Judge rules against antis in Ohio

[Kitabz]

... The law trumps the desires of the owner of a private business serving the public.

The biggest battle in Florida has involved "private" clubs, even ones like the American Legion, etc. They thought they were exempt, not being open to the public. Wrong. They have been stomped on, too. No smoking inside. ...

We went through this in the UK.

[Ignoring cinemas, malls and the like because they've been non-smoking for years at the wishes of the owners.] First it was supposed to be restaurants then they added bars that sell food. Then the antis were afraid that this would lead to confusion so they pushed for all bars except private clubs. Then the antis were afraid that bars would convert to private clubs so they were added too. In the end it's now all indoor public places and we, along with Ireland, enjoy the most draconian smoking laws in Europe, possibly the world (except maybe California!)

The only exemptions AFAIK are prisons and, yes, the bars inside the houses of parliament. Disgusting.

 

[sherid]

This is the second win this year for bar owners fighting the smoking ban in Ohio.
The case, Toledo tavern at center of Ohio smoking ban lawsuit : News : WNWO NBC24
The Ohio Supreme Court ruling
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2009/2009-ohio-5475.pdf
State Representative Stephen Dyer has also introduced a bill to end job discrimination against smokers in Ohio
Intro:
Smokers' rights groups and civil liberties advocates say the trend toward not hiring smokers in Ohio is discriminatory and could lead to bans against hiring others at risk of missing work.

"What about women of childbearing age? Will they be next?" said Pam Parker, co-founder of Opponents of Ohio Bans. "If tobacco were illegal, I would be totally behind what these companies are doing, but it's not."

Parker's group and others are backing a bill to be introduced soon into the Ohio legislature by State Rep. Stephen Dyer, D-Green, that would make it illegal to refuse to hire people who use tobacco products outside the workplace.

"While I applaud the idea of a drug-free workplace, a ban on tobacco redefines the concept," Dyer said.

Thirty states and the District of Columbia have made it illegal for employers to make employment decisions based on off-duty smoking. Two states -- California and Connecticut -- prohibit discrimination on the basis of all legal behavior. While the American Civil Liberties Union is opposed to nicotine-free hiring policies, Ohio's "employment at will" laws prevent the organization from doing anything about it, said Mike Brickner, a spokesman for the ACLU in Ohio.
www.tobacco.org

 

[Katattack]

TB I get what you're saying with your comparison (that there need to be some regulations on what business owners serving the public can and cannot allow) but race is inherent while behavior isn't. Among the behaviors that owners cannot (and for a good reason) allow are employees not washing hands, going barefoot, employees letting hair fall into food. This is where the Antis use the "for the health of patrons" re: smoking. It's a tricky area since it is other patrons engaging in the activity not just employees. I for one think that the ultimate regulation should be in the hands of the public. If smoking is allowed per the owner's decision and the public does/doesn't like it the business will succeed/fail thusly. If the owner chooses to be non-smoking and the public does/doesn't like it the business will likewise succeed/fail. These action groups should focus on public education and try to sway the consumers and owners to choose their idea instead of legislating it. Okay done throwing in my $.02.

 

[Lab]

where i was living in ohio once the ban started the loophole was private clubs you could smoke at so a few bar just charged $5 to become a member then it bypassed the ban

 

[eric]

A facility is not just HIS or HER place. It's a public place. It must abide by all applicable public laws.

Were it not so, you'd have people of color standing outside many doors still.

I'm sorry TB, but I don't believe anti-smoking laws are in any way similar to denying someone business or service based on the color of their skin. We are all equal under the eye of the Law and that equality is protected by that same law and by the Constitution.

 

[kristin]

but that's not the way the law works. It will not be an option for a business owner to decide on smoking or no smoking, once "no smoking" is the law. The law trumps the desires of the owner of a private business serving the public.

Bob, my point was for municipalities who are still CONSIDERING passing bans - that they should make it an option for businesses and encourage smokefree establishments with tax incentives. They are perfectly capable of writing the ban law that way. I'm not saying that it applies in areas that already have smoking bans.

It's not just restaurants and bars - bingo halls, pool halls, bowling alleys and casinos have been affected, too. It's a lot of jobs at stake, especially when you take into consideration all of the satellite businesses that service these, like food & liquor vendors, linen companies, cleaning services, garbage collectors, printers, uniform suppliers, etc.

Illinois banned smoking in casinos (non-reservation) and the casinos there are really hurting now. Casinos employ a LOT of people and contribute a lot to state revenues. Pretty soon we'll start seeing these laws repealed or amended. Other state governments are watching the Illinois casino revenues and taking them into consideration when writing their smoking bans. Funny how public health takes a back seat when the government starts losing money.

Anyhow, I'm aware that owners don't have a choice where laws have already been passed - I was referring to areas where they haven't passed the laws yet. I'm convinced the smoking bans are contributing more to unemployment than the government will admit. Some people blame the real estate market - but it's people losing jobs that caused them to foreclose in the first place! So, governments who are still on the fence about smoking laws need to seriously consider bans in businesses where the patrons can choose to be there or not, based on the smoking status.

 

[deewal]

It's not just restaurants and bars - bingo halls, pool halls, bowling alleys and casinos have been affected, too. It's a lot of jobs at stake, especially when you take into consideration all of the satellite businesses that service these, like food & liquor vendors, linen companies, cleaning services, garbage collectors, printers, uniform suppliers, etc.

Illinois banned smoking in casinos (non-reservation) and the casinos there are really hurting now. Casinos employ a LOT of people and contribute a lot to state revenues. Pretty soon we'll start seeing these laws repealed or amended. Other state governments are watching the Illinois casino revenues and taking them into consideration when writing their smoking bans. Funny how public health takes a back seat when the government starts losing money.

Anyhow, I'm aware that owners don't have a choice where laws have already been passed - I was referring to areas where they haven't passed the laws yet. I'm convinced the smoking bans are contributing more to unemployment than the government will admit. Some people blame the real estate market - but it's people losing jobs that caused them to foreclose in the first place! So, governments who are still on the fence about smoking laws need to seriously consider bans in businesses where the patrons can choose to be there or not, based on the smoking status.

That's what we thought in the UK kristin. We thought the Government would see sense after the destruction of all the industry you have just described and the hundreds of millions of £'s that have been lost and are still being lost, and the destruction of a whole way of social life.
The trouble is with patrons choosing to be there or not.
That is called Democracy which is not what the British Establishment want. What they want is a Dictatorship/Cororate run State which they are well on their way of achieving.
Our E-cigs will be banned and all vendors will be required to cease trading by July. I will be a Criminal for trying to stop Smoking Tobacco.
Even this form of Communication we are using is to be "regulated" sometime in the next year.

 

[rothenbj]

Deewal, could you clarify that statement about regulating the communication.
You can't possibly be saying how I read it!

 

[CaptJay]

I tried to look up about whats happening 'back home' in July (oddly a time I will be back there for a bit) but can find no mention of anything to do with PVs...perhaps you can clarify?

 

[laurieok]

laurieOK wrote
I just heard this on the radio and found it online! Another judge with common sense!!

As one who has been advocating smokefree workplace policies and laws since 1986 (including the 2007 statewide referenda in Ohio, that was approved by a large majority of voters), I don't understand why laurie believes that all nonsmokers should be involuntarily poisoned by tobacco smoke pollution every day simply because an addicted smoker wants to get a fix.

Does laurie similarly believe that DUI laws should be repealed because they inconvenience some folks who want to drive a car after getting drunk, smoking crack, or shooting up some ......?

Also, perhaps laurie could explain why she derogatorily calls smokefree advocates "antis"?

Regarding the court ruling in OH, dozens of other court rulings (including many in the same county) have upheld the OH smokefree workplace law, and it is highly likely that this ruling will be overturned on appeal.

If laurie or others want to advocate against smokefree workplace laws, I suggest going to the FORCES website at The FORCES International Liberty News Network

Virtually nobody posts on the FORCES website anymore because they aren't objective and have no credibility (because they claim that tobacco smoke pollution pose no health risks to nonsmokers, that smoking poses no health risks to smokers, and they constantly denigrate smokefree advocates by calling us Nazis, Gastopo, Communists, Jihadists, and of course Antis.

The few remaining right-to-smoke activists from FORCES are so desparate to recruit others to lobby against smokefree workplace laws that they've been posting their hate and misinformation on Mike Siegel's blog and more recently on this website.

I have been busy and have not had a chance to follow this thread. I would have spoken up sooner if I had seen it. First of all I said antis cause that what was said on the radio. I am sorry if this word upset you as I was just stating what I heard. I did not say it derogitory..I was repeating what I heard. I also said a judge with common sense. And I did mean a judge with common sense. Enough common sense to not hold an establishment responsible for a customer who lit a cigarette. Zeno's has signs up that say NO SMOKING and there is not an ashtray anywhere in sight. I was not saying it was ok to poison people! And how you can jump from cigarettes to DUI's is beyond me. I apologize if you feel that my saying what I heard on the radio and my take on it upset you. I meant no harm.

 

[lordmage]

if all laws are morally wrong we need to revolt. if we disagree with the current government or its head we need to get new ones. the only permanence is change any system that does not flow with the people is doomed to kill the people or make them leave. as i see it we really only have a few basic options.
1. love it/like it
2. hate it shove it
3. neutrality

regardless of the situation we must pick one of those and do everything in are power to assist in that choice.

 

[kristin]

That's what we thought in the UK kristin. We thought the Government would see sense after the destruction of all the industry you have just described and the hundreds of millions of £'s that have been lost and are still being lost, and the destruction of a whole way of social life.

It's already being reversed in some areas here, Deewal. Check out this post from another thread regarding New Jersey:

Actually, our cruddy govt. made smoking illegal in the casinos about a year ago, but casino business decreased (thus tax collections to the cruddy govt. decreased) so much they rescinded the law for a while.

Our government needs the revenue too badly, lol!

 

[jojogardener]

Laurieok...
excellent debating....this forum is most interesting....

 

[ThePuck]

I live in NO-hio myself, one of the original nanny states.

