Judge rules against antis in Ohio

[Drozd]

I've been a resident of Ohio all my life.. The thing is that the state and local smoking bans here were a HUGE cluster$&#$ when they were implimented...
First you had several local bans directly competing and in conflict with the state ban as far as exeptions and wording in strictness all at the same time the others were trying to pass..
First there was the whole seperate smoking room and ventalation "ban" ban that passed, and bars spent thousands and thousand of dollars to comply with that..
And then the state ban was proposed and the bar owners fought against tooth and nail..
The state ban went on the ballot and included some exemptions and was voted on...and then it was changed AFTER the vote to eliminate the exemptions..
Now recently allowing casinos into the state was voted on and passed..but guess what they're exempt from the smoking ban..

Now for a little more background...back in 2004 (i believe it was) Toledo had the highest smoking per capita population in the entire US and I believe Ohio itself was in the top 5 in smokers per state...
So theres A LOT of bitterness as far as bar owners go in reguards to the smoking ban...many of them have the we don't care it's "our" place and won't enforce the ban attitude...
The health department..is supposed to catch the smoker and issue fines to the smoker and the establishment..but are just walking in and fining the establishment..
The establishment owners are using the excuse "we have signs up, removed ashtrays, and told them to stop or take it outside...what else can we do" and this seems to be what these judges are agreeing with...that you cant hold the bar solely responsible and fine solely them when they've executed a resonable amount of due dilligence...

I will tell you this though...being in Toledo....any bar or locally owned resturant that I go into and ask about vaping....they are excited and allow it many of them because of said bitterness and the fact that it doesn't fall into the ban so they can allow it and the Health department can't do squat...
I'm in the skilled trades and I see a HIGH number of my union brothers and other skilled trades like electricians, masons, carpenters making the switch to PVs to avoid the hassles of smoking bans from worksite to worksite..

 

[Thulium]

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.

I know what you're saying, but one doesn't follow the other. E-cigarettes being considered tobacco products does not change the definition of "smoking"--which is a product of combustion which is basically impossible with electronic cigarettes.

There are plenty of tobacco products that are not subject to anti-smoking laws--I believe you are known for your use of them.

Back on topic, the question in the OP is not whether or not indoor smoking bans on private businesses is right or wrong...the question here is What extent are business owners responsible for enforcing the ban on their consumers? In this case it does look like the Judge considered in this particular case the owner had already made a reasonable attempt to comply with the law and therefore was not liable. That seems quite reasonable to me.

 

[deewal]

Ex-landlord jailed over smoking ban at Bolton pubs
BBC News - Ex-landlord jailed over smoking ban at Bolton pubs
Nick Hogan lost his job after he was convicted of breaching the ban
A former pub landlord who is thought to be the first person in the UK to be jailed after flouting the smoking ban is "devastated", his wife says.
Nick Hogan, 43, from Chorley, was sentenced to six months in prison for failing to pay fines for smoking ban breaches at his two Bolton pubs.
Hogan was found guilty of breaching the smoking ban in January 2008 at the Swan and the Barristers pubs he ran.
His wife Denise said the couple "never expected" he would be imprisoned.
The original hearing was told that on the day the ban came into force he organised a "mass light-up" in the two pubs.
"He hasn't harmed anybody and he isn't a criminal" said Denise Hogan.

He was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £7,136 in costs.
Mrs Hogan, 53, said that following the conviction her husband lost his job and was unable to keep up with the £125-a-week fine payments.
He was jailed on Friday by magistrates in Bolton.
Mrs Hogan said: "He's not a smoking campaigner or anything like that.
"He didn't want to change the law, he just thought if people wanted to smoke it should be their choice.
"We never expected him to go to jail. He hasn't harmed anybody and he isn't a criminal.
"He was allowed to ring me from jail last night but we could only speak for just two minutes. He is devastated."

