4303.18 D-5 permit.
Permit D-5 may be issued to the owner or operator of a retail food establishment or a food service operation licensed pursuant to Chapter 3717. of the Revised Code that operates as a restaurant or night club for purposes of this chapter, to sell beer and any intoxicating liquor at retail, only by the individual drink in glass and from the container, for consumption on the premises where sold, and to sell the same products in the same manner and amounts not for consumption on the premises as may be sold by holders of D-1 and D-2 permits. A person who is the holder of both a D-3 and D-3a permit need not obtain a D-5 permit. The fee for this permit is two thousand three hundred forty-four dollars.

“Night club” means a place operated for profit, where food is served for consumption on the premises and one or more forms of amusement are provided or permitted for a consideration that may be in the form of a cover charge or may be included in the price of the food and beverages, or both, purchased by patrons.

Glory Days wrote: I believe most bars will have a D-5 liqour license: Spirituous liquor for on premises consumption only, beer and wine for on premises, or off premises in original sealed containers, until 2:30am.

4303.18 D-5 permit.
Permit D-5 may be issued to the owner or operator of a retail food establishment or a food service operation licensed pursuant to Chapter 3717. of the Revised Code that operates as a restaurant or night club for purposes of this chapter, to sell beer and any intoxicating liquor at retail, only by the individual drink in glass and from the container, for consumption on the premises where sold, and to sell the same products in the same manner and amounts not for consumption on the premises as may be sold by holders of D-1 and D-2 permits. A person who is the holder of both a D-3 and D-3a permit need not obtain a D-5 permit. The fee for this permit is two thousand three hundred forty-four dollars.

“Night club” means a place operated for profit, where food is served for consumption on the premises and one or more forms of amusement are provided or permitted for a consideration that may be in the form of a cover charge or may be included in the price of the food and beverages, or both, purchased by patrons.

Glory Days wrote: A D-6 deals with sunday sales. Probably had a D-5 and D-6 then or a variation of the D-5 and D-6.

FairwoodKing wrote: WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.

That is factually incorrect. Those whose businesses have been hurt, in some cases fatally, prove this to be a false statement.

Prescott wrote: If this "Food" requirement is part of the law, would potato chips and pretzels count?

QuakerOats wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.

That is factually incorrect. Those whose businesses have been hurt, in some cases fatally, prove this to be a false statement.

Precisely the reason that we cannot allow the supreme, intellectual, liberal elites to take over health care, because from that pedestal they can govern (by force) every aspect of your life, under the guise of health care costs, because after all ..................... they know what's best.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.

That is factually incorrect. Those whose businesses have been hurt, in some cases fatally, prove this to be a false statement.

FairwoodKing wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.

That is factually incorrect. Those whose businesses have been hurt, in some cases fatally, prove this to be a false statement.

Bar owners cater to two sets of addictions: drinking and smoking. Smokers pollute the air that the rest of us have to breathe, and drinkers drive drunk and endanger everyone on the road.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for bar owners.

Darkon wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: WRONG! I do care about people, which is why I applaud the no-smoking laws. They are good for everyone.

That is factually incorrect. Those whose businesses have been hurt, in some cases fatally, prove this to be a false statement.

Bar owners cater to two sets of addictions: drinking and smoking. Smokers pollute the air that the rest of us have to breathe, and drinkers drive drunk and endanger everyone on the road.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for bar owners.

I still can't figure out why your pansy ass cares about smoking in bars. You have stated that you would not frequent such a place. Plus you accuse everyone that does as being an addict. You of all people should not be putting out a blanket statement.

I believe they can give an exemption to bars that have less than 50% in food sales

FairwoodKing wrote: I will repeat that if public smoking only took place in bars, I would never be on this thread. But I know from first-hand experience that smokers will smoke wherever they can get away with it. When smoking is banned from office buildings, hospitals, schools, and all sorts of other places, bars get sucked into the mix. No one is going to exclude them.

