Issues 4 & 5

[johnnie]

What happens if they both win? I see that 5 is Pending Secretary of State Certification, so I guess that would come into play.

As for issue 5, check this out:

"Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence)."

So, technically you could be having a Tupperware party at your house and if someone else is giving the party, you will be restricted from smoking. Ok, maybe that is a bit of a reach, but they are getting there. But if I decide to turn my home studio into a place of business, I won't be able to let people smoke in my house while in operation.

I personally don't see anything wrong with issue 4, but issue 5 needs to lose.

Opinions?

[adeshell]

1. I think #5 trumps #4

Because 5 is an amendment to the state constitution, and #4 isn't, or so I've heard...

[mongo]

2. You have that backwards

Issue 4 is a constitutional ammendment that would ban smoking in most place, but allow certain business (such as bars) to allow smoking.

Issue 5 is a law that bans smoking everywhere -- including in your own home under certain circumstances.

But if they both pass, issue 4 becomes law

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15161962/

[semillama]

3. Actually, Issue 4 would overturn municipal bans

such as here in Columbus. Issue 4 is backed by every big tobacco company out there. I think both issues stink - bans should be something voted on at the local level, and we definitely shouldn't be amending the constitution to please the tobacco companies.

[mongo]

5. Here is what issue 5 will do to me

Our small bussiness is run as a c-corp -- so we would not meet the "family business" exemption.

We already don't smoke on the sales floor of our store - or in the receiving area, the kitchen or the office or bathroom. We do have a small breakroom with seperate ventilation which we do smoke in (and ALL of our employees smoke). We would be prohibited from smoking in our own store -- and if the fire mashall comes in for an inspection, we could be fined if he found an ashtray in there.

Mostly, when my employee or I are clerking, we smoke outside when the store is empty. Again, issue 5 would prohibit this because to be able to get back inside when someone comes to the store, we need to be "immediately adjacent to places of ingress or egress".

Personally, I think that individual business owners should be able to decide whether or not they want their establishment to be smoke free. We don't have a ban over in Zanesville, and there are several smoke free restaurants and BARS. They seem to be doing a great business.

[rg302200]

7. HEY I work in Zanesville...

and live in Cambridge. Nice to see someone else on here from my neck of the woods!!!

[mongo]

8. Welcome to DU!

[mongo]

6. One more bit of info about issue 5

The ballot language says the following places are exempt:

Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence), designated smoking rooms in hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities; designated smoking areas for nursing home residents; retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business;


But family-owned business is defined as one where ALL employees are related to the owner. How many family owned and operated business where their is never public access. So, if your business has ONE employee you are not exempt.

[slaveplanet]

11. outdoor patios?

If only these specific places qualify for exemption, that would suggest all outdoor parks and woodlands are also prohited?

[johnnie]

13. And as I stated above

I have a home studio, if I opened it up for business and had someone help run the studio, technically i would not be able to smoke in my own home while operating.

[adeshell]

4. you're right, I had it backwards

Smoke Less Ohio trumps Smoke Free Ohio

[west5548]

9. Read about this in The Other Paper here in Columbus

We were talking about this at work. Issue 4 would trump every other law at the city level and Issue 5 if both win because it's an amendment. It was very interesting reading the article and both are winning according to state polls. I personally would like to see Issue 4 win.

[MGD]

10. I like issue 5 better myself.

If I were a smoker, I might object to it I suppose but it seems clear to me who will benefit the most from issue 4, Big Tobacco.
Here's a link to a 2 page pdf with more info on the issue if anyone cares: http://www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/documents/SFOLawComparison.pdf

[johnnie]

12. Well, I guess that is "info", but it is misleading

As I said above, if issue 5 passes, they could possibly make it illegal to smoke in your own home. Even if I was a non-smoker and saw this proposal, I would be pissed.

I also think that forcing business owners to have no decision on the matter is bogus.

[MGD]

14. I don't forsee anybody making it illegal to smoke in private residences

I think you're overblowing the issue to further your pro-issue 4 agenda. No offense intended, I assure you. It's all good.

"I also think that forcing business owners to have no decision on the matter is bogus"

I think allowing Big Tobacco to pass a constitutional ammendment is bogus, especially when, in doing so, they invalidate laws already on the books that were passed at the local level. Furthermore, business owners do have a say in the decision making process as they can vote just like everyone else.

