Drug" -- well, no shit. But the concept of "Gateway Drug" is the same as that of the "slippery slope." And like I said, no such slope was found in California. Yes, their bar/restaurant industry suffered a bit during the transition period, but oh well. I'm sure the robber-barrons suffered a bit when T.R. busted the trusts, and I'm sure coal mining companies suffered a bit when OSHA laws were introduced.

The majority gets to pick what sort of place they want to live in. This is America. I'm sorry (well, not really) that the Majority happens to disagree with you. But get over it.

And one more thing: If you're going to try to make a case about the damage of the smoking-ban, save me the "studies" from the smokers-advocates and tobacco-industry-advocates. They've got a vested interest. They're not exactly objective.

I'm sure that, for example, the Coal Mining companies took it on the chin a bit when OSHA laws were introduced.

But that doesn't mean that the majority shouldn't get to chose what kind of world they want to live in.

As a business owner, you take on a lot of risks. You do so because you perceive the reward to outweigh the risks, and you're probably right. There's a big advantage to being your own boss. You're not a slave to a supervisor or a corporation. You're able to grow your salary by WAAAY more than the 3% raises most Americans get each year. There are dozens and dozens of advantages and perks.

Well, there's also the risks. And this just happens to be one. The electorate gets to chose its destiny.

If you don't like it, well, I hear the jobless rate is pretty low. Go work for somebody else, and let THEM worry about it.

I don't know the actual math behind it, but I'd disagree with your assessment... Diffusion takes place. Unless you're getting the smoke blown in your face, it's not going to be much different if you're 10 feet away than it is if you're 30 feet away. The smoke diffuses into the air and everyone breaths it.

>

Better to be an 'old ,arrogant elitist' than a 'young, arrogant elitist' methinks.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

they have gambling, too, which the good people of oHEILo voted down in their wisdom. Michigan's eco9nomy is even further in the tank than ours, if that's possible, so they can certainly use the business.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

back during the winter of 2003-2004, after one of the worst blizzards, a guy in New Jersey was killed and four others severely injured when a roof caved in on them just outside a job center. This was pretty much told by the national media-BUT-what every one of the bastards buried to a man was the fact they were smokers, who had to go outside, due to the fact the center had removed their indoor smoking lounge. It was one of those super-comfy 'smoking areas' consisting of four poles and a roof-no walls-in below-zero weather. The bottom line-they wouldn't have BEEN there if not for a smoking ban. I only found out the full story by reading it on a smoker's rights site.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Granholm says she'll sign a smoking ban if one comes across her desk...

Dude, The Slavery Ban hurt the southern economy, too, but we live in a country where the will of the people and the ability to live in a world shaped by our choosing is worth a few percentage points of GDP. The country shouldn't be ran like I business, sacrificing all else for profits or, in this case, GDP growth.

The engine that is the American economy is still the best and largest and most efficient in the history of the world. The only question is (and should be) "is this what the majority wants" NOT "is this what will make businesses the most money."

Much like a slavery ban, the economy will soldier on, and we'll all survive....

The ballot language for the smoking ban made it almost impossible for a "private club" to qualify for a smoking exemption. The other restrictions (presence of employees or children, and attachment of building) make the type of private club a moot point.

Quite simply, the public was blatantly lied to with the "private club exemption" and the Anti-Smoking Nazis well knew it. It was a baiting sham quite worthy of one of the stunts Larry Sykes pulls. Equally so, arguing the point in court will be almost a worthless exercise, and of course Ohioans aren't too motivated to go to the polls to fix it. Ohioans were complete suckers and the ASNs saw us coming miles away.

I challenge anyone who knows, to tell me of a "private club" that DOES qualify for an exemption under the ballot language we were offered.

And if everyone thought this way we'd have:

1. Slavery
2. Horrible pollution.
3. No labor laws
4. No unions
5. No family leave
6. No minimum wage
7. Indentured Servitude
8. You get the point....

Yes, I'm certain I could.

It's unfortunate that you're so bullheaded that you can't accept other valid points. So many people around here throw around "socialism" as an insult. Who cares? We have social programs in America. I believe we should have more. I also believe in the market economy. In fact, Germany is a good example of a state that's found the right balance between Markets and Social programs.

And my advice to business owners is to learn to roll with the punches. And if you can't stand the fact that your business is governed by the will of the majority, then just close up shop and fill out some applications.

And you say this:

"Specifically, that the majority should be able to vote their preferences on the rest of society and that wealthy people should be taxed more than other classes. Finally, your crazy advise to business owners; that if they don't like the societal rules that the majority has engineered, they should go work for somebody else."

Do you understand what Socialism is? These things have NOTHING to do with socialism.

The more I listen to you people the more I'm certain that you'd all be better-off moving to a different country. In this post alone you eschew Majority Rule and the Progressive Tax. These are principles that have been part of US Society for CENTURIES.

If I were you, I'd learn to deal with ti........