As you can see, hear in the wonderful Totalitarian State of Britain the Owner of the Establishment is Breaking the Law by not Enforcing the States Smoking Ban. The people Smoking are not charged as it is not a Criminal Offence to Smoke a Cigarette. If the Owner of the Establishment had tried to stop the Smokers from Smoking and they refused then he should have called the Police who would have responded to this terrible crime by arresting the offender's and charged them with "breaching the peace" which might have got them a £50 fine.
Clever eh ? Make the owner of his own pub responsible to carry out the Policing of the States Enforcment of this Draconian Law.
That is exactly how the Gestapo managed to terrorise the population of Germany using the minimum of manpower. Denounce thy Neighbour or face the consequences of their actions.

 

[Thulium]

No offense to our friends across the pond, but... Where do you find a judge that can in good conscience put someone in jail for failing to enforce a law that the police can't or won't?

 

[deewal]

UK Vapers - View Single Post - Pub Landlord Jailed for Allowing Smoking

 

[PaulCincy]

Hello Everyone,
Been following this local story a lot....The jest behind it, isn't so much the smoking ban, but who is getting the fine and why....The resturant in question is really just one of about 10 in the local area, that have been fined for allowing people to smoke in their establishments....They are stating that the person(s) involved should be fined, seeing that they (the resturants) can't police everyone what walks into the place....
Having said that,,,,here in Cincy,,,the smoking ban has hurt the local bars a lot...Especially since everyone that smokes,,,,just cross the bridge to KY (Covington) and can smoke in the bars where it is legal... Wife and I still do this every weekend...
Bottom line.... Cincy is losing a lot of business because of the Ohio smoking ban...
Take care,
and enjoy,
PaulCincy...

 

[Bill Godshall]

There is no objective evidence indicating that smokefree workplace laws have hurt any segment of business or industry (except the cigarette industry).

All of the many so-called studies and surveys that concluded that smokefree laws hurt restaurants, bars, casinos, etc. were funded by the cigarette industry for the sole purpose of misleading the public and scaring restauranteurs, tavern owners and casino owners to join forces with cigarette companies in lobbying against smokefree workplace laws.

Back in 1987 when I campaigned to enact the Pittsburgh Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance (that banned smoking in all office buildings, stores and most other workplaces except for restaurants and bars), the cigarette industry even issued a so-called study
(the day before city council was set to vote on the ordinance) claiming that restaurants would lose money and go out of business if they had to provide a no smoking section (as the new law required restaurants to provide a no smoking area covering a minimum of 15% of tables, and required restaurants to ask customers if they wanted to sit in the smoking or non smoking section).

And of course, the local restaurant association and more than a dozen restauranteurs opposed offering a no smoking section, claiming that NONE of their customers were bothered by tobacco smoke pollution.

After the law was passed, most restaurants only provided a very small no smoking area (as that's all the law required). But within a few years (after finding out what their customers really wanted because they had to ask customers what section they wanted to sit in), nearly all of the restaurants had expanded their no-smoking sections to encompass most of tables, and many restaurants just went totally smokefree (because they realized that very few of their customers, including the smokers, wanted to sit in a smoking section while eating).

For the next 20 years 1987-2007), the PA Restaurant Association (which like all other restaurant associations was funded lobbied by cigarette companies) aggressively opposed legislation to ban smoking in restaurants (always claiming that it would hurt restaurants economically). But after I (and others) successfully convinced about 80% of restaurants in the state to voluntarily go smokefree), the PA Rest. Assoc suddenly changed its position 180 degrees by endorsing the smokefree restaurant legislation, and claiming that it wouldn't hurt their businesses.

Same thing occurred in most states, and most state restaurant associations subsequently admitted that aggressively lobbying and funding by cigarette companies was the only reason they had previously oppose smokefree workplace laws. Basically, they admitted that they were either bought off or duped by the cigarette companies into believing these laws would hurt restaurant's business.

Same thing has occurred with tavern associations in many different states.

But back to the issue of e-cigarettes, the reason why I strongly oppose banning e-cigarette usage in workplaces (as NJ recently did) is because e-cigarettes (unlike real cigarettes) don't pollute the air that others have to breathe.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Thulium wrote:

No offense to our friends across the pond, but... Where do you find a judge that can in good conscience put someone in jail for failing to enforce a law that the police can't or won't?

The bar owner who was jailed in the UK repeatedly flaunted the law and told his customers that they could smoke in his bar even though doing so was illegal, and then he repeately refused to pay the fines.

