Smoke ban put on hold maybe up to 6 months

[johnnie]

Smoking ban won't be enforced for now

"CINCINNATI — Attorneys representing a trade group that filed a lawsuit trying to block Ohio's new smoking ban agreed Thursday to put their lawsuit on hold in exchange for assurance by the state that it would not enforce the ban until the law's rules are in place.

Attorneys for the trade group and for the Ohio Department of Health say that, under a requested consent decree, the state would not issue any warning letters or fines for complaints it receives before the law's rules and regulations are completed. Lawyers said they expect to file the agreement Friday in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

The smoking ban, which went into effect Thursday, was approved Nov. 7 by 58 percent of Ohio voters. The state has until June 7 to finalize rules and regulations but hopes to have them in place in May."


http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/12/07/mj120706smokingweb.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=16

[MeDeMax]

1. glad to hear there will be a transition period ...

I hope the trade group succeeds in repealing the more extreme measures in the ban.

Some balance has to be restored, IMHO.

[POAS]

2. Balance was restored

by passage of this law, IMHO.

[MeDeMax]

3. I ain't taking the bait, have a nice day -- n/t

[mongo]

10. Yeah, not allowing a business to make any accomidation

for its smoking employees is "balance".

:sarcasm:

We can't even smoke in our breakroom with separete ventilation, even though ALL our employees smoke.

[Deep13]

17. Really, what 'balance' can you have between public health and disease.

f we were taking about cholera rather than something people do to themselves, this would not be an issue.

[POAS]

22. I wasn't sure where you were going

with your post in reply to mine but after reading you other posts in this thread I find we are in agreement.

This IS a public health issue. I have NO quarrel with tobacco chewers because their use does not infringe on my live or health. Any damage they do is to themselves and not to others. Smokers on the other hand not only infringe on my rights they also endanger my health and the health on everyone around them.

[MeDeMax]

4. Even back when I was a smoker ...

I always disliked smoking indoors, among other things I couldn't enjoy the aroma of burning tobacco when
I lit up, if I was constantly breathing it indoors.

I especially disliked Apple-Bees allowing Cigars smoking at the bar, just a few feet from family seating.

Having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants was such a joke, basic chemistry of gases will
tell you how quickly things disperse.

Several people have referred to the successful bans in California, there is just one little fact no one
has bothered to mention, you don't freeze your ass and your face off when you step out for a smoke in Calif.

Bars & restaurants that provide a modest accommodation of partially heated area connecting to the outside
that doesn't circulate air back in will likely get better reception.

[johnnie]

5. The truth is..

This isn't really about smoking to me. There is a reason why this is being shelved for 6 months, they were so intent on stopping smoking, they didn't think it out. There was no thought on business owner's rights, it all had to do with getting the nasty smokers to stop without thinking about the laws.

[MeDeMax]

6. You nailed it ...

I am no lawyer, but lawsuits against the state for lost biz & revenue could prevail if
restaurateurs experience a sharp decline. After all they opened the biz under one set of
rules and then the rules changed overnight, they had no control over the change in rules.

It only seems fair that the state should make up for the lost revenue if there is lost
revenue, or buy the biz at fair market value as appraised before the ban.

They were in such a hurry to shove the ban down smokers' throats that they didn't stop to
consider the ramifications.

A couple of days ago I heard a trucker complaining on the radio that she can't risk smoking
in the cab since it is space owned/rented by her employer. The lady from whatever group that
was answering the question said "Oh we never meant to target truck drivers with the ban,
you won't be cited since no one will complain about you smoking by yourself in your truck cab".

It just sounded like the president pardoning the thanksgiving turkey -
"don't you worry dear (trucker) turkey, you won't be slaughtered by this ban, because who
wants turkey after thanksgiving anyway"

[geiger]

7. Even private owners of service companies like plumbers or electricians, for example,

cannot smoke in their vehicles if they are taking it to a place of work or have other non-family members that need to drive the vehicle.

[GOTV]

9. I don't think lost revenues will be significant.

"lawsuits against the state for lost biz & revenue"

We'll have to wait and see but the 4 bars I went to last night all went non-smoking and all were pretty full. The smokers couldn't stay home one night.

"they had no control over the change in rules."

They had a vote like everyone else.

"It just sounded like the president pardoning the thanksgiving turkey "

Well, she's right. For now. Enforcement will be based on complaints. No complaints? No penalties.

[Deep13]

16. No. The voters specifically rejected the watered-down alternative.

A majority wanted strick control. I don't think this will hurt most businesses. Even if it does, the benefits to society greatly outweight any drawbacks. CA, MA, NY, AZ, WA and others have similar bans with no adverse effects.

[MeDeMax]

8. One of my customers SPAMMED me a dozen times, to support the band ...

He must have me on a personal mailing list of some kind and I think he is a member in one of the
organizations that was involved with passing the ban.

I had several - "No on 4, Yes or 5" - emails from him. I laughed because nearly everyone at his biz,
including his two children who are also employed there, smoke.