Yet another gypsy? Half the posts in this website are people predicting the future and treating it as though it's already happened.

And I love how you people act like this is some dictatorship. Like these laws were passed by fiat. Get a grip: This was passed in a fucking ELECTION. The people spoke. This is what they want. Where do you get off just dismissing this?

Are you not a fan of democracy? Well, _THIS_ is democracy. People voted for what they want. The side with the most votes wins. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

Dude.. Geocities is a FREE HOMEPAGE PROVIDER.... This is like using an AOL Homepage as a primary source.

You can't actually expect it to be credible?

Anyway, it's no wonder you people are still carping about the Smoking Ban. You people have your head so far up your ass that you're still complaning about the progressive income tax that's been around for nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

I'll say it once more: GET OVER IT.

Jim: Why do you hate democracy so much? ...maybe you'd be better-off in a country like Venezuela? If you live there you won't have to worry about any pesky things like the will of the majority...

So it's not a valid law because it didn't have the majority of the registered voters voting for it? Come on, where else are you applying this logic? Should Strickland vacate the statehouse because he only got 30-some percent of registered voters to vote for him?

OR... Should George Bush be thrown out of the White House bceause he didn't actually WIN in Ohio since he didn't have a majority of Registered Voters?

At least you're getting more creative than simply "private property" rights. For chrissake, the government has been telling businesses what they can and can not do with their private property for as long as I can remember. Building codes, labor laws, etc etc.

And by the way...

Didn't the ban just start being enforced LAST WEEK? So in reality, you're proclaiming it a failure because in the ONE WEEK since the ban has been enforced, non-smokers have not went out very much? C'mon... sometimes I'm certain that you people are just trolling.. i mean, you can't actually believe this BS?

And you people are saying "Don't vote for the smoking ban because pretty soon they'll ban Twinkies and outdoor grilling"

How is that any more intellectually honest? I'm not doubting there was underhandedness on both sides, but don't act like the big, bad anti-smoking people were fighting the dirty fight while the other side was standing firm on principles.

..To this very day you Anti-Democracy people try fear mongering and scare tactics every last chance you get.

Oh please. If that's the case then every one of us, hell, everyone in this city, state, and country has a small mind?

Smoking Ban made the ballot and passed. It is what it is. Perhaps its the equivalent of Carty being mayor in Toledo. He and the smoking ban won a registered election.

In any case, ShaneH defends the fundamentals that an election actually took place. All I know is its tough to smoke in airports.

At the end of the day, many owners of private property still believe they have rights to allow their patrons to use something that is sold over the counter in their establishments. I'm quessing, given the choice some of these property owners would prefer to ban non-smokers in their establishments. To which is probably inline with appropriate market forces in allowing the consumer to decide to support, instead of Columbus.

Again, we must deal with the here and now and figure out if this thing is going to work or is it going to get overturned in the next election or get held up in a court of law. Who knows, I'm sure there's more to follow on this charged issue.

America as the welfare state?! Because it provides federally-funded programs to help people who have lost their jobs, have no access to health care, or to helped people on fixed income at the end of their careers? Well, shoot, then throw in that mix a welfare state because we pull good money out of hard-working Americans' pockets to pay for these so-called "elected officials", I mean, those are just state-sponsored jobs, right?

More of the same...

Let me get this straight: It's OK for you to stand firm on your beliefs but when I'm doing it I sound like a "cocky 18 year old?" It's OK for you to believe that your OPINION is right, but it's not ok for me to believe that MY opinion is right? Why is that? Because you're older than me? Because you're NOT cocky (yea right..)?

Besides, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the ban wouldn't hurt businesses. It probably will. But so what? Every one of the laws I listed -- Slavery, Labor laws, OSHA, organized labor, etc -- hurt businesses. Who cares? Are we only supposed to enact laws that won't hurt business?

And talk about "learning how to treat people" You and your cohorts here are the ones calling ME names, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You're the one being condescending to ME over the fact that you're a lot closer to the grave than I am, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

So really, save it. You're older than me. So what. That means absolutely nothing except that I'll be here, while you're rotting in the earth.

Get over yourself. You're not that f'in special. In fact, after this last post of yours, yeah, I'd say with certainty: You're just a punchline, Star. You're a joke.

Ha. Ha.

Edit:

I do want to comment on one part of your rant:

"You made a remark about how the smoking ban just started to get enforced so how can there be business lost "

Once again, you mischaractecrize my statement. It was, what, 4 sentences? You couldn't handle reading four whole sentences? Go back and re-read it. I'll wait.

...

Ok, Done? Good.

Now, you'll see that what I actually said is that it's not fair to say that the non-smokers aren't out there flocking to the smoke-free bars because THE BARS JUST WENT SMOKE FREE LAST WEEK. Now, do you get it, or do your aged eyes need bifocals of some sort? I know you're an old man and a little bit slow (mental faculties do have a way of diminishing...) but that post really wasn't THAT HARD to understand, was it?