Nearly all smokefree workplace laws require the employer or management to make good faith efforts to comply with the law (e.g. posting no smoking signs, removing ash trays, and informing anyone who lights up that they aren't permitted to do so).

Also, nearly all smokefree workplace laws are enforced by Health Departments (not by police), and nearly all violators are given one or two written warnings before any fines are even issued.

Virtually every bar owner/manager who has been cited for violating a smokefree workplace law has been a repeat offender, and most of these owners/managers tell their customers that they can smoke in the bar (in violation of the law).

While I understand that many e-cigarette users and many smokers still believe cigarette industry propaganda about secondhand smoke and about smokefree policies/laws (as the industry spent several billion dollars during the past 25 years misleading smokers, resteratuers, bar and casino owers), I don't want to spend my time on this forum discussing the issue (as there is too much work to be done to protect the rights of e-cigarette users).

Also, several right-to-smoke activists have been posting misleading and divisive notes on this website trying to promote their agenda (because virtually nobody reads or posts on the right-to-smoke websites anymore).

 

[Janetda]

I’m sorry Bill, but saying things like, the “so-called” studies and blaming every thing on tobacco companies just sounds like more anti-tobacco rederic. I think each state is different, but I also think that different kinds of businesses service different types of customers. I live in California and when we were sectioned off, I almost always had to wait for a table if I wanted to sit in the smoking section at a coffee shop, family diner or bar, not as often if I went to an upscale restaurant.
While I very much appreciate what you do for the e-cig community, I don’t believe any “so-called” scientific study that starts with an agenda. And the more you blame the tobacco companies for disseminating false info and dismiss smokers opinions, the less I believe your message. The workplace bans only work because we go along with it. Consider that there are more smokers in the US than there are Hispanic people. As these bans lead to more outrageous bans, now going as far as apartments and condos, beaches and parks, there will only be so much we can take before we start completely ignoring your anti-tobacco message and the laws.

 

[esdel]

Thulium wrote:

Also, several right-to-smoke activists have been posting misleading and divisive notes on this website trying to promote their agenda (because virtually nobody reads or posts on the right-to-smoke websites anymore).

Why is it "divisive" for right-to-smoke activists to promote their agenda, but not "divisive" for you to promote yours? The use of this word to de-legitimize others' opinions seems to be a fad lately.

The definition of "divisive" is causing disagreement or hostility within a group so that it is likely to split. You seem to imply that all good, decent people naturally share your opinion, until some rabblerouser comes along to lead them astray. However, there is no "group" to "split" here, because people are already divided on this issue. Expressing ones honest opinion is not divisiveness.

 

[THeGAMe]

Here is my problem with smoking bans.
This really chaps my ... and shows how bad the entitlement complex is, in the States at least.

When people feel they have the right to tell someone who owns a buisness they will never visit what they can do with a legal product in their own property, something is wrong with how they are wired. They have a choice to go to a thousand different bars they can have smoke free, but thats not good enough.

And then they vote for "sin taxes" to keep them from paying thier fair share of taxes. Whats funny is that they are worried about their greedy, selfish lives, and how long they will last, no matter who gets screwed as long as they live long enough to be a burden.

Here in WA State, the tobacco tax was voted on, and passed with the understanding that those funds would go to awareness, prevention and treatment. 45% of those funds have been redirected to the general fund cover a 2 billion dollar deficit in government spending. No one seems to care because they dont smoke and get to pay less taxes. But raise the sales tax and by god its time for revolution!!

The tax rate will shortly be $3+ a pack here in WA when they get done with the budget. Top that with the raise in prices to make up for the loss of sales and I might as well go to Canada to get smokes. But now I vape, and for the moment, that crap is all behind me untill they come after a new revenue source.

Ill say it, and Ill mean it. They are Anti American and spit in the face of all of the tobacco farmers that helped build this counrty, and the freedom we all hold dear. Then, for the government to not outlaw the product, but take advantage of addicts, and steal money from funding that keeps kids from using said products makes me sick.

This country needs an enema!

