Watch for trick smoking Issues on Ohio ballot

[doc03]

I voted absentee yesterday. There is a Constitutional Amendment, I believe it was Issue #4, at first reading it looks like you are voting to outlaw smoking in restaurants and various other places. But actually it will make it (illegal) to pass any (additional) smoking bans than the ones that are already in place anywhere in Ohio and it is retroactive.

Then there is Issue #5 that actually bans smoking in all public places including the work place. The way I understand it is if you vote yes on Issue #4 it would actually cancel the vote on Issue #5 if both would pass.

So if you are happy with the existing laws on smoking you would vote yes on Issue #4 and no on Issue #5. But if you want to outlaw smoking in all public places you would have to vote no on Issue #4 and yes on Issue #5.

Maybe I am wrong but that's the way I interpreted it anyway

[OnyxCollie]

1. Yes, I saw the commercial today and you are correct about #4 & #5.

Very deceptive. But didn't you mean to say "... if you vote yes on Issue #1..." you meant Issue #4?

I was already confused and now you're throwing me curveballs!

[doc03]

2. Yes that was a typo, I fixed it.. Myself I am for a ban on smoking

in all public places. I live on the eastern border of Ohio next to Ohio County West Virginia, when I eat out I prefer going over to WV because of their smoking ban.

[Eurobabe]

3. That was the most inanely worded amendment

I didn't know how to interpret, so I just did my best. I don't physically live in OH anymore, it really doesn't affect me. But it will affect you guys. Hope I did the right thing...<scratches head>

That whole friggin ballot in Warren Co. was a sham, with the mess up on 67th District -- all of a sudden they stop the alpha ordering of candidates. I complained to the Ohio Dem party about that one.

[MeDeMax]

4. I'm a former smoker, I voted NO on both

Since the early 90s, I have watched smokers' rights steadily erode.

While I am not in denial about the health risks from smoking, 1st or 2nd hand,
making smokers feel like they are misarable outcasts is not right. IMHO.

Ban smoking where non-smokers will be exposed to it and offer a modest
accomodation, like a covered outside area with a space heater, would be
my approach.

If it is done right, in many cases BIG Tobacco will readily chip in for the
cost of the modest accomodation.

I dont think either issue will pass, same way the five RON issues failed last Nov.

[zbdent]

11. Second-hand smoke is now considered to be harmful to health

just ask the REPUKE-APPOINTED SURGEON GENERAL - WHO ADMITTED IT ...

[rucky]

34. I don't think it's the most dangerous thing you can find at Waffle House, though.

Which is the only restaurant I know that still has a smoking section.

:P

[mongo]

5. Issue 4 will allow smoking in some venues such as bars

But issue 5 in some cases will criminalize smoking in your own home.

Issue 5 would ban smoking in my own store, even though we only smoke in a room with seperate ventillation, and all of our employess smoke.

Yes, issue 4 will overturn some of the over-zealous smoking bans that a few cities have enacted, but it does ban smoking in most public places.

[Deep13]

7. I don't know about your store...

...but in general when people say all the employees smoke, I have to wonder if it is because nonsmokers refuse to work there.

This has nothing to do with freedom. Health is better than disease. It is that simple. I am skeptical about being banned in ones own home. Unless it is also a place of business, I don't see how that would be the case. Smokers will be allowed to continue to poison their families under issue 5.

[OhioBlue]

12. There are already designated places for smoking

in retail establishments. If a person owns a store and has a designated break room for smoking why should big brother be allowed to tell that property owner that they cannot have a designated room for smoking?

I'm voting no on both.

[Deep13]

15. Consider it a statewide intervention.

Why can't swimming pools have a designated urinating section?

[mongo]

17. And your true agenda comes out

You just admitted it's not just about keeping non-smokers from ETS -- it's about chipping away at the rights of adults to smoke.

Not much difference from your nanny state vision of government and the anti-choice crowd.

[Deep13]

19. There is no right to smoke. My agenda, such as it is, ...

...is pretty overt. It's pro-health and anti-disease, especially for people who choose not to compete for a Darwin award. Your complaint on the infringement on the 'right' to smoke reminds me of the Lochner-esque argument that minimum wage laws infringe on the right to work for low wages. Really, isn't this just a panicky reaction to a percieved threat to your addictive agent?

I think your comparison of this public health measure to the victimization of women by controlling their reproductive functions is about the same as affluent white men who complain that they are the new minority.

[mongo]

22. So how far do you want to take "public health"?

Manditory dietary restrictions for obese people?

State approval for sexual relations?

If you are really pro-health and anti-disease -- why aren't you fighting for environmental causes such as power-plant emissions which have a far greater impact on Ohioans than ETS?

ETS is just a convienent scapegoat for politically correct hate.

And yes, I have a fundimental right to live my life free from undue governmental interference.

[Deep13]

23. 400,000 dead in the USA per annum.