Kateb, but why does this sentiment never seem to apply to anyone with whom you're in AGREEMENT on an issue?

"you'd much rather just talk amongst yourselves." Submitted by McCaskey on Mon, 2007-05-07 01:08.

Hey, McCaskey, don't brand us all with the same iron.

they think that people were placed in shackles and chained to smokers before the rabid smoker-haters came along to get laws passed to 'give them their freedom'. Egads.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

you grossly misunderstand my point...

And once again, someone pulls out the "I'm going to die much sooner than you, so therefore, you're not able to wrap your head around this" Give me a break. Me being 24 doesn't make me any less able to grasp this concept than you being a WOMAN does. And it would be just as insulting and ridiculous for me to say "Sugar tits, leave the discussion to the men now, ok?" as it is for you to suggest, as others here have done, that I don't agree with you because i'm JUST NOT OLD ENOUGH TO GET IT.

My point, which I've said about a dozen times in this page to people who level the same criticism as you do (Did any of you READ what I wrote or did you just see "slavery" and then skip right to the 'reply' button?)

My point was that those are examples of laws that, when enacted, HURT BUSINESS. I don't give a rats ass about personal freedom-- i mean, I do, but that's not my point. A common refrain amongst you is "Business will suffer!!" My point is WHO CARES THAT BUSINESS WILL SUFFER? Since when do we vet all laws thru the chamber of commerce before they get passed? While it might seem in the Bush Admin. that all Fortune 500 companies have veto power (Medicare Plan-B I'm looking at you..), that's not what the voters in Ohio think...

Besides, this law doesn't take away freedom. This law GIVES freedom back to the MAJORITY OF US who are non-smokers. The freedom to breath air free of secondhand smoke. The freedom to be able to eat dinner without breathing in toxic chemicals wafting thru the invisible barrier between the "smoking" and "non smoking" section. The freedom to go to a bar and drink without having to breath your smoke.

You people never had the RIGHT to make me breath your toxic gasses. The majority just didn't SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Well, that's changed now. You should've enjoyed it while it lasted.

Thirty years ago you could smoke at your desk. That changed a long time ago. I'm sure your counterparts then complained just as loudly. You know what? They got over it...

Do you really have that much trouble with comprihension or do you just play dumb when talking to me?

"You have a great deal of maturing to do if you can even make the connection between freedom from slavery with a dishonest proposal put in front of voters to curb public and private smoking."

This is you saying "I'm mature, and you're not if you don't agree with me"

Ergo it's you saying "I'm older than you." which you reinforce by saying "Maturity comes with age." And your implcation is that your "maturity" (and therefore "age") makes you the RIGHT one, and me the WRONG one. And if I disagree with you, it's because "[i] have a great deal of maturing to do"

My point, then, was that you're crazy. Just because you're going to die sooner than I am doesn't mean that you're any more capable of appraising what's right and wrong in regard to the smoking ban or ANYTHING ELSE.

It's all just bullshit. My "sugar tits" comment was to illustrate how silly your "when you grow up you'll understand it" comment was.

I'm glad you liked it.

I was pretty proud of it myself.

it ith a pop fwy goin ower da wall way ow in senner feeld.

wun maccaskey wun tho thane won bwake a thweat!

(cough)

Bro, I didn't read your 3 page diatribe. I'm sorry. But I did skim the part where you insist it has nothing to do with age.

you're right. It doesn't.

But many on your side of the argument don't agree with us. I didn't bring up my age. Once again, I invite you to go back an re-read what I wrote. It was brought up a few times by different people. Maybe even you? I can't remember.

It didn't "hurt my feelings" -- as I said, it generally just means that I'll be here longer than you will. But it was worth pointing out that the tactic these people chose to win the debate was recursive: "You can't know because you're just not old|mature enough to know. Wait until you grow up." That general sentiment was written towards me at least 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And yeah, if you're going to act like the only reason I'm not on "your side" is that I'm just not old|mature|smart enough to "get it," then expect to be called out.

One more thing: I only ask people to "reread" my posts when they deliberately (or perhaps accidentally) mis-characterize my argument or misquote what I said. Just like you're doing. So why don't you go back and re-read that, just for clarification...?

Edit:

Pot, Meet Kettle

It took me about 3 minutes to assemble a quick list of things you've said, directed towards me, in this thread. After this, I never want to hear your tired old ass whining about how I resort to insults and cockiness. You blame it on my age, say it's an indication of immaturity. Well, what's your excuse?

Starling Said:
"Shane - you strike me as very young, naive & trying very hard to come across as bright & witty & failing miserably."

Starling Said:
"Shane - you're naive, and you strike me as being a smart ass right out of college who thinks he knows it all."

Starling Said:
"You smugly run your mouth like a cocky 18 yr old who just got an "A" in his first year of college, like you're enlightening people here with your "wisdom""

Starling Said:
"you aren't saying anything new, that some other young smug smart ass hasn't already said - and said better, by brighter people than you."

