Glory Days wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: The people infringing on the rights of a private business is not the free market. That's like saying if people decided blacks could no longer go to bars then it is the free market deciding it.

Who said the free market was perfect? But the market responds to the desires of consumers. Meaning if consumers felt strongly enough about smoke in bars they would stop going to them. Since people kept going to bars I'm assuming they don't really care.

what right did the people infringe on? bars are public place. this law does not apply to private clubs. and obviously they did feel strongly enough or they wouldnt have voted for the ban. people kept going to the bars because there werent any other options.

Be careful there, those are private businesses that choose to be open to the public. They are privately owned and therefore have private property ownership rights.

the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.

The same result could have been accomplished without a law, which may prove to be unenforceable, if the anti-smoking zealots had some patience.

this law does not apply to private clubs.

I think it reads "Private Clubs Without Employees". That eliminates almost ALL private clubs.

This is why fraternal clubs asked for an exemption after the law was passed. They felt the language, as you have pointed out, was deceptive.

G) Private clubs as defined in section 4301.01(B)(13) of the Revised Code, provided all of the following apply: the club has no employees; the club is organized as a not for profit entity; only members of the club are present in the club's building; no persons under the age of eighteen are present in the club's building; the club is located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the club; smoke from the club does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter; and, if the club serves alcohol, it holds a valid D4 liquor permit.

Three million dollars. About 25 cents per person in the state to try to create healthier workplaces and businesses. Money well spent. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the medical costs of people who end up with cancer later in life because they were exposed to second hand smoke for most of their lives.

Since you have provided no proof, this is conjecture on your part, but I'll play.

Childhood obesity is major health problem in this country. What should we ban to combat this problem and control the projected health costs??

Adult obesity is also a societal health problem. What should we ban to deal with this and and control the projected health costs?

Alcohol can cause innocent deaths and can cause various health issues for the users. Should we ban all alcohol to control the projected health costs??

Burning charcoal emits dangerous carcinogens. Should we ban Weber Grills or all charcoal grills to control projected health costs?

This is really scary.

Researchers in a 1996 study found that people who eat their beef well done are more than three times as likely to develop cancer as those who prefer their steaks medium-rare or rare.

Should we ban the cooking of meat to a well done temperature to control the projected health costs??

I could go on and on, but I don't have time.

Glory Days wrote:

what right did the people infringe on? bars are public place. this law does not apply to private clubs. and obviously they did feel strongly enough or they wouldnt have voted for the ban. people kept going to the bars because there werent any other options.

See the below post. These are not "public" clubs. These are privately owned businesses who should have the right to choose what is best for their business.

And I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who voted for the ban don't even go to bars but just hate smoking.

Sorry, saying you don't have any other option is a horrible excuse. You aren't forced to drink alcohol. It is something you can live without.

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

what right did the people infringe on? bars are public place. this law does not apply to private clubs. and obviously they did feel strongly enough or they wouldnt have voted for the ban. people kept going to the bars because there werent any other options.

See the below post. These are not "public" clubs. These are privately owned businesses who should have the right to choose what is best for their business.

And I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who voted for the ban don't even go to bars but just hate smoking.

Sorry, saying you don't have any other option is a horrible excuse. You aren't forced to drink alcohol. It is something you can live without.

they are private business open to the pubic. when you open yourself to the public, you are not longer completely private and you must follow certain rules/laws. a private business is not the same as a private home.

no you arent forced to drink alcohol, but you can goto a bar and get water or soft drinks etc if you choose.

Prescott wrote: I think it reads "Private Clubs Without Employees". That eliminates almost ALL private clubs.

This is why fraternal clubs asked for an exemption after the law was passed. They felt the language, as you have pointed out, was deceptive.

G) Private clubs as defined in section 4301.01(B)(13) of the Revised Code, provided all of the following apply: the club has no employees; the club is organized as a not for profit entity; only members of the club are present in the club's building; no persons under the age of eighteen are present in the club's building; the club is located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the club; smoke from the club does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter; and, if the club serves alcohol, it holds a valid D4 liquor permit.

i will admit i dont know much about those organizations, but since when did they have employees?

but since when did they have employees?