*rant mode off*
Sorry..
8-o

 

[rothenbj]

.Okay, I was in the process of reading this thread as the Phila. news was coming on. I was going to pass on commenting until the topic of a proposed $.02 tax, by the city, on soda was brought up. Mayor Nutter was in a local diner selling his proposal to the patrons. There was a women there that took exception to the tax. Apparently her husband worked for Coca-cola and they were told that the tax could lead to layoffs. She was incensed.

Mayor Nutter explained that people could drink water rather than soda and that soda was not nearly as healthy. Obviously he didn't know why she was so angry. Her immediate response to the health issue was that "well, smoking is not healthy for you".

Translated, add more tax burden on the already overtaxed minority and leave my life alone. You cannot keep discriminating against a minority of the people when there many more unhealthy activities in society.

I'm a non-smoker now and unless they ban what finally freed me from cigarettes, I'll remain an ex-smoker. I don't think they have enough time to ban e cigs or snus before I'm far enough from smoking cigarettes that I'll ever go back. I'm really well stocked at this point.

Here in Pa., the laws haven't reached a total ban. Bars that are below a certain percentage off food sales still can allow smoking. That seems to bother some of the non-smoking establishments because the smokers do go to where they are able to smoke. Bill is correct, of smoking is banned everywhere, out will over time spread the business out and it will become a non-issue. At least for those that continue to need socialization.

Smoking actually bothers me now, unbelievably, but I'd be the last person to support a totally smoke free environment. I consider it in-American. Where has freedom gone to? If the smoking bothers me, I'll just go somewhere else. At the rate things are going, most smokers will have to quit or find a healthier, less expensive alternative. I just have a problem making smokers second class citizens on the "land of the free".

 

[deewal]

Thulium wrote:

No offense to our friends across the pond, but... Where do you find a judge that can in good conscience put someone in jail for failing to enforce a law that the police can't or won't?

The bar owner who was jailed in the UK repeatedly flaunted the law and told his customers that they could smoke in his bar even though doing so was illegal, and then he repeately refused to pay the fines.

Quoted from the BBC website, the official mouthpiece of the UK Government Mr Godshall.

Councillor Pat Karney, NHS director of Smoke Free Greater Manchester, said the pub was breaking the law.

Mr Hogan (The bar owner) said: "I am just a little bit surprised that Mr Karney does not realise that smokers have rights and also that smokers are voters.
"We are not asking for this legislation to be overturned whatsoever.
"What we are asking for is amendments. There should be smoking areas and non-smoking areas."

Six Months in Jail ? Let's take another couple or so Crimes for the same week.

Brighton woman jailed after campaign of violence

A woman who carried out a campaign of violence and intimidation against council tenants has been jailed. Shirley Miles, 45, has been given a two-month prison sentence for anti-social behaviour.

During her terror campaign at a number of council properties in Kemp Town, Brighton, Miles abused two vulnerable tenants, using a razor blade to attack and cut a tenant's face and body.

She also caused criminal damage to council property and stole property and money.

Dungiven man jailed for three months

A Dungiven man convicted of sexual offences has been sent to jail for three months and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for seven years.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted of gross indecency with a child and indecent assault on a female.

Merseyside teenager jailed for four months for 'despicable and horrendous' animal cruelty
A MERSEYSIDE teenager was sent to jail for four months for setting dogs on defenceless animals and filming them being ripped to pieces.

Baby beater jailed for six months
A man who was caught on camera repeatedly punching a friend's sleeping baby has been jailed for six months.

Notice anything odd here ?
​

 

[Chevyguy]

I am a resident of ohio as well, and also question how they can enforce the ban on individual patrons if enforcement is the job of the health department and the police have nothing to do with it. As far as I know, the health department has no legal powers to arrest someone, or to even touch somebody. So I picture the scenario would go like this if the health department tried to fine me for illegally smoking.

Health Department: Excuse me I am Mr. Chavez from the health department, you are in violation of the smoking ban, I am issuing a fine. What is your name?

Me: Blow me

Health Department. Sir, I don't think that is your real name, tell me your name. I am going to need some id.

Me: I don't think so.

Health Department: PLLLEEEAAASEEEE?

Me: Go away.

How can the health department fine an individual if they don't have the same powers as the police do, and the police don't get involved with enforcing the ban? You can't issue someone a valid fine unless you have their name, address, social security number etc. Which I don't have to give to anyone but the police. And they can't wrestle me down and grab my id since they don't have arrest powers. So how could they fine me personally?