[Deep13]

14. Sounds like a compelling argument to me.

Not only are employees killing themselves, but that disfunctional behavior is being passed down to their children.

With freedom comes responsibility. If one is irresponsible, he looses the freedom and the responsibility.

[MeDeMax]

20. please re-read my post ...

the owner is a non-smoker, his children and his employees are smokers. He can ban
smoking at his biz anytime he wants to. There is no compelling argument here.

[Deep13]

27. The fact he chooses not to is a compelling argument for state intervention.

Freedom is not license for irresponsibility. A person has the freedom to raise his or her children the way he wants. When that freedom is used to select starvation and abuse, the state takes that freedom away. Even free speech can be curtailed if it becomes threatening or is used to plan a crime. The fact that people not only smoke but allow others to be exposed to it forty years after its true danger became widely know if cause to accept that people are not being responsible. The fact that companies keep making the stuff knowing it will kill people in huge numbers is beyond belief.

[AngryOldDem]

11. Common sense prevails. I'm shocked. n/t

[NoBushSpokenHere]

12. Wooooooooooo hooooooooo :)

I am a happy smoker again! Maybe I won't have to shut down my business after all :)

[Deep13]

13. Goddammit

There already was a transition period. 30 days. Fucking lawsuits. The voters have spoken on this. They specifically rejected a watered-down version. I've been waiting decades for there to be a rational policy on indoor air pollution. Sorry, waitresses, bartenders, industrial workers and others. You still have to choose between feeding your families or protecting your health.

Unlike reproduction, medical decisions, religion and other personal matters, there is only one right answer to whether or not a person should smoke. 400,000 dead Americans each year is pretty compelling evidence. On other other hand, smoking offers no benefits except to quel anxiety that was caused by nicotine withdrawal. Where there is only one right answer to a question, we should stop pretending it is a freedom of choice issue.

We cannot be serious about healthcare reform until we are willing to control costs by addressing the causes of disease. Smoking is one gigantic cause.

If this ban is undone, I'm going to buy Phillip Morris stock out of spite. If people are too goddamn stupid to do the right thing, then at least I can profit from their misery.

No one who dies from a respitory disorder dies well.

[MeDeMax]

18. there are two issues at heart here ...

Public Health hazard and exercising an unsafe & unhealthy BUT legal choice.

The smokers are screaming bloody murder because their rights are being infringed on.

The anti-smokers (not the same as non-smokers) could care less what the smokers want,
they want to stampede the smokers without any concessions citing public health reasons.

This passage of this ban did not strike a balance between the two sides, so it remains
to be seen what will come of it.

[Deep13]

26. Sounds like a corporate media news sort of balance to me.

Fifteen minutes of fact balanced with fifteen minutes of lies. I do care what they want. That does not change the evidence. I would rather smokers lived than killed themselves. There is only one set of facts here. Smoking kills and in gigantic numbers. Smokers don't want to smoke. Obviously they would not be poisoning themselves if it were not for the addiction.

People can shout freedom of choice all they want, but when there is only one right answer then it is no virtue to seek balance by giving equal consideration to the wrong answer. If I wanted to shoot my neighbor, would a balanced solution allow me to burn his house down instead? Besides, the public was aware of all three arguments (no change, issue 4 or issue 5). They've decided. They chose to curtain greatly a major cause of disease. They chose the hardline over the watered-down version. Now are we going to respect the democratic process or not? Are we going to live by the law or not. I received a partial answer today. Business are not waiting for the state to be breathing down their necks. Everyplace I went today was complying with the ban. Good for them. And for me.

[Deep13]

15. Of course cops can still write tickets.

They don't work for the state.

[MeDeMax]

19. what's next anti-smoking cops ?

Come on now, be reasonable. They do work for cities townships or counties.

A scenario comes to mind :

Sir please put your hands on the steering wheel where I can see them...is that a cigarette I see
in your hand ?...base, we may have a code 5 violation...I repeat we may have a code 5 violation...
maam what is the nature of your relationship with this gentleman ?...did you just say he was going
to pay you for sex ?...base, we have a confirmed code 5 violation...I repeat, we have a confirmed
code 5 violation...sir, did you know that the inside of your vehicle is her place of employment ?
...you are being fined for violating the smoking ban.

[MeDeMax]

21. IF you enjoyed this post, please nominate it -- n/t

[Kolesar]

23. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[MeDeMax]

24. sorry, I forgot -- n/t

[Kolesar]

25. Just funnin' you...eom

[Deep13]

28. Cities and townships are not the AG's office.

Theoretically, it is all state authority, but the Ohio constitution does not see it that way. Yes, police write tickets for misdemeanors. The fact that fines are paid to the locality is incentive to do so. I doubt vehicles are places of employment, so I think the truck cap example is a red herring. A place means a stationary location, not the ten square feet under the truck at any given moment. Anyway, in your example the prostitute would qualify under the "family business" exception where compainies where all the employees are relatives are not required to comply with the ban. A sole proprietor is necessarily a family business. In truth I suspect municipal enforcement would be about as consistent as it is against littering.