Since forever. Why do you think they asked for an exemption and the Governor went to bat for them?


5.25.07 - Governor to Appeal Smoking Ban Ruling
Columbus, Ohio ? Ohio Governor Ted Strickland today asked Attorney General Marc Dann to appeal the Franklin County common pleas court ruling on the private club exemption in the state's new smoking ban law.

?I believe we established a reasonable rule that enforces the smoking ban while also honoring the exemption established in the law for certain private clubs including veteran?s clubs,? Strickland said. ?I am troubled that many citizens, including many veterans, voted for the smoking ban last fall with the understanding that it included an exception for private clubs, only to be told later that the ban doesn't include a real exception. In order to make sure that these citizens have every opportunity to have their point of view considered, I have decided to appeal the court?s ruling.?

The governor consulted with the Department of Health and the Attorney General?s office to reach his decision.


http://www.governor.ohio.gov/News/May2007/News5107/tabid/268/Default.aspx

majorspark wrote:

Prescott wrote:

The smoking ban is great. The people of Ohio have spoken.

Yea, it's great. The state has spent 3 million dollars trying to enforce a law that now has no teeth. That is awesome!!

Its actually 3.2 million with a net loss of 2 million. And if they want to put teeth into the law it will cost a hell of a lot more.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/22/copy/state-smoking-ban-has-cost-2-million.html?sid=101

Actually, the net loss is more than 2 million. While 1.2 million have been issued in fines, only 400k have been collected.

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.

The people infringing on the rights of a private business is not the free market. That's like saying if people decided blacks could no longer go to bars then it is the free market deciding it.

I Wear Pants wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

While I absolutely agree that the law should not exist in a free market, I don't ever see most businesses (especially bars) embracing unforced no-smoking policies without it.

Then it means the demand for a non-smoking bar does not exist. When the free market demands a bar free of smoking it will happen.

We have a bar here that is non-smoking and it is packed all the time.

The free market is not perfect. Why does no one understand that? It's ideal but not a reality.

Also, the smoking ban is stupid.

Who said the free market was perfect? But the market responds to the desires of consumers. Meaning if consumers felt strongly enough about smoke in bars they would stop going to them. Since people kept going to bars I'm assuming they don't really care.

While I disagree with the ban, it seems as though the consumers did decide when they voted for the ban. Although I don't think this is an issue that should be decided by a vote.

Glory Days wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

what right did the people infringe on? bars are public place. this law does not apply to private clubs. and obviously they did feel strongly enough or they wouldnt have voted for the ban. people kept going to the bars because there werent any other options.

See the below post. These are not "public" clubs. These are privately owned businesses who should have the right to choose what is best for their business.

And I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who voted for the ban don't even go to bars but just hate smoking.

Sorry, saying you don't have any other option is a horrible excuse. You aren't forced to drink alcohol. It is something you can live without.

they are private business open to the pubic. when you open yourself to the public, you are not longer completely private and you must follow certain rules/laws. a private business is not the same as a private home.

no you arent forced to drink alcohol, but you can goto a bar and get water or soft drinks etc if you choose.

Prescott wrote: I think it reads "Private Clubs Without Employees". That eliminates almost ALL private clubs.

This is why fraternal clubs asked for an exemption after the law was passed. They felt the language, as you have pointed out, was deceptive.

G) Private clubs as defined in section 4301.01(B)(13) of the Revised Code, provided all of the following apply: the club has no employees; the club is organized as a not for profit entity; only members of the club are present in the club's building; no persons under the age of eighteen are present in the club's building; the club is located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the club; smoke from the club does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter; and, if the club serves alcohol, it holds a valid D4 liquor permit.

i will admit i dont know much about those organizations, but since when did they have employees?

Country Clubs, tennis clubs, etc.

dont country clubs make profit and allow non members to use the facilities though? i was thinking more like VFWs etc. who do they employ?

who do they employ?