Starling Said:
"So save your breath, do your homework & go to bed."

I should not have to encounter airborne asbestos "AT EVERY PRIVATE BUSINESS WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME". I should not have to come into contact with toxins like Mercury "AT EVERY PRIVATE BUSINESS WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME". I have the freedom of being able use a public restroom if a business serves food "AT EVERY PRIVATE BUSINESS WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME".
etc etc

--- You're right. That _IS_ better. :)

As a society we've given smokers a free-pass. We've tolerated the POISON of second-hand-smoke for far too long. Sorry. The tolerance is over. And now, I can breath clean air "AT EVERY PRIVATE BUSINESS WE MAY CHOOSE TO ENTER FROM TIME TO TIME".

...must we really get rid of it? Can't you just choose not to eat it????

Whine!!!!

Well, when sushi and sea urchins have been proven to cause the death of the people unfortunate enough to be in the room while you eat it, I'll get on your ban-wagon.

Well, when people en masse begin to bring their household cleaners with them to bars and begin to scrub down their immediate areas, creating clouds of noxious gas, then you'll be on to something.

If it weren't for the rotten tax codes in Ohio that I've heard you lament before, I'd suggest you get in the business of spinning straw-men.

I knew there was a reason Maggie was the only Republican in Lucas County I voted for every time she ran! (everbody kept telling me I only did it 'cause I thought she was cute)8^D

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Pete? What are you smoking?

Are you so afraid of your ability to win this debate that you actually stoop to just inventing things and putting words in my mouth?

That should speak volumes to you about the flimsy case you're trying to make....

I can understand you might be.. uhh.. slow. If that's the case, my apologies. And if that ISN'T the case, well, I'm sure you can forgive me. I have, after all, made it pretty clear what I intended when i brought up slavery, and it was a perfectly valid point.

Of course, you think that a straw man in a thread with about 5 active posters is actually going to accomplish something? Puh-leese.

sure looks to me like somebody else used slavery as a straw man argument. 8^D I like how everyone else are the ones doing the name-calling and insulting, too. LOL He actually made a good point in a different thread, and I was ALMOST ready to congratulate him on it-but-fortunately, I read his post to you first and said to hell with that-he instantly reminded me of what he is.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Correlation does not imply causation.

Sorry! Try again!

Here is the true humor and irony in this thread:

I didn't vote for the smoking ban.

I voted for the weaker ban.

And I voted against the stronger ban.

But, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, so I chose to do something wild and crazy: I chose to respect the decisions of the electorate.

Who are you to try to take away the right of the people to shape the state where they live? Who are you to try to abridge these fundamental American freedoms?

The constant thread running thru all of my arguments is simple:

1. The people have spoken
2. All kinds of laws have been passed that harm businesses in order to build the kind of place we want to live in
3. I'm sorry that business will be hurt, but that's not the yard stick by which all our decisions should be measured. Business is risky. Case in point.
4. The private property rights of business owners are not all-encompassing. There are limits to it. This is one.
5. The people have spoken.
6. Get over it

See? Simple.

This is a bogus rule. I have read the language of the referendum and there is nothing in it to indicate that outside areas fall under the law. Read ORC Chapter 3794 (second paragraph): www.odh.ohio.gov/alerts/ohiosmokingban.aspx

"But I do think it's funny that the many of the same people..."

THE MANY?? WTF does THAT mean, Mr English Instructor?

Dot those "I"'s and cross those "T's", cuz you opened a can of worms.

As long as the Government receives money via taxes from legal items, there is no reason to implement laws against it. The problem lies with the public's perception on dealing with personal issues, ie: whether to partonize a business because smoking is permitted. Instead of taking your lazy ass to a non-smoking facility, they'll drive home and whine to a person to change it to their lifestyle, no matter who it affects.

It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Or does THAT mean something other than it says?

...you'll give them ideas!!!

lol

(run away! run away!)

You may be trying to be funny, ShaneH, but you just come across as cavalier and shallow. The problem here is one of private property and individual rights. If you owned an ice cream parlor and the law said you couldn't serve anything made of cow's milk, would you be pissed off?

The majority gets to pick what sort of place they want to live in. This is America. I'm sorry (well, not really) that the Majority happens to disagree with you. But get over it.

And, more importantly, if the vote had gone the OTHER way, NOBODY would be hearing this type of "majority trampling the rights of the minority" rational from the smokers. Nobody. Their side would have won, and that would have been the end of it.

The real bottom-line is they WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IF THEY WEREN'T SMOKERS.

And to think, with all the lightning bolts that strike in Michigan each year, Granholm never seems to be in the way of one. Darn it!

but then, you already knew that. Not one of those things has any bearing whatsoever to this. That's like the tired ass old argument "The board of health has the right to protect us from smokers". No-the BOH was founded to take care of the things you COULDN'T SEE-like how clean the kitchen is. Smoking wasn't hidden, so you could use your feet to go somewhere else. This law TELLS THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY WHO THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE ALLOWED TO BE (Crow Jim).

---------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

**And if everyone thought this
Submitted by ShaneH on Sun, 2007-05-06 12:48.

And if everyone thought this way we'd have:

1. Slavery
************

You're equating this with laws against SLAVERY? Ridiculous!! Your examples are specious.

It's the dictatorship of stupid people, ShaneH, maybe, like yourself.

Fair enough. But, the statement from the individual who made it pretty much speaks for itself, does it not?

The gloating, hatred, and sense of smugness and superiority once again. You should seek help for that.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Why would you bring these substances up as examples? If you are equating secondhand smoke with ASBESTOS and with MERCURY, you are goofy, just as you were goofy earlier when you equated the no smoking laws with laws against slavery. Your reasoning is ridiculous. It's completely laughable!

Outlaw the legal and highly taxable consumable product. Tobacco is the devil's tool.

They should outlaw curry too. Smells like the insides of my moon boots. ugh.

...someone that had "devil's advocate" over rice last week has allowed it to go to their head.

I think you also might want to avoid the "sarcasm" salad as well. It just dosen't agree with you.

...lighten up just a bit, would you? :)

Sometimes, the best response to an issue that has you so frustrated is sarcasm - it releases the anger but in a way that some find amusing...

In this case, it points out how there are a lot of things that can cause harm (remember the stories about flying when the cabin crew asks everyone to avoid anything with peanuts because someone travelling was so highly allergic?) but don't get banned...

I don't like smoke - allergies and asthma - so I just didn't go to bars. Problem solved. I wasn't exposed to anything that could harm me because I made the choice on my own and I didn't need a government ban to protect me.

Too many times today, people look to government to enforce their personal prejudices. And too often, government is the first choice for solving the problem instead of the last resort. Certainly not what our founders intended...

Your words are on this forum. Don't weasel out by saying that isn't what you meant. I notice you are constantly telling everybody else to go back and read what was said because your argument was something different. You should follow your own advice. And calling me "slow" is stupid and worthy only of an immature and insecure individual.

I think you should lookup "straw man" at Wikipedia. I don't think it means what you think it means....

1. And they will speak again in November if we have any say about it. Nothing is final, nothing is permanent.

2. This is not the kind of place we want built... and we WILL change it back again.

3. The yardstick should at least CONSIDER the damage the might be done. Wasn't done in this case. Even the environmental laws require that economic studies be done.

4. Private property as defined in the constitution, in case law, and in tradition is theoretically NEARLY all-encompassing... or was until the Statists began taking over.

5. They spoke one time. It'll come back to them again in November.

6. Never! We will work to correct an injustice.

By the way, nobody cares about your humor and irony in this thread and you certainly appear to have a dog in this fight.

I thought the article was interesting, perhaps there's a section on what qualifies as an outdoor arena and what the the rules are for arenas. Parking lots struck me as odd. Who knows?

In business I deal with smokers and non-smokers every time I travel. Doesn't bother me. Actually feel bad for the smokers on how much a pack of smokes has gone up the last 15 years compared to other goods.

My beef is all the stupid ballot initiatives and laws coming out. Perhaps we should pass a ballot initiative that OH can't be in the top 20 tax states (right now, we're #5 out of 50).

Perhaps by taxing ShaneH less he can give more of his money to charity of his choice instead of OH's choice.

"As long as the Government receives money via taxes from legal items, there is no reason to implement laws against it. "

How about this....

How about, if more people vote FOR it than vote AGAINST it, then that's a pretty good reason to "implement" the laws.

And I'm not sure what you mean about a can of worms, but really, if you think I care (in the slightest) that you seize upon a typo as some major issue, then you're far more clueless than I thought you were.

Is tobacco an ingredient in alcohol?

From what I understand, cigar shops and such are exempt from the law so long as 80% (i think..) of their sales come from tobacco products. Cigar shops would be a much more apt comparison to your ice cream shop/milk analogy.

...But... if the majority of the electorate in my state chose to make that a CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION I would probably complain, yes, but I would respect it as every bit as legitimate as every other constitutional amendment.

...And I would start serving Sorbet.

...And Gelato. I don't think there's any milk in Gelato. I could be wrong about that, though.

There are inherent problems with the "majority rules" doctrine. It holds no water at all. The history of our country is riddled of cases where the courts have overturned the rulings of "the majority" to protect "the minority".

If we lived in a society of bowing to "the majority" we'd be living with things such as no suffrage for women, polling taxes on southern blacks, and many states with abortion bans.

I also disagree with McCask's assessment that if the vote had gone the "other way" that would have been the end of it. We saw it in Lucas County where the anti-smoking powers that be tried to circumvent the rights of the populace and ban smoking with a vote. Because both sides are so entrenched in their own rhetoric this issue will go on for many years, many judgements, and many votes and still won't be settled.

