Distillery gets notice of smoking ban violation


Last week our saloon received a notice of an alleged smoking ban violation. An anonymous caller reported seeing a person smoking in a restricted area (assumedly in the bar??) at or around 9:00 on 5/5.

We posted approved signs and removed the ashtrays at midnight on the date the law became enforceable. If anyone is seen smoking inside, they are advised that they are violating the law and they should smoke outside. No one has smoked in the facility with the permission of the management or staff.

Tomorrow I will hand deliver our official reply to the Health Department. It advises that we have complied with the law and have not committed a violation. It also advises that if we are found guilty, we will appeal the violation.

As I opined on earlier threads; even if you follow the law, you can get a violation because of an anonymous call. What a poorly written law. I hope it gets declared unconstitutional.

No votes yet

How a bar owner or any business owner for that matter can be found guilty on the basis of an anonymous caller. No evidence, no ability to confront your accuser...just an anonymous caller.

It really makes no sense.

We don't remember days only moments...

and you have a right to 'face' your accuser. End of story.

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.

So the DoH would be the complainant. Sends a little shiver down the spine to think an anonymous call could result in a civil trial.

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 install a ton of cameras to prove your patrons are complying?

This law stinks.

This ban basically puts the burdon of proof upon the accused to prove no violation took place - how on earth do you do that? Why should business owners have to absorb the expense of cameras just to be able to prove a potential reported violation?

I suppose it will be difficult to prove that we are complying with the law. I guess it all depends on how Grossman's office decides to handle the issue.

Junta, the law allows the department the option of conducting an investigation prior to finding a facility guilty. 3701-52-08(D)(3) of the rules shows that an on-site investigation is required before a civil fine is levied. So if a fine is involved, somewhere in the process an investigator will need to visit the site. That probably isn't the case now, because the first violation results in no civi; fine. If this results in a violation, I will appeal the finding until it gets thrown out.

Rules: http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/F6070F1E98844FDB92AD76D82461C7D2/AdoptedR...

Big Jim

I remember what we used to do to the tattle tales in school.
Maybe we should have laid off them as they grew up to be antis.

(FWIW, I'm not talking about some kid reporting something dangerous like "Teacher, Johnny has a knife"...etc...... I'm talking about kids on restroom duty counting the number of towels you used to dry your hands......)

It would be very hard to hold a private 'reporting' type individual accountable for this. But the DoH is a pretty appealing adversary. And ours has a long, long history which should be pretty interesting if anybody ever got to open things up via discovery.

This is going to be just fascinating to watch play out. Fascinating.

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.


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.

Does anyone know how they enforce smoking at bars in CA or NYC? Apparently they have been doing it for a while.

Perhaps they have a better way then sending "Candy Grams"!

Until this thing gets thrown out or put back on the ballot, somehow I guess people are going to have to get used to drinking without smoking and smoking without drinking.

Darius Rucker too. I'd like to go down there sometime and see what they're playing in the tavern about 11:00 on Friday night sometime.

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.

Last week ago I sent the Health Department a Letter advising that we are in compliance because we: A) have signs posted, B) removed the ashtrays and C) tell customers that they are violating the law if they smoke. Today I followed-up by calling the health department and asking what has happened thusfaar.

I was told that an inspector would soon be visiting our facility and would make a determination if the complaint was accurate. If the complaint cannot be substantiated, it will likely be dismissed.

The word likely sounded kind of hollow, but the contact at the Health Department, Karim Baroudi, was professional and courteous.

Will keep posting updates as they occur . . .

Big Jim

NYC and CA is not as black and white as the Ohio fascists want you to believe.

Our Health Inspector visited last week and oberved that our signs were proper and we had no ashtrays out. He advised that there would be "no violation". I don't know if we'll receive forml notice of the non-violation or not.

On a related note, last week the governor advised that he was having the Attorney General appeal the ruling that declared no smoking in private clubs. The motives of the Smoke Free Ohio will be investigated.

Big Jim

Ahh that's the rub. The right to face your accuser only applies to criminal matters. This is a civil matter and a civil penalty, tricky tricky.

Additionally, as I read the law, the health department must investigate and determine whether or not a violation occured. Based on their investigation, they then become the complainant, judge, jury, and executioner, so to speak. Receiving notice of of complaint does not mean that it constitutes a violation. My guess is that if there are no ashtrays present, and there are no cigarette butts laying around, the health department cannot find a violation. This way, the law itself protects the businesses from such complaints. I think the law is designed to punish blatent and intentional violaters.

Yeah......there's still some US in the US instead of neo USSR in Oheilo.
Nice article . Thanks for sharing the SC thing.
Home of Dizzy Gillespie, FWIW.

I understand they're going to try to put it back up to the voters in November.




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.'

Yet even from a civil standpoint, you'd think there would have to be some type of real evidence.

With the way it's set up, even if a place gets 100 anonymous complaints, without any proof that smoking did indeed take place with the permission of the owner is going to be difficult.

We don't remember days only moments...

Comment viewing options

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