Bartenders,waitresses, facility managers..........remember it only takes ONE employee to make the private adhere to the smoking ban.

From the Governor's press release.

I am troubled that many citizens, including many veterans, voted for the smoking ban last fall with the understanding that it included an exception for private clubs, only to be told later that the ban doesn't include a real exception.

Prescott wrote: who do they employ?

Bartenders,waitresses, facility managers..........remember it only takes ONE employee to make the private adhere to the smoking ban.

See i always thought those were members themselves. i never knew VFWs or KofCs had bartenders or waitresses who werent members. my understanding of the definition of employee according to that law makes it sound like a third party, someone who isnt a member of that organization. so aslong as the person "employed" there is a member, it is still a private club.

Prescott wrote: who do they employ?

Bartenders,waitresses, facility managers..........remember it only takes ONE employee to make the private adhere to the smoking ban.

From the Governor's press release.

I am troubled that many citizens, including many veterans, voted for the smoking ban last fall with the understanding that it included an exception for private clubs, only to be told later that the ban doesn't include a real exception.

This is the problem with direct democracy.

Prescott wrote:

Eventually, the free market would have got it right without involving legislation.

Really? I think the "free market" needs a little push on occasion. How many smoke free bars did you know off BEFORE the smoking ban?

Glory Days wrote: dont country clubs make profit and allow non members to use the facilities though? i was thinking more like VFWs etc. who do they employ?

Most Country Clubs are members only. But what does that have to do with anything anyhow? They are still private clubs and have to adhere to the smoking ban.

Actually I believe VFW's and K of C's allow non-members more frequently than country clubs.

dwccrew wrote:

Glory Days wrote: dont country clubs make profit and allow non members to use the facilities though? i was thinking more like VFWs etc. who do they employ?

Most Country Clubs are members only. But what does that have to do with anything anyhow? They are still private clubs and have to adhere to the smoking ban.

Actually I believe VFW's and K of C's allow non-members more frequently than country clubs.

you mentioned country clubs as a private club. but its not just that country clubs have employees, they also make a profit and allow non members to use their facilities in some cases. i am just saying from my minimal experience, when i have been to a country club they have their own staff and employees. when i have been to a K of C, they didnt have anyone there to support whatever you are doing.

Prescott wrote: who do they employ?

Bartenders,waitresses, facility managers..........remember it only takes ONE employee to make the private adhere to the smoking ban.

From the Governor's press release.

I am troubled that many citizens, including many veterans, voted for the smoking ban last fall with the understanding that it included an exception for private clubs, only to be told later that the ban doesn't include a real exception.

the tricky part is, the law covers places of employment.

"No proprietor of a public place or place of employment, except as permitted in section 3794.03 of this chapter, shall permit smoking in the public place or place of employment or in the areas directly or indirectly under the control of the proprietor immediately adjacent to locations of ingress or egress to the public place or place of employment."

is there any update to the governor's appeal? i couldnt find anything.

"No proprietor of a public place or place of employment,

Exactly. There was no reason to include the EXEMPTION clause because nothing was exempt.


I'm sure the appeal was denied. I have a problem with this specific clause of the law. It seems deceptive at best. If the anti-smoking lobby wanted a total ban, they should have been upfront it. As it was, they used language that was intended to confuse, which is why the private clubs sought an exemption and the governor supported them.

There are no private clubs that meet the criteria and the anti-smoking lobby knew that.

(G) Private clubs as defined in section 4301.01(B)(13) of the Revised Code, provided all of the following apply: the club has no employees; the club is organized as a not for profit entity; only members of the club are present in the club's building; no persons under the age of eighteen are present in the club's building; the club is located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the club; smoke from the club does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter; and, if the club serves alcohol, it holds a valid D4 liquor permit.

Really? I think the "free market" needs a little push on occasion. How many smoke free bars did you know off BEFORE the smoking ban?

This ban has nothing to do with the free market. Free is not in the equation.