As I pointed out in another post in this thread there were ways for the state to act to stop public smoking or at least regulate it to where the rights of business owners would not have been infringed.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Smoking is a perfectly legal product that adults can buy and consume if they wish. That's what happens when you have a particularly permissive LIBERTY. You're making no point whatsoever.

First, even if they DIDN'T have anything to do with this, it still wouldn't be a strawman attack. Google it. A strawman attack would be me mis-characterizing YOUR argument in a way that's easy to knock-down, then I knock it down and claim that I won the debate.

However, these are very apt examples.

Every one of those cases involved the will of the majority (or those elected by the majority) "changing the rules" that business owners have to follow.

In every one of these cases, one could argue "private property" rights. And in all but 2 (Servitude & Slavery), your same "Free markets" argument would apply. Is your workplace unsafe? The market will correct it when people stop working there. Are there toxic fumes inside? Market will correct it, workers get lynched for starting a union? Oh well, Market will correct it. Besides, why should I not be able to put toxic fumes in my building? it's MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. Why shouldn't I be able to bust unions or refuse any family leave or pay $1/hr? After all, it's MY PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Businesses SUFFERED when all of these laws were enacted. People went out of business. Hell, we might have a $20tn GDP today if we'd still have slavery. Companies folded. Dreams were lost. Businessmen were faced with the prospect of the government changing all the rules in the middle of the game.

Oh. F'in. Well.

We get to pick what kind of state we want Ohio to be. The majority picked it as smoke-free. You try to subvert the will of the majority just as people did time and again over Slavery, etc.

Get over it.

Isn't it a private property issue? Isn't it a case of the government making a law that hurt and destroyed many businesses?

Isn't your argument that the Gov't has no right to tell a man how to run his business, especially considering it will hurt the business financially?

So if you don't think that slavery is a similar issue, then I guess that means that it's not REALLY an issue of "business private property rights" because you're making an exception to these for Slavery. REALLY, it's just an issue of you not thinking a smoking ban should be a law, and you're using this private property shtick as a tactic.

Because when people disagree with you they MUST be stupid.

You know what I like? I like that at the end of the day, all the bitching in the world won't stop the fact that the law happens to be on my side in this argument. All your complaining and whining and name calling won't change the fact that there is a smoking ban, and that it's not going anywhere.

I will not diagree.

that blood pressure, now,or you'll never make Starling's age.9^D

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

I happen to like curry, you ... you ... ANTI-CURRY NAZI! lol

So your freedom to go where you please was abbriged by the minority polluting the indoor air. That doesn't sound very "fair" to me.

The reason I took him to task for that particular comment is because it's just more of the same from the tobacco addicts.

They immediately devolve every argument into hyperbole and fear mongering to try to prove their point. They give you laundry lists of pure PREDICTIONS of things that will happen because of it. "Pretty soon blue jeans will be banned on fridays! Don't you like wearing jeans on fridays?! Well, that's wht you shouldn't support the smoking ban"

And to the person who wants to say "You compared it to slavery. Isn't that a hyperbole?" I say: Go back and look at what my point actually was when I brought up slavery. I wasn't comparing the two bans whatsoever.

...if ya just give them enough rope.

You might want to re-read what I just wrote, because it just changed meaning.

Whoops...better re-read, it just turned into something else.

Or maybe "if you give them enough rope" means something different completely!

But he'll never ever be as good as Gregory Hines. Ever.

Weasel out? My words are there on this page for everyone to read. You're exactly right about that. I never compared the smoking ban to slavery. Perhaps you're one of the lesser examples of our public school system, being unable to comprihend some very simple reading, or maybe you're just an asshole who thinks he can win an argument by spinning straw men.

Here's a clue: you can't.

I haven't "lashed out" at anyone else here. I'm willing to debate with a man who makes my blood boil all the while, by and large, keeping my opinions to myself. And not devolving into personal attacks. But you're angry that you can't "convince" me of your lame arguments, and you're running on empty, and it shows. So you chose to attack me personally. No problem. But you can't even do it on the level. If I'm _so wrong_ as you say I am, why do you have to mis-characterize my arguments to win the debate?

I suppose I already know the answer: you know as well as I do that you can win it on its merits.

Sorry. Like I said earlier, Good luck kicking the addiction. I know drug addicts have problems with the truth. You certainly do. But there's help out there for ya, Pete. I wish you the best in finding it.

I was very clear why I brought up slavery and what I meant by it. Go back and read it again, pete. Slowly this time. You'll "get it" eventually, Petey. I have confidence in you.

outlaw tobacco.

You bet it is. It's what people DO in bars. That and drink. By the way, the ban was NOT a "constitutional prohibition". It was an addition to the Ohio Revised Code.

No,

he's right, GZ-what the hell, they were only fucking smokers.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Are you kidding?

His "point" was that the smoking ban killed these people, in a roundabout way.

My point is that it's no more valid to say that the SMOKING BAN killed them than it is to say that SMOKING killed them.

