Issue #2 ,3,4 &5

[doc03]

I have been hearing an advertisement opposing Issue #2. They never mention the Issue is for increasing the minimum wage, they claim there is wording in it that will take away peoples privacy? Can't these people be charged for false statements or something. They have been doing the same thing on Issue #3 all they say is "there will be allot of good come from this" no mention of it being a gambling bill. Then there is Issue #4 that will strike down any local laws restricting smoking in public areas or the work place and it is retroactive! Then Issue #5 they claim it will make it illegal to smoke in your own house.

[Lerkfish]

1. ok, as I understand it, here's the deal on issue 3, 4 and 5 anyways

issue 4 is being funded 97% by RJReynolds tobacco. That should tell you all you need to know, but here's more:

in a nutshell, the difference between 4 and 5 is that 4 makes the choice to become smokely up to the individual bar and restaurant owners (essentially what we have now) but attempts to lock that in place by making it constitutional.
Issue 5 is more of a consistent restriction of smoking, despite individual wishes of bar owners, restauranteers and tobacco companies. And it does not interfere with the current constitution.

Issue 3 is being funded by Casino and gambling interests. That shoudl tell you all need to know, but here's more:

again, Issue 3 wants to change the constitution to make it difficult to change something if it passes. What do they want to keep unchangeable: the house's cut on slot machines. They want a constitutionally mandated percentage (I forget the exact number, say for argument it's 65%) that the casino interests skim off the top, no matter what.

What should scare us that these two issues are paid for by people whom we shouldn't trust, and is trying to alter the existing constitution to do so.
AND, they're lying about what the issues are really about. That should raise all sorts of red flags to everyone.

why constituional? because they KNOW once something is in the state constitution, it requires a long drawn out process to remove it, even if that's possible. However, if these were just normal legistlation, they could be rescinded or voted out at will by the public.


IN other words, this represents a scary precedent of big corporations and industries with shady backgrounds (casinos...they aint the boy scouts) mucking with lawmaking, lying about what they are doing AND making it unreachable for change from the voters.

that should scare the crap out of all of us.

[Deep13]

2. Okay, here it is.

#2: Raises minimum wage which we all know. It also has certain disclosure provisions to monitor compliance. Many "experts" say the provision is over-reaching. Frankly, the socialist in me says that unions ought to have access to this kind of information and employees ought to know how they are being treated comared to others.

#3: I think the idea that college funding will be dependant on casino gambling seems like a pretty bizzare way to fund a necessary service. If the state wants casino gambling it ought to be approved generally (and not for a select few out-of-state licensees) for it's own sake. Of course most Ohio voters are against gambling, hence the effort to spin it as pro-education. Since I am against this kind of hokey idea anyway, I have not researched the particulars of who gets what.

#4: If passed, this issue will nullify #5. Like #3, it is funded by out of state economic interests, the cigarette industry in particular. It is a partial smoking ban for places of public accomodation. It will not effect bars or restaurants and will OVERTURN local smoking bans. Since it is a constitutional amendment, it will also prevent the state from passing more comprehensive bans in the future. The purpose of #4 is to stop #5. I have heard discussion that suggests if this passes then non-smoking restaurants will be required to install a smoking section. I do not know if that is true, but I doubt it.

#5: This is the comprehensive public, indoor smoking ban designed to protect all employees and customers from second-hand smoke. It does not effect the right to smoke in ones own home unless it is a place of business with employees or customers. If passed it will be ordinary statute-law and NOT a constitutional amendment. This means that the legislature will be able to excercise its ordinary power to expand or reduce the ban. All the health organizations like the Lung Assn. and the healthcare industry support #5 as does the ODP. If #4 and #5 pass, then only #4 becomes effective law.