[johnnie]

15. Directly from the proposal

"Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence),"

[MGD]

16. Well, when all your employees leave your living room you can light up

Other than that, you'll have to go outside like at every other business I've ever worked for. I see this as a very minor issue affecting an exceedingly small portion of the Ohio populace. The benefits of the smokefree legislation far outweigh the detriments in my mind. What's more, I am intensly opposed to allowing big tobacco the opportunity to insert a constitutional ammendment in our state constitution, especially when it will invalidate referendum laws already on the books. I can appreciate your position but I, for one, do not agree with it. Fuck big tobacco.

[johnnie]

17. Actually my studio is in my basement

I don't see where "big tobacco" will benefit from issue 4.

And I guess you haven't really been in the workforce long..lol. No offense, but it answers some questions for me.

[MGD]

19. I don't see where "big tobacco" will benefit from issue 4.

Then you need glasses as it's plainly obvious. The "smoke-less" legislation will roll back existing smoke free referendum laws in at least 21 cities and it will make it nearly impossible for a city to ever enact laws that cut into R.J. Reynold's profit margin again. Furthermore, if issue 4 wasn't beneficial to big Tobacco, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Swisher Cigars, the Tobacco Dealers Association and the Cigar Association wouldn't be spending tens of millions of dollars to support it. What's more, this is part of a broader campaign being waged by the tobacco industry acrosss the country in several other state initiatives.

"And I guess you haven't really been in the workforce long"
If buy that you mean I haven't been working in my basement like you, you're right. If you mean to imply that I haven't been working for long, you're mistaken. Perhaps you would like to name a company that allows its employees to smokewhile working inddors?

"No offense, but it answers some questions for me."

No offense, but you don't know shit about me.

[johnnie]

20. I only work in my basement part time

Up until a few years ago I could have named a lot of companies that let you smoke. I smoked in the building while working for Waco scaffolding, I smoked in the building while working for Macey machine company. Visiting my father a few times while he was working at NASA, I would enjoy a cigarette with him right in his office. There are three names right off the bat.

Of course it hasn't been like that in years. You said you have never worked at a company that let you smoke, and that leads me to believe that you weren't in the workforce before 12-15 years ago.


I would like to see where you get your facts that making it illegal to smoke in some public places has cut into the tobacco industries profits? I have yet to meet one person who smoked quit smoking because they can't smoke at Arby's any longer.

To believe that people would even support even *more* legislation telling me what I can and can't do in my home is sickening. Support big government all you want, but don't start whining when they start telling you how to live your life.

[MGD]

22. A.)I'm an RN. It's my job to support healthy choices; B.) I won't support

a constitutional ammendment of this kind. No effin way; C.) I don't care for Gov. intrusion but I care less for corporate intrusion (which is why I am a Democrat in the first place incidentaly); and finally, D.) I enetred the workforce in 1987 and, since then, I have never had an indoor job where smoking wasn't highly regulated. I consider the increasing legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of smoking in this country as a good thing. As an RN who has seen hundreds of crying families standing at the bedside of a loved one who is dieing from lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, COPD, heart disease, or any number of other diseases directly attributed to smoking, I would encourage you to quit. Try the Chantrix, I hear it's pretty effective. I don't want to fight with you but I'm not about to support this constitutional ammendment.

[Deep13]

18. So no on 4, yes on 5.

That would protect employees everywhere and public customers everywhere.

[johnnie]

21. It is also another way of having your rights taken away

I am not big on taking choices away from people.

[Deep13]

23. There's no right to smoke.

To the extent that there is, the enormous public health concern easily trumps it. Smoking killed my grandmother and my Dad. This issue has been debated and debated, but suffice it to say for my end that there is no choice in an addiction.

[MGD]

24. Issue 4 takes away some major rights too

as in the rights of Ohioans to pass laws against smoking in public at the local level. At least 21 cities will have their anti-smoking laws overturned because of issue 4 and no city will ever again be able to pass similar laws. I'm sure smokers see this as a good thing; however, as a nurse, I see this as pure evil. You're voting to kill your children, your grandchildren, and quite probably your great grandchildren when you vote for issue 4 as constitutional ammendments are not easily undone. If you want to smoke yourself to death than go ahead but why do you want to empower the very corporations that killed you to kill your children too?

[mongo]

26. What grand hyperbole

You don't want to KILL CHILDREN do you?

:puke:

[MGD]

25. Voting yes on issue 4 is a vote to let RJ Reynolds kill your children.

Vote no on issue 4 and vote yes on issue 5. Don't do it for yourself, do it for your children and their children.

[Deep13]

27. We were promised a smoke-free society by 2000...

...by the govt. in the 1980s. It would be nice if future generations, if there are any, didn't have to deal with this.

You know in the 1970s when I was too young to have any say, the state took away my right to contract polio. What is this world coming to? :eyes: