Judge rules against antis in Ohio

[laurieok]

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

Ruling Deals Blow To Ohio's Anti-Smoking Ban - :: Cincinnati news story :: LOCAL 12 WKRC-TV in Cincinnati

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Nice find Laurie!! I hope they update the story.


Sun

 

[malyden]

Yea!!!!!

 

[tarheeldan]

Good stuff Establishments shouldn't be liable for unruly customer behavior if they've done their best to prevent and stop it:

Judge David Cain says the department fined Zeno's despite "no smoking" signs, the removal of ashtrays and requests by employees that smokers extinguish cigarettes.

 

[SheerLuckHolmes]

This is great, but I would have liked more details, why the citations, why ten of them, was it the owner who was smoking? customers? Etc, Etc

 

[tarheeldan]

Here are related articles on the same news if you want to get a better feel for the details:
1
2
3

The implication is that the violators were patrons and either some sort of official noticed the smoking or (not stated, presumed by me) citizens called it in. This isn't the whole story of course - I too would like to know why 10 violations....if they happened over a long period of time it sounds more like the establishment had a "culture" that allowed smoking rather than over-drunk customers sparking up or something.

 

[River]

Hey dammit! don't mess with that ban then the people will stop coming across the river and giving all their money to the Covington and Newport bars!!!

That Ohio consumer money is lightening my tax load make that bar pay!!!!

LOL!

 

[Nulli]

There are a number of bars in my location (Ohio) that allow smoking. I guess I should say they just look the other way. Signs are up, no ashtrays, but everyone still smokes. Some of these bars have had over 100 citations.

 

[Bill Godshall]

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Does laurie similarly believe that DUI laws should be repealed because they inconvenience some folks who want to drive a car after getting drunk, smoking crack, or shooting up some ......?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

 

[Iwannaquit4good]

Gotta love the smart judges!!!

 

[JLeigh]

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.

I can't speak for laurieOK, but my own thoughts are:

A non-smoking customer who voluntarily patronizes a privately-owned smoking establishment is not being involuntarily poisoned by tobacco smoke pollution. A non-smoking employee who voluntarily works in a privately-owned smoking establishment is not being involuntarily poisoned by tobacco smoke pollution.

 

[curiousJan]

A non-smoking customer who voluntarily patronizes a privately-owned smoking establishment is not being involuntarily poisoned by tobacco smoke pollution. A non-smoking employee who voluntarily works in a privately-owned smoking establishment is not being involuntarily poisoned by tobacco smoke pollution.

+10

While I agree the public/government buildings should be smoke free, I believe that private business owners should be allowed to make that choice themselves. People who do not wish to be exposed to SHS should neither patronize nor work there.

I believe the broad, sweeping bans that are in place now are severe and go against the very fabric upon which the United States was formed ... Freedom.

Jan

 

[TropicalBob]

That sounds rah-rah good, but this issue has many legal precedents going against arbitrary owner decisions on smoking/no smoking. Florida settled this long ago, with a decision by the Supreme Court. You do NOT smoke in any building that can be frequented by the public. Period. What a business desires is irrelevant under the law.

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.

Bill is likely correct that any ruling that does not uphold no smoking laws will be overturned. This battle is not winnable in light of all we now know about smoking hazards to smokers and others.

 

[curiousJan]

That sounds rah-rah good, but this issue has many legal precedents going against arbitrary owner decisions on smoking/no smoking. Florida settled this long ago, with a decision by the Supreme Court. You do NOT smoke in any building that can be frequented by the public. Period. What a business desires is irrelevant under the law.

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.

Bill is likely correct that any ruling that does not uphold no smoking laws will be overturned. This battle is not winnable in light of all we now know about smoking hazards to smokers and others.

I wasn't speaking to legal climate ... I was speaking philosphically, TB.

And your apples-to-oranges comparison of discrimination based on race to a private business owners choices for their establishment is just that, apples-to-oranges comparison, imho.

Jan

 

[malyden]

From what I read it's not the smoking ban that's being disputed but the fact that the establishment gets fined not the patron braking the ban.

 

[curiousJan]

From what I read it's not the smoking ban that's being disputed but the fact that the establishment gets fined not the patron braking the ban.

Oh yeah, that was my understanding upon reading the article as well.

Jan

 

[PlanetScribbles]

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"?

I'd agree with you on all of that Bill, IF the anti-smoking lobby hadn't got over zealous and come after vaping too.
When they did that, they made the entire smoking ban fair game for vapers IMO.
I actually agree with the smoking ban, and I agree that SHS can kill. But the antis (not meant as a disparaging term) overstepped their bounds, and any adverse payback is on their heads as I see it.

 

[kristin]

I think smoking bans are great if people are allowed to vape. From my understanding, a lot of businesses are going under where smoking bans have been passed. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/ec...urants-opinions-contributors-smoking-ban.html Those businesses would remain open if people could vape. Even better - more people would be turned on to smokefree alternatives!

I agee that all public places that people may not have a choice to go into should be smokefree. However, I believe privately owned bars and restaurants should have the option to be smokefree or not. The almighty dollar will say whether or not it was a good choice. Maybe license smoking bars or give tax breaks to non-smoking bars, to assure there are enough places for non-smokers to go. If non-smokers don't want to be exposed to smoke, they have 2,000 other bars and restaurants to choose from.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banstudies.html

That said - people should quit smoking and vape instead and all of the above replace "smoking" with "vaping."

 

[stroh22]

Nicely stated, Kristin.

 

[TropicalBob]

I fully agree with the thinking behind Kristin's post -- 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.

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.

Our dilemma as vapers is that if e-cigs are classified as a "tobacco" product, we could well face the same fate as smokers where bans are concerned. I'd like to see individual business owners, such as those of bars or restaurants, be able to allow vaping. But be on the watch for more laws tossing e-cigarettes in no-smoking bans applied to all smoking of tobacco products.

Then it won't be an owner's choice to allow vaping or not.