I think that is a pretty good place to start. And I doubt that power plant emissions are as bad as being in a room with a smoker. I assume ETS means second hand smoke. Maybe you don't care about the rights of waitresses and other blue collar workers to a safe workplace, but they do. Nicotine is a pesticide, you know. Tobacco companies take government subsidies to produce it and manipulate the nicotine levels to make sure it is addictive. So this idea that big brother is coming out of nowhere to take your rights away is horseshit. All social welfare and public health regulation effects people's personal choices, usually in a tangental way. The only reason some people feel differently about tobacco is because the physical addiction prevents them from being objective. You saying you have a right to smoke is like saying you have a right to smallpox or to a workplace neck-injury. It is just nonsense.

As a side note, tobacco companies are heavy donors to the RNC and Repub. 527s. You can't be a smoker and "buy blue".

So you think something as natural as eating or sexual relations is the same as taking some kind of Frankenstein weed, lighting it on fire, intentionally getting smoke inhalation and causing horrible diseases as a result?

[mongo]

30. 400,000 dead? Due to second hand smoke?

Yeah, right....


I'm going to assume that you're also for making alcohol illegal, since that drug is much more directly responsible for death than cigarettes are.

I'll have to also assume that you are for manditory STD testing and some sort of quarentine measures for HIV positive people. They're a public health threat, you know?

Or maybe, you recognize the right of people to make decisions regarding their own life, as long as that choice isn't smoking.

[Deep13]

31. Didn't say it was from 2nd hand smoke.

400,000 is the CDC estimate for tobacco-caused deaths in total. They document about 5000 from 2nd hand smoke. Those are cases that can directly be linked to tobacco smoke--mainly lung cancer, but does not necessarily relect those where tobacco is one of several causes. My asthma, for example, was certainly aggravated by my step-monster's habit. I never chose that. My father, a former smoker, is not reflected in that 400,000 or the 5000 because his stroke was not directly caused by tobacco. Still, unlike cancer, heart disease and emphasyma, the elevated risk of stroke does not return to normal after quitting.

By the way, the body count from tobacco is far greater than that for alcohol.

I was once told that with freedom comes responsibility. If people are irresponsible with freedom, then they lose the freedom and the responsibility. Kind of like the "right" to drive. There was a time when no license was required. That turned out to be an unworkable situation because drivers as a whole could not regulate themselves. The same with the choice of whether or not to insure oneself on the road. Too many unpaid hospital bills made that a requirement. Most choices in people's lives are judgment calls. People have to decide for themselves what to do. On the other hand when there is only one clearly right choice, normal health vs. years of expense, annoyance to others, increased fire hazzard, an inability to quit and ultimate a lingering, painful and expensive death with nothing in return; and when large numbers of people pick the wrong choice then they are not being responsible. Do you think Johnny Carson valued his right to choose to smoke? He tried for years to quit saying "These goddamn things," when learning his condition was terminal. Do you think he is alone in that regret?

No, sir, freedom of choice has nothing to do with it. Teenagers do a lot of stupid things and they should not suffer their whole lives for it. Extra-ordinary measures are allowed to suppress an epidemic. It was not that long ago when people saw "quarantine" signs on house doors signifying that no one could enter or leave. Vaccines have largely eliminated this, but the lawful authority still exists. Restricting smoking is no different.

Slippery-slope is a logical fallacy. Just because he restrict one thing, by far the most destructive thing, does not mean we need to restrict other things. Drinking does not necessarily make one an alcoholic or doomed to die a horrible death. Having sex does not necessarily mean one will contract an STD. Even an occasional cigar or pipe does not make one an addict. (They are not as convenient or as cheap as cigarettes.)

I'm certainly not against all "vices" or dangerous activity. I'm getting sick of people bitching and moaning because there is a stip joint in our town. It is a clean, modern-looking building that in no way degrades the appearance of the town. It is out in the open, so there is not much crime there. No one gets hurt and women who would otherwise be slinging hash or punching a register at Walmart are making $100s per night. Jesus Christ people, it is not like there are no real problems in the world! Oh, and just try to take my Sig 226 away!

I posted on the other Issue 4 vs. Issue 5 thread that in the 1970s, the state took away my right to contract polio. I'm still fuming about that. Come to think of it, I lost my right to get measles, mumps, smallpox, dipthera and tetnus too! Damn them!

[OhioBlue]

27. that makes no sense. n/t

[Kukesa]

24. I voted NO on both. Enough of Big Brother. nt

[mongo]

16. MY wife and I have one employee

And lots of people coming in every month looking for jobs -- which I can't afford to provide for them.

We don't smoke on the salesfloor, the office, the recieving are, the galley, the bathroom. We have one little room with seperate ventinlation that we smoke in.

But nanny stater's like you are more than happy to take that away from us too.

[OhioBlue]

28. same with my mom's store. n/t

[zbdent]

10. whoops, self-delete

posted this when I meant to post to the one above ... sorry

[Deep13]

6. Time to join the 21st century.

CA, AZ, MA and others protect employees from involuntary tobacco smoke. Time for us to step up to the plate.

