Local bar owner challenges smoking ban

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?

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.

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.

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

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???!!!

"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.

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

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

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 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=407...

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

Scent ban
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=257...

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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....

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?

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.

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!

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

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

"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 :)

A great report on the hazards of smoking bans:

The Case Against
Smoking Bans

THOMAS A. LAMBERT
University of Missouri

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.

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)