 

[wolffanatic]

We have a local bar here, that charges a $1.00 for an ashtray. So if they get hit with a fine they take it out of the ashtray fund.

 

[TropicalBob]

We'll be disagreeing when the cows come home, but look at TRENDS.

A news story this morning said a condominium association has banned smoking poolside at the condo's three outdoor pools. A legal opinion was sought by smokers, who really didn't see a problem with outdoor isolation! The condo association was within in its legal rights. New "no smoking" signs are now poolside.

And even worse, a test case is before Florida appellate courts on an association rule that bans smoking in privately owned condo units.

This is all so ... wrong. Makes no difference. The trend is to push smokers farther and farther out of any mainstream, indoor or outdoor, to price products increasingly out of reasonable reach, to stigmatize smokers as weak-willed or ignorant humans who don't deserve any sympathy for a chosen addiction they should "quit or die".

I have long feared the idea that e-smoking is in any way "smoking". It's NOT. There will be heavy prices to be paid if a court ultimately says e-cigs are tobacco products.

 

[deewal]

I tried to look up about whats happening 'back home' in July (oddly a time I will be back there for a bit) but can find no mention of anything to do with PVs...perhaps you can clarify?

Sorry it is June 21st not July and you will not find anything about it in the Mainstream Media (Television, Radio) as they have not been informed by the MHRA. Even my Doctor did'nt know about it even though the "Consultation Paper" is , according the MHRA's Website targeted at Health Professional's and the Public. They seem to have forgotten to notify the Health Professionals. The "Public" will only know about it they happen to be an E-Cig User and use the Web to look at UK Vaping Websites.
There are some Videos and Information here on ECF but there are also a few Videos at UK Vapers. A few of these Videos have English speaking people with English Regional accents. Also a few people mention Option 2 as 3 years. It is actually 1 year.
A video view of the UK regulation proposals and possible bans - UK Vapers

@ rothenbj What i mean is exactly what i wrote.
This forum as it discusses something that is illegal or "not suitable" could be blocked from UK users under new Internet Regulation which is proposed by Our Government. Similar to China and some Middle East Countries who we condemn for their record on Human Rights.

 

[kristin]

We'll be disagreeing when the cows come home, but look at TRENDS.

A news story this morning said a condominium association has banned smoking poolside at the condo's three outdoor pools. A legal opinion was sought by smokers, who really didn't see a problem with outdoor isolation! The condo association was within in its legal rights. New "no smoking" signs are now poolside.

And even worse, a test case is before Florida appellate courts on an association rule that bans smoking in privately owned condo units.

This is all so ... wrong. Makes no difference. The trend is to push smokers farther and farther out of any mainstream, indoor or outdoor, to price products increasingly out of reasonable reach, to stigmatize smokers as weak-willed or ignorant humans who don't deserve any sympathy for a chosen addiction they should "quit or die".

I have long feared the idea that e-smoking is in any way "smoking". It's NOT. There will be heavy prices to be paid if a court ultimately says e-cigs are tobacco products.

Just because it's ruled a tobacco product doesn't mean it's "smoking." Snus, snuff and chew are all tobacco products and using them isn't smoking.

I agree with your post otherwise, though.

And as an addition - smoking was considered evil because it infringed upon other people's space and possibly put them in harm's way. incotine was vilified as the cause of smoking and is commonly mistaken as the "bad" part of smoking. Yes, we may be addicted to nicotine, but as long as our nicotine use doesn't infringe upon other's, it's just a bad habit. No different than any other habit that people may have - over eating, a glass of wine a night, nail biting, etc. and therefore makes us no more weak-willed or ignorant than the average person.

 

[rothenbj]

Deewal, that's exactly what I had visions of when I read your post, the censorship that we as free nations so readily abhorred. Our governments seem to constantly move closer to the policies that we fought against in the name of freedom.

When I look back over the last sixty years, I am amazed how different the world is perceived and controlled. We shall become part of a standardized culture or become social outcasts. All for the good of Corporate World. Globalization has a far greater meaning than I first imagined when I first heard about it.

But hey, Itunes just sold it's 10 billionth song.

 

[sherid]

We'll be disagreeing when the cows come home, but look at TRENDS.

A news story this morning said a condominium association has banned smoking poolside at the condo's three outdoor pools. A legal opinion was sought by smokers, who really didn't see a problem with outdoor isolation! The condo association was within in its legal rights. New "no smoking" signs are now poolside.

And even worse, a test case is before Florida appellate courts on an association rule that bans smoking in privately owned condo units.

This is all so ... wrong. Makes no difference. The trend is to push smokers farther and farther out of any mainstream, indoor or outdoor, to price products increasingly out of reasonable reach, to stigmatize smokers as weak-willed or ignorant humans who don't deserve any sympathy for a chosen addiction they should "quit or die".

I have long feared the idea that e-smoking is in any way "smoking". It's NOT. There will be heavy prices to be paid if a court ultimately says e-cigs are tobacco products.

If I had a mortgage on a condo that did this, I would immediately stop paying it and allow it to go into foreclosure. If I cannot do what I want in a home that takes a big chunk of my income, I might as well live in a trailer.