[doc03]

8. I agree, one of the main reasons I left my

last job was the smokers. I worked in the control room at a boiler-house we had three people in the room and usually at least one was a smoker. Besides putting up with the smoke you could smell the stench in your cloths. I went away on vacation for a couple weeks at that time and was amazed I could smell the cigarette stench from my work jacket that was hanging in the closet when I came back home.

[OhioBlue]

13. Why not talk to your employer

and ask for a separate break room for smokers or to not let people smoke in the building rather than amend the Ohio Constitution?

[doc03]

14. Why not amend the Ohio Constitution then we

won't have to depend on the whims of our employer to do what is right. What if your employer says I smoke and if you don't like it quit? I have worked for the same company for 36 years and I am not about to quit because someone else doesn't have the willpower to quit smoking. I quit smoking myself in 1981 and I wish someone would have forced me to quit earlier than I did.

[Deep13]

21. Meanwhile on planet Earth...

I've been in that position. Smokers do not want to hear it. They are in such denial that they are doing anything offensive that they will brush you off as some kind of hypochondriac.

The total public, indoor ban does not amend the Constitution. It is merely statute law as it should be. Only the tobacco-lobby backed limited ban (and limitations on further restrictions) amends the Constitution.

[OhioBlue]

26. so is it your position that a person who

owns a building and has a retail establishment cannot have a smoking room?

[violetandblue]

9. I thought it was the other way around...

That is what I got from the commercials, anyway. I don't know - I don't care about the issue either way, so I'll probably vote for neither.

[mongo]

18. Please vote yes on 4, no on 5

For a ban that stops smoking in most workplaces but still allows some adult establishments to decide for themselves if they wish to be smoke-free.

[Deep13]

20. Other way around for clean public accomodations.

We used to allow businesses to decide for themselves whether or not to serve Blacks. The greater good outweighed the individual right to choose.

[partylessinOhio]

25. I just marked my absentee ballot on these tricky-written-issues 4 and 5.

Vote NO on Issue 4, the pro-smoking constitutional amendment.

* Issue 4 keeps smoke in restaurants and many public places.
* Issue 4 leaves 500,000 hospitality workers and their customers exposed to dangerous secondhand smoke.
* Issue 4 overturns smoke-free laws already in place in Columbus and 20 other Ohio cities and prevents anyone from ever passing a smoke-free law without an amendment to the constitution.
* Issue 4 is backed by Big Tobacco companies.

Vote YES on Issue 5, the real smoke-free public places law.

* Issue 5 defends your right to breathe smoke-free air in all restaurants, public places and workplaces.
* Issue 5 protects all workers, families, children and seniors from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
* Issue 5 is supported by the American Cancer Society and more than 500 organizations and businesses.

Don't be fooled into skipping Issue 4 or voting for both! Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment. If Issue 4 passes, it would trump Issue 5. Vote NO on Issue 4.

[BillORightsMan]

29. Vote NO on both

It's amazing to me that OH utilities and factories are spewing TONS of mercury and other carcinogens in the air EVERY DAY and we have TWO POORLY WRTTEN BILLS (one a constitutional amendment!) about smoking! Indoor smoking, outdoor smoking, smoking while driving, smoking in the boy's room, fercryinoutloud. The $MILLIONS$ spent on these two bills could have been spent on cancer research and wasn't all the $$$$$$$ that Ohio got from the Big Tobacco Deal supposed to go to programs to EDUCATE the public on the evils of smoking?

Look at this board. Another "wedge" issue, a "look over there" moment while the HUGE corporations run roughshod on our environment and the Ohio EPA and Federal EPA.

Both of these issues are terribly written.

Turn both of these issues back, go back to the drawing board on this issue and let's move on to REAL issues like reversing HB3 and the Ohio "Patriot Act". Maybe we can even elect some leaders who will enforce environmental laws already on the books.

:patriot:

Watch for trick counting your ballots. Sign up for Election Protection 365)

[greenohio]

33. I agree. I'm voting against them both too. nt

[Kolesar]

32. Per what I read on "the two threads", I will vote "No" on both 4 & 5

I empathize with smokers who feel persecuted by all the rules against smoking. They are addicted. Work is bad enough but try carrying on when you get a nicotine craving. They banned smoking anywhere on the Cleveland Clinic campus, and the smoker-employees actually had to walk across the street to smoke on another sidewalk. Do that in a Cleveland winter. Some of them got mugged.

Then again, there should be some accomodation for employees who work in smokey bars and restaurants. Those may be the only jobs that those people can get. They may not have skills beyond waiting and bussing, and they may not even have transportation to go work where they choose.

I envisiage that the businesses could have filtering systems, or perhaps some sort of fixed ashtrays on the tables with a negative pressure that pulls the smoke down to a centralized collection/filtration system. In the summer, the smoke could be pumped outside. In the winter heating season, fiber and electrostatic filters could pull the ash and tar out of the air and reintroduce the cleaned air into the room(s).

Note: I have never had a "nicotine craving".