And yes, It's a perfectly valid point.

If you think the issue of slavery was about private property, you had better go back and reread your history. The issue involved the principle that a human being could NOT be possessed as property in any way, shape or form. Unlike the slavery question, the private property rights of owning a bar has nothing to do with a question of whether or not the business is private property. Everybody (except, maybe YOU) would agree that a business CAN be legitimately owned by someone as his property. Slavery is quite different in that the institution was regarded as a violation of the principle that one person could own another. Or is the distinction too subtle for you to understand?

what I meant, and he knows that full well, Pete. Their only function in these threads is to insult, name-call, be smug, arrogant,or otherwise prove themselves to be trolls. It's personal. Not merely an issue. To them, It's only about their feeling superior. I'd like to Thank them for taking the bait and proving me right, by the way LOL
I'm not stooping to their gutter level and getting pulled into flame wars anymore, as they are pointless and only detract from threads.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

...the "majority" of the people voted for the smoking ban in public places. What you're failing to comprehend is that in the courts there are issues concerning "private clubs" that have yet to be resolved.

Bottom line is that all those Elks, Moose, Eagles and VFW's voted FOR the ban under the impression "private clubs" were exempt, per wording of the law.

So explain to me how a "group" would shoot themselves in the foot to spite their face when they were falsely led?

...my freedom to go where I pleased was abridged by the minority and that doesn't sound 'fair.'

Well, I was always taught that life wasn't fair. And IF my freedom was abridged, it was done SOLELY by my personal decision to not subject myself to something I didn't like. No one abridged my freedom - I consciously decided NOT to do something because of the consequences I - and I alone - would suffer. I think that's called individual responsibility.

I'm not a victim who needs some government entity to protect me from cigarette smoke. I assumed that responsibility myself.

take a wiff of my moon boot....that'll clear your opinion!

I guess it depends on what "is" is and what "means" means.

What exactly is wrong with you?

You know drug addicts have a problem with the truth?

Shane, you smoking weed?

Everybody has a problem with the truth, you dolt. It's all labelled in degrees of understanding. Take a few minutes and think about that statement, it'll do you some good for your future.

ie: you THINK you're more intelligent than most of us, yet just can't quite wrap your head around the reality of the issues that logic and common sense can guide.

See, a more intelligent poster would have found a different avenue than using "slavery" as a reference.

It's all about embracing your demons and accepting your flaws. You're too proud to do that. Your blanket statements just peel back another layer of the onion.

It's perception that'll be the end of ya. Your's is convoluted.

Yes, but is there milk in gelato?

THATS the real question here...

"It's a perfectly valid point." No actually both are stupid points.

Under this type of logic they might not have been there had they had a job which means if they got laid off from their last job then it's the corporations fault. If they were laid off because stockholders dropped the stock because a french company came up with a better product that secured the market then it's the french company's fault.

This type of point to point reasoning under vague circumstances is not only against reason it is pointless to argue it.

I'm pissed at the time I spent reading those posts and creating this one. I could have better spent it staring at the ceiling and drouling.

MikeyA

MikeyA

You can skirt the issue if you want but you know I'm right:

1. Society slowly changed their values and perceptions of right and wrong
2. Certain elements of society were highly resistant to such change
3. The will of the majority was made law
4. Business suffered and people were hurt dramatically by the new laws
5. Business owners complained and bitched and took measures to circumvent the law
6. Eventually the disagreement was quelled and life went on
7. Now we think of it as a no-brainer.

That applies to slavery just as much as it applies to the smoking ban. (Give or take. Obviously slavery wasn't ended by a ballot measure...)

like Pete agrees with my interpretation of your post. And with all the name-calling and personal insulting you do (which by the way, I usually have a good laugh at) especially on this issue here and on TT, you should take a hard look in the mirror before you accuse someone else of doing the same.

If life isn't fair then why have you spent a week trying to advocate for "fair" taxation in the Fair Share thread?

Furthermore, I don't need the government to protect me from cigarette smoke, either. I don't think anybody asked for such protection.

It's a simple value call. You and the people like you just can't get over the fact that the public would actually put their foot down and change a disgusting part of society for the better. Nobody gave away any rights or freedoms. Nobody. We just said "This is the kinda place we want to live" and that's that.

So once again, I invite you to get over it.

And I still have yet to hear a single convincing argument covering why somebody has some intrinsic right to pollute the air for their own enjoyment. You say I have no "right" to clean air, and even if that IS true, why do you think you have a "right" to smoke? I'll make it easy for you: YOU DON'T.

In which case it becomes an issue of 'the will of the majority'

Democracy in Action... God bless America ;)

I hear wellbutrin helps with the addiction. Good Luck!

Once again, falling all over yourself to make yourself look like an asshole. I'll give you one compliment, though: You're good at it.

1. You're awfully defensive, aren't you bri? Calling names, acting like a child, especially considering the post wasn't directed towards you.