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I will repeat that if public smoking only took place in bars, I would never be on this thread. But I know from first-hand experience that smokers will smoke wherever they can get away with it. When smoking is banned from office buildings, hospitals, schools, and all sorts of other places, bars get sucked into the mix. No one is going to exclude them.

There is a difference between office buildings, hospitals, schools, etc. and bars. Bars are privately owned and bars have the right to refuse service to people. Hospitals, schools, etc. do not.

Bars are entirely different entities than the others you have named and should not be classified in the same category.

FairwoodKing wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I will repeat that if public smoking only took place in bars, I would never be on this thread. But I know from first-hand experience that smokers will smoke wherever they can get away with it. When smoking is banned from office buildings, hospitals, schools, and all sorts of other places, bars get sucked into the mix. No one is going to exclude them.

There is a difference between office buildings, hospitals, schools, etc. and bars. Bars are privately owned and bars have the right to refuse service to people. Hospitals, schools, etc. do not.

Bars are entirely different entities than the others you have named and should not be classified in the same category.

You're mistaken about this. Office buildings, hospitals, and many universities are privately owned and can refuse service. About two years ago I was refused service to a hospital emergency room. In this sense, bars are more similar to these other places than most people might think.

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I will repeat that if public smoking only took place in bars, I would never be on this thread. But I know from first-hand experience that smokers will smoke wherever they can get away with it. When smoking is banned from office buildings, hospitals, schools, and all sorts of other places, bars get sucked into the mix. No one is going to exclude them.

There is a difference between office buildings, hospitals, schools, etc. and bars. Bars are privately owned and bars have the right to refuse service to people. Hospitals, schools, etc. do not.

Bars are entirely different entities than the others you have named and should not be classified in the same category.

You're mistaken about this. Office buildings, hospitals, and many universities are privately owned and can refuse service. About two years ago I was refused service to a hospital emergency room. In this sense, bars are more similar to these other places than most people might think.

Bars are owned, generally, by a single proprietor. Different than the others. Also, most of the time office buildings, hospitals and schools are places people have to go. You do not have to go to a bar. Not the same classification. You're reaching a bit.

FairwoodKing wrote: Apparently the legislators agree with me. That's why these laws were passed.

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Apparently the legislators agree with me. That's why these laws were passed.

In Ohio the smoking ban law was passed directly by the voters bypassing the legislature.

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Apparently the legislators agree with me. That's why these laws were passed.

In Ohio the smoking ban law was passed directly by the voters bypassing the legislature.

In that case, the voters agreed with me. That's why the law was passed. I must not be the only anti-smoker in this world.

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Apparently the legislators agree with me. That's why these laws were passed.

In Ohio the smoking ban law was passed directly by the voters bypassing the legislature.

In that case, the voters agreed with me. That's why the law was passed. I must not be the only anti-smoker in this world.

Yes, the voters do agree with you, which is fine; I may not agree with it, but it is the way of it. Which is why I don't understand why you get so upset with what has happened in California when the voters voted down gay rights.

FairwoodKing wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Apparently the legislators agree with me. That's why these laws were passed.

In Ohio the smoking ban law was passed directly by the voters bypassing the legislature.

In that case, the voters agreed with me. That's why the law was passed. I must not be the only anti-smoker in this world.

Yes, the voters do agree with you, which is fine; I may not agree with it, but it is the way of it. Which is why I don't understand why you get so upset with what has happened in California when the voters voted down gay rights.

Let's talk about gay rights on the other thread.

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Apparently the legislators agree with me. That's why these laws were passed.

In Ohio the smoking ban law was passed directly by the voters bypassing the legislature.

In that case, the voters agreed with me. That's why the law was passed. I must not be the only anti-smoker in this world.

Yes, the voters do agree with you, which is fine; I may not agree with it, but it is the way of it. Which is why I don't understand why you get so upset with what has happened in California when the voters voted down gay rights.

Let's talk about gay rights on the other thread.

I wasn't trying to focus on the gay rights so much as I wanted to focus on the electoral process. Same principle for both issues.