Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 
Broad Coalition Opposes Changes to Ohio Indoor-Smoking Law
November 17, 2008

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Supporters and former opponents of Ohio's statewide indoor-smoking ban have joined forces to fight a proposal that would carve out more exemptions to the law, the Columbus Dispatch reported Nov. 16.

Public health groups like SmokeFree Ohio and the Ohio Restaurant Association -- the latter a vociferous opponent of the 2006 ban -- are united in opposition to Senate Bill 346, a measure backed by some veteran's groups, bar owners and others that would allow smoking in some family owned businesses and private clubs. A similar measure in the state House of Representatives would also provide an exemption for stand-alone bars.

"We lost the fight in 2006. We didn't like the proposal, but now we want a level playing field," said lobbyist Richard Mason of the Ohio Restaurant Association. "The legislation would allow one member on one side of the street to allow smoking, but the member on the other side couldn't. We don't think that makes sense."

Mason added that economic concerns about the impact of the 2006 ban were probably overstated: "Very few of my members are complaining about it," he said.

SmokeFree Ohio opposes any weakening of the existing law.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Connie Moore on 06 Dec 08 12:00 PM EST
Before I voted I read both proposals. I found that smokeless was a constitutional amendment that would have in essence taken away any places right to restrict smoking forever. I don't like people limiting my choices. The language in that one was confusing. Smoke free was not confusing in its wording. I place all the blame for this to still be an issue on the state of Ohio's inept government on not having any real enforcement I am a 20 year veteran of this country and I don't appreciate any state organisation of any veterans group to be speaking on my behalf. Why don't people realize that 60% of people no not smoke. Why should 20% be-able to foul the air that I breath. Don't tell me to stay home. T would tell you to stay home. Also I will not only vote against any politician that vote's to modify the ban but will campaign against them.

Posted by virgilk on 19 Nov 08 10:37 AM EST
Invariably the ones that call for a Level Playing are the ones who feel they will be put at a disadvantage. There can be no Level playing field without choice. A level Playing field is a cry for help by those seeking to push their views on others. All that is being asked for in SB346 is what the voters thought they were voting for. Not how it was written up after the vote.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 18 Nov 08 08:05 PM EST
The basic fact is clear: voters were deliberately misled into thinking that small family owned businesses and private clubs would be exempt from the ban. The law as it stands presently should simply be considered null and void: it is not the law that voters approved. If I, as a smoker, want to open a private club staffed by and patronized by only smokers and their friends, I should have that right as an American. There is no sound argument against such a thing. SB 346 corrects the injustice that has been done to the citizens and small businesses of Ohio and should be solidly supported. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by ichoosefreedom on 18 Nov 08 07:33 PM EST
Read JT's article more closely. Blatantly obvious was Mason's conflicting comments. "We didn't like the proposal, but now we want a level playing field. The legislation would allow one member on one side of the street to allow smoking, but the member on the other side couldn't”, followed immediately with “although there was a lot of rhetoric in 2006 that the smoking ban would hurt businesses some of that was probably blown out of proportion. Very few of my members are complaining about it." Which is it? He claims smoking bans don’t hurt business but in the same breath whines that it’s not fair if some places permit smoking. Obviously, there IS economic harm to businesses. Mr. Mason just proved the point by stating that smoking allowed venues would gain an advantage financially. If very few of his businesses are complaining, then what’s the problem? The problem is the businesses he represents are large chain restaurants, not the small mom and pop places he just threw under the bus. Personally? I’m boycotting franchises & the ACS.

Posted by ichoosefreedom on 18 Nov 08 07:28 PM EST
Here's the real scoop. SmokeFree Ohio LIED. They printed exemptions for family owned businesses, private clubs and outdoor patios on the ballot language voters read when they voted...and then *POOF* these exemptions disappeared. It's the old "bait and switch". SmokeFree Ohio LIED when they said this ban wouldn't have any economic impact on businesses. BIG LIE. We're experiencing the highest unemployment since 1992 with Hospitality and Leisure in the #1 spot. The year after the ban liquor permit holders lost 67.44 million dollars in sales. Vending is down 25-35% and musicians aren't finding work, just to name a few of the losses. These losses started right after the ACS' lying ban was imposed, so it's not the economy. And guess what? We didn't see the "hoards of new customers" either.

Posted by Andrea Paventi on 18 Nov 08 09:55 AM EST
I believe there was confusion with 2 smoking bans on the ballet at the same time. Give voters the chance to understand exactally what they are voting on and settle the debate once and for all.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 200
words)
Enter this word
(help):		 Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for all, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.

  2. Do not post promotional links to organizations, products or services, or personal requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.