2. I don't think I'm more intelligent than you. Wrong again, Bri Bri.

3. I can certainly "wrap my head around" the anti-ban arguments. You think the problem is that I just don't "get it?" That's the arrogance of you anti-ban people. YOU'RE the ones that think you're smarter. YOU'RE the ones that think that anyone who doesn't agree with you after hearing your side of the "facts" is just an asshole/troll/idiot.

How about this: I don't give a fuck what you think about "Private property rights." This country does not make laws based on what the local chamber of commerce thinks. The people have spoken. Now shuddup and fall in line. Your side ran a campaign to defeat the measure. YOU FAILED. DEAL WITH IT.

4. Slavery was a perfectly valid example for the point I was trying to make. Contrary to the belief of those here with poor reading skills, I was NOT comparing the Ban to abolition. Of course, it's easier to straw man me and suggest that I did, in fact, make that comparison than it is to actually accept the fact that, you know, I was right. We have made a shit ton of laws in this country that "infringe" upon the private property rights of business and/or hurt business. Oh well. Slavery was just one of the examples I used, but it's the easiest for you and yours to distort it and straw-man it due to its emotional nature.

5. How would you even KNOW what problems I have 'accepting my flaws?' Based on the few thousand words I've typed on some website against a smoking ban? Puh-leese. Once again you show your flair for considering yourself to be omnipotent.

You're not.

And the smoking ban was passed by concerned citizens of Ohio who have every right, EVERY RIGHT, to determine what kind of place they want to live in.

For both of these things I have a common refrain of advice for you: DEAL WITH IT.

If you're lactose intolerant, stay out of the milking parlor.

You missed my point...

I wrote that post not suggesting that they died because they're smokers and ergo, they deserved it.

my point was that if you want to blame these deaths on the smoking ban, you have to also accept that they wouldn't have died had they not been smokers to begin with.

He said, essentially, "The BAN put them in that place which resulted in their death." I say "That's no more valid than saying SMOKING put them in that place..."

No, I don't "know" or even believe you're right. Stalin also "changed" society's values, which were "highly resistant to such change", and his will "was made law". Eventually, "the disagreement was quelled and life went on"... sort of and maybe.

No, thanks. If the aim is to change society's values and perceptions, that is called social engineering, something the government is used all too often for.

...all I said was that I didn't need government to protect me from something I didn't like. I didn't defend smoking - I objected to government's involvement in it and the way people look first to government to address a problem.

And, since you read into posts only what you want (despite urging others to re-read your own posts), let me clarify. I said that life wasn't fair - I never said that we - individually - can't work toward fairness...

In this issue, you seem to think it 'fair' to accommodate your wishes inside private businesses but it is somehow not 'fair' to allow those businesses to make decisions about their clientelle.

I NEVER said you have no 'right' to clean air. In fact, I would say that if you want clean air, you have a right to refuse to go to places where the air isn't clean enough for your standards - whether that is a bar, a perfume counter in a store, or any other place where attendance or participation is voluntary.

BTW - I don't smoke, but then, you seemed to skip right over that point...perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Shane, you sound mentally disturbed. You should seek help.

I can enjoy smoking a cigarette in a bar that serves less than 10% of food revenues.

I can enjoy smoking on a patio of a restaurant in December.

I can enjoy smoking at an Elk's, Moose, and VFW lodge.

I'm dealing with it quite nicely, thank you.

I didn't miss your point. I got it.

I'm saying to blame it on the ban or on smoking is putting blame on nothing.

What killed them is the roof and the snow that caused it's collapse. Nothing more nothing less.

MikeyA

MikeyA

No, it's called the majority rules.

How can you people be so f'in dense?

What would you prefer? The majority rules except when business doesn't want it to? The majority rules except when it doesn't? The majority rules unless they decide they don't like smoking?

...Whatever... you talk about private property like American laws stop applying when you step on private property.

And you sound like you need a smoke... ... good thing you're at home. Otherwise, I'd probably have to report you ;)

It's not "dense", ShaneH, it's called fighting for what's right and for our values. We are not going to roll over and play dead because you say so. Live with it!

Correction:

It's fighting for what _YOU THINK_ is right.

Unfortunately for you, what the majority thinks is right is different than what you think is right.

...sucks to be you, I guess...

You're way too smug and cocksure. Someday life will teach you a painful lesson, I'm sure.

Oh come on, listen to you people. You use scare tactics, fear mongering, blanket predictions that you try to pass off as data-supported facts.

Besides, talk about cocksure! You dismiss the electorate as "sheeple," just not quite smart enough to know what YOU know. You're certain that despite the MAJORITY WILL, YOU'RE the one that's right.

You and your cohorts in this are just as smug in your opinion of what's right as anyone else.

And it's worth noting that you and your cohorts--who have more than once made snide remarks about my youth, as if i'm 14--are the ones stooping to immaturity, calling me names, etc. Now, i've got thick skin, and personally, I don't mind one bit that you surrender the moral high ground...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.