Yes, I firmly believe that there would have non-smoking establishments when the consumer demanded it and showed that demand with spending habits.

I live in Seattle and the State of Washington has the strictest anti-smoking laws in the country. You are not even allowed to smoke within 25 feet of a public building. Trust me, there is no movement to change those laws. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer and other serious ailments, and no one should be subjected to it. Smokers don't have rights. They are nothing but addicts. If you want to kill yourself from smoking, that is your business. But you have no right to kill me in the process.

Glory Days wrote:

they are private business open to the pubic. when you open yourself to the public, you are not longer completely private and you must follow certain rules/laws. a private business is not the same as a private home.

no you arent forced to drink alcohol, but you can goto a bar and get water or soft drinks etc if you choose.

Exactly, they are private businesses. Meaning the government has no right to interfere in their operations.

If you go into a bar for water or pop and you don't like smoking then you are an idiot.

dwccrew wrote:
the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.

I disagree. A group of voters voted on the ban, not the free market.

The free market is the group of consumers who frequent those establishments. A good number of people who voted for the ban probably do not go to bars.

FairwoodKing wrote: I live in Seattle and the State of Washington has the strictest anti-smoking laws in the country. You are not even allowed to smoke within 25 feet of a public building. Trust me, there is no movement to change those laws. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer and other serious ailments, and no one should be subjected to it. Smokers don't have rights. They are nothing but addicts. If you want to kill yourself from smoking, that is your business. But you have no right to kill me in the process.

Second hand smoking is not harmful and there has never been a known case of cancer from second hand smoke.

But I agree you shouldn't be forced to be around smoke if you don't want to be. Hence, don't go to places that allow smoking if you don't like it.

You don't have the right to tell a private business what they can and can't do because you aren't smart enough to not go there if you don't like smoke.

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yeah, if you want to do the dollars and cents thing it does make sense. We probably make up by far the amount paid to enforce the law in decreased medical costs down the line.

It makes sense if you can prove that the expense of enforcement is less than any perceived medical cost associated with second hand smoke. Couple that with the fact that no one is exposed to second hand smoke against their will other than children.

That's why I said probably. I don't have a citation nor am I going to find one. I was merely saying that I believed it is likely that the "OMG HUGE" cost of the smoking ban (which I disagree with by the way so don't think I'm all for banning everything) is probably, key term, offset by savings in health care costs and other things that come from smoking.

Just making conversation.

We probably make up by far the amount paid to enforce the law in decreased medical costs down the line.

Actually, I've read economic studies that claim that smokers are not a drain on society because they die younger.

......However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30092491/

Oh, ok guess I'm wrong. Totally glad I said "probably" or else I'd look like a huge douchebag.

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

they are private business open to the pubic. when you open yourself to the public, you are not longer completely private and you must follow certain rules/laws. a private business is not the same as a private home.

no you arent forced to drink alcohol, but you can goto a bar and get water or soft drinks etc if you choose.

Exactly, they are private businesses. Meaning the government has no right to interfere in their operations.

If you go into a bar for water or pop and you don't like smoking then you are an idiot.

dwccrew wrote:
the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.

I disagree. A group of voters voted on the ban, not the free market.

The free market is the group of consumers who frequent those establishments. A good number of people who voted for the ban probably do not go to bars.

FairwoodKing wrote: I live in Seattle and the State of Washington has the strictest anti-smoking laws in the country. You are not even allowed to smoke within 25 feet of a public building. Trust me, there is no movement to change those laws. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer and other serious ailments, and no one should be subjected to it. Smokers don't have rights. They are nothing but addicts. If you want to kill yourself from smoking, that is your business. But you have no right to kill me in the process.

Second hand smoking is not harmful and there has never been a known case of cancer from second hand smoke.

But I agree you shouldn't be forced to be around smoke if you don't want to be. Hence, don't go to places that allow smoking if you don't like it.

You don't have the right to tell a private business what they can and can't do because you aren't smart enough to not go there if you don't like smoke.