 

[Koman]

I am a resident of ohio as well, and also question how they can enforce the ban on individual patrons if enforcement is the job of the health department and the police have nothing to do with it. As far as I know, the health department has no legal powers to arrest someone, or to even touch somebody. So I picture the scenario would go like this if the health department tried to fine me for illegally smoking.

Health Department: Excuse me I am Mr. Chavez from the health department, you are in violation of the smoking ban, I am issuing a fine. What is your name?

Me: Blow me

Health Department. Sir, I don't think that is your real name, tell me your name. I am going to need some id.

Me: I don't think so.

Health Department: PLLLEEEAAASEEEE?

Me: Go away.

How can the health department fine an individual if they don't have the same powers as the police do, and the police don't get involved with enforcing the ban? You can't issue someone a valid fine unless you have their name, address, social security number etc. Which I don't have to give to anyone but the police. And they can't wrestle me down and grab my id since they don't have arrest powers. So how could they fine me personally?

Did that really happen? Somehow I doubt it did.

 

[SheerLuckHolmes]

Isn't this why they fine the establishment instead of the individual? They are in effect forcing the business owner to be their agent of enforcement.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Quoted from the BBC website, the official mouthpiece of the UK Government Mr Godshall.


Mr Hogan (The bar owner) said: "I am just a little bit surprised that Mr Karney does not realise that smokers have rights and also that smokers are voters.
"We are not asking for this legislation to be overturned whatsoever.
"What we are asking for is amendments. There should be smoking areas and non-smoking areas."

Six Months in Jail ? Let's take another couple or so Crimes for the same week.

Brighton woman jailed after campaign of violence

A woman who carried out a campaign of violence and intimidation against council tenants has been jailed. Shirley Miles, 45, has been given a two-month prison sentence for anti-social behaviour.

During her terror campaign at a number of council properties in Kemp Town, Brighton, Miles abused two vulnerable tenants, using a razor blade to attack and cut a tenant's face and body.

She also caused criminal damage to council property and stole property and money.

Dungiven man jailed for three months

A Dungiven man convicted of sexual offences has been sent to jail for three months and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for seven years.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted of gross indecency with a child and indecent assault on a female.

Merseyside teenager jailed for four months for 'despicable and horrendous' animal cruelty
A MERSEYSIDE teenager was sent to jail for four months for setting dogs on defenceless animals and filming them being ripped to pieces.

Baby beater jailed for six months
A man who was caught on camera repeatedly punching a friend's sleeping baby has been jailed for six months.

Notice anything odd here ?
​

Nothing odd about it. It's another example of how crimes against the state are deemed to be more punishable than domestic crime. It's disgusting.
It's no different to comparing the punishment for not paying your taxes to what an adolescent will receive for causing £5000 damage when he rips out your dashboard and wraps your car around a lamp post.
It represents a completely disproportionate punishment for the crime, dependent on whom the victim is and whether an agenda needs to be pushed
For Bill, 30% of privately owned pubs have gone to the wall because takings dropped by a full 50% when the ban came into place. That isn't propaganda, that is fact. The ban is hurting normal people. Not tobacco companies. But the govt doesn't give a toss.

 

[curiousJan]

For Bill, 30% of privately owned pubs have gone to the wall because takings dropped by a full 50% when the ban came into place. That isn't propaganda, that is fact. The ban is hurting normal people. Not tobacco companies. But the govt doesn't give a toss.

I can attest to this fact locally as well. There have been many pubs go under, and many more are hurting very badly because of the drop in receipts caused directly by the smoking ban.

Jan

 

[maureengill]

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.

Wow...that's awesome....that prisoners and the government have more rights than everyone else....
(yes there was a boatload of sarcasm in there)
Maureen

 

[Chevyguy]

Did that really happen? Somehow I doubt it did.

I never said it happened, I said "the scenario would probably play out like this,". The health department fining individuals would never work since they are not law enforcement officers and basically there is nothing they can do to me if I refuse to give them identification which would be needed to issue me with a fine. (You can't fine someone and expect them to pay it if you don't even know their name).