You're an idiot. Second-hand smoke does cause cancer and is harmful in other ways. I am deathly allergic to tobacco smoke. If I come out of a buidling and someone is smoking, I start coughing and have trouble breathing. Before the laws took effect in WA, there was no way I could avoid it. I am just lucky that I live in a state that protects people like me.

It is also a fact that a lot of my breathing problems (and I have a lot) are the result of my mother smoking when she was pregnant with me and that my parents smoked in my presence when I was young. They finally stopped smoking around me, but the damage had already been done.

Smoking is an addiction, not a right. Smokers are just going to have to get over it.

Second hand smoke clearly can cause cancer and other health issues. To claim otherwise is asinine.

FairwoodKing wrote:
You're an idiot. Second-hand smoke does cause cancer and is harmful in other ways. I am deathly allergic to tobacco smoke. If I come out of a buidling and someone is smoking, I start coughing and have trouble breathing. Before the laws took effect in WA, there was no way I could avoid it. I am just lucky that I live in a state that protects people like me.

It is also a fact that a lot of my breathing problems (and I have a lot) are the result of my mother smoking when she was pregnant with me and that my parents smoked in my presence when I was young. They finally stopped smoking around me, but the damage had already been done.

Smoking is an addiction, not a right. Smokers are just going to have to get over it.

I'm an idiot because I know that second hand smoke does not cause cancer and you do not? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

And your post does not address the topic in any way. We are not talking about people smoking outside in public places. We are talking about people smoking in private establishments.

I Wear Pants wrote: Second hand smoke clearly can cause cancer and other health issues. To claim otherwise is asinine.

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.


http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

FairwoodKing wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

they are private business open to the pubic. when you open yourself to the public, you are not longer completely private and you must follow certain rules/laws. a private business is not the same as a private home.

no you arent forced to drink alcohol, but you can goto a bar and get water or soft drinks etc if you choose.

Exactly, they are private businesses. Meaning the government has no right to interfere in their operations.

If you go into a bar for water or pop and you don't like smoking then you are an idiot.

dwccrew wrote:
the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.

I disagree. A group of voters voted on the ban, not the free market.

The free market is the group of consumers who frequent those establishments. A good number of people who voted for the ban probably do not go to bars.

FairwoodKing wrote: I live in Seattle and the State of Washington has the strictest anti-smoking laws in the country. You are not even allowed to smoke within 25 feet of a public building. Trust me, there is no movement to change those laws. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer and other serious ailments, and no one should be subjected to it. Smokers don't have rights. They are nothing but addicts. If you want to kill yourself from smoking, that is your business. But you have no right to kill me in the process.

Second hand smoking is not harmful and there has never been a known case of cancer from second hand smoke.

But I agree you shouldn't be forced to be around smoke if you don't want to be. Hence, don't go to places that allow smoking if you don't like it.

You don't have the right to tell a private business what they can and can't do because you aren't smart enough to not go there if you don't like smoke.

You're an idiot. Second-hand smoke does cause cancer and is harmful in other ways. I am deathly allergic to tobacco smoke. If I come out of a buidling and someone is smoking, I start coughing and have trouble breathing. Before the laws took effect in WA, there was no way I could avoid it. I am just lucky that I live in a state that protects people like me.

It is also a fact that a lot of my breathing problems (and I have a lot) are the result of my mother smoking when she was pregnant with me and that my parents smoked in my presence when I was young. They finally stopped smoking around me, but the damage had already been done.

Smoking is an addiction, not a right. Smokers are just going to have to get over it.

I am a smoker and i do agree with you about the harmful effects of second hand smoke and i will not smoke anywhere where someone has a problem with it and wish it was easy to stop the habbit but i am addicted to smoking and pay the price with my own lung problems but i think that if you own a private club and want to allow smoking inside then you should have that right to run your business the way you want.We have seen how money dictates the smoking laws in some states such as the states with casino gambling.The casino is exempt from the ban because it will cost them money but the little guy must follow the rules.I think it should be all or none.