- Connect
- Login
- Print Subscription
|
Welcome,
| |
| |
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« Opinion
Enforcement of smoking ban should not come as surprise
By a vote of 2,370,369 to 1,679,956, Ohioans said in November 2006 that they wanted smoking banned in public and work places. That stand was taken after much heated debate across the state, with smokers contending that a ban would violate their personal rights, and non-smokers arguing that second-hand smoke has been shown to cause health problems.
Owners of businesses were up in arms about government’s telling them what they can and cannot do in their establishments, while employees of the businesses where smoking was commonplace, such as bars and restaurants, countered that they were being exposed to work place hazards.
Everyone who wanted to have a say was given the opportunity to be heard — on the local and state levels.
The final vote on the constitutional amendment showed that supporters of the smoking ban won the day. A law was enacted in December and enforcement was launched in May 2007 — based on regulations developed by the Ohio Department of Health.
Thus, after almost two years, no one in the state can claim ignorance of the law. If there are violations, therefore, it means individuals have made a conscious decision to indulge in unlawful behavior.
Governments at all levels cannot sit idly by while some people believe they are above the law. Fortunately, a majority of Ohioans are obeying the smoking ban.
The decision by the Mahoning County Health Department to step up its enforcement in public and work places is neither heavy-handed nor unfair. Indeed, not to crackdown on violators is unfair to those entities that have done everything required of them to ensure a smoke-free environment.
Violation notices
Earlier this month, county health Commissioner Matthew Stefanak revealed that department sanitarians issued notices of violation to two bars in Austintown and one in Sebring. The action was taken Feb. 12, after the businesses had previously received violation warning letters.
The sanitarians were accompanied by police in Austintown and Sebring when the notices were issued. That’s because health enforcement officers are not armed. The businesses could be fined up to $1,000. The violators have 30 days to appeal, which one of the bars intends to do.
Before there is talk about Big Brother watching, consider this: The health department can respond only to complaints that have been filed with the Ohio Department of Health.
And lest anyone think that the no-smoking ban has created a cottage industry of tattletales, here’s reality: Since May 2007, there have been a mere 541 complaints filed in Mahoning County. Indeed, the number has tapered off over time to an average of one or two a week — and most are from a few places.
Local health departments do not have the option of turning a blind eye to the complaints filed. The warning letters are meant to encourage business owners to voluntarily end illegal smoking. But once they’re on the health department’s radar screen, there should be no doubt about what will happen next.
It does not pay to be obstinate. The voters of Ohio and the General Assembly have spoken. And, a majority of the public and work places are listening.
We can empathize when those businesses that are trying to hold on to their customers however they can in this challenging economic climate, but the law is the law.
- Requires free registration.
Comments
Any tax exempt "charity " that has become a political action committee that, instead of doing research and educating, their primary function, now spends huge sums of money to hire lobbyists to make laws using GESTAPO tactics using LAW ENFORCEMENT, THREATS, INTIMIDITATION, , and SNITCHING to FORCE people to OBEY their guidelines will get NO DONATIONS from me, Since becoming a political action committee, they need to have their tax exempt status investigated by the IRS. All my donations are going to local events and groups that depend on local businesses and bingo halls, that the bans are affecting, for their support, Here are the groups taking that money away from them, all fed by big pharma through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamen...
Negative side of Referendums
1. Referendums are contrary to our system of representation of democracy
2. Referendums can also become divisive and can potentially undermine
minority 'rights' through the votes of the majority.
3. They can be controlled by political elites who can set the question and
determine campaign rules.
4. Difficult to simplify complex issues into 'yes'/no questions.
5. They can weaken the will of legislature and government to deal with
difficult issues.
6. They provide no opportunity for parties and government to engage in
consensus-building.
To sum up this situation:
"Most of the people voting in a referendum are not the people who regularly support the bars and restaurants day in and day out. Why should these people make the decisions that should be made by the owners, staffs, and patrons about using a legal product on private property?"
Smoking laws that are based on lies, half-truths, slanted surveys should be struck down immediately if not sooner.
Http://smokersclubinc.com
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
http://smokersclubinc.com
Smokers stink.. Plain and simple. Smoking cigarettes is expensive and the only people who actually support it are smokers themselves, and their brains are addled by their addiction. Come join us in the 21st century, and quit ingesting this crap and subjecting the rest of us to your stink, your added health care costs, and the sounds of your coughing and wheezing.
It is really hard to believe that there are still intelligent people in this world (and I know that some intelligent people still smoke, but their ranks are few) that want to fight for the right to smoke in public places. Go outside, like we all did in high school, or is it now too far to walk now that the emphysema has settled in?
Your right to smoke "wherever" ends when I, or my kids, end up breathing your second hand smoke.
The Law is the Law? Really? It says there is a $100.00 fine for an Individual. Not one individual has been cited since the Ban took place. Even when enforcement investigators witness an individual smoking and an owner registers a complaint with the Health Dept. investigator, they refuse to take action. When asked why they reply 1st it is not our job and second we have been told (DO NOT ISSUE A CITATION TO INDIVIDUALS ONLY OWNERS). Why does this happen? Because according to the Law, Merely Smoking for an Individual in a Public Place is not a Violation. I don't care who smokes and who doesn't but as an American I absolutely refuse to be made to work for them under Threat of Legal Action. If the Cowards who work for the Health Department are to afraid to confront an individual or take action when a complaint is filed don't fine the owner for your cowardice. There were exemptions on the Ballot that went away AFTER the Law was Passed and the RULES were written. Another cute little ploy is the anonymous call line that prohibits an owner from facing their accuser. While on the subject of cowards, where are all the Reporters of Days gone by that would reveal Crime and corruption no matter who done it? Right in Line behind the Health Dept?
The Vindy wrote, "Governments at all levels cannot sit idly by while some people believe they are above the law."
Nor should the press, but it does.
Your editorial says, "Governments at all levels cannot sit idly by while some people believe they are above the law. ... the law is the law." - = -
Gee... that's odd. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that Obama's promises on medical marijuana "are now American policy" and that the DEA will no longer raid the med. marijuana suppliers *DESPITE* the law. - = -
So I guess "the law is the law" when it comes to bans on smoking tobacco, but "the law is something somehow oddly different and strange" when it comes to smoking marijuana? - = -
Would the editors of Vindy care to explain that for me... I'm afraid I don't quite get it.... maybe I just don't have enough of a buzz to understand the NewSpeak involved? - = -
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Read this slowly and maybe you will "get it". Some states passed laws allowing for medical marijuana. Some states passed laws that restrict where a person can or cannot smoke tobacco. The Federal government is allowing those states to enforce these laws that were voted on propositions that the voters put on the ballot. I hope this helped you "get it".
Cambridge
Author of "The above Post"
Cambridge, the point I "got" was that "the law is the law" is being specifically ignored, with approval, by the federal government. Unless you're trying to claim there is no federal law governing marijuana. Are you saying individual states would be free to legalize it completely?
If not, then the principle holds: If we're going to enforce a bad or unpopular law simply on the basis of "The law is the law." then the standard should apply across the board, and any executive officer, whether President or Attorney General, who does NOT fulfill their duty to enforce the law as bound by their oaths of office should be removed from their office.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Health Departments are supposed to protect us from unseen dangers. One thing Smoking is not, is unseen. As soon as a non-smoker enters an establishment, they know if there is smoking.
The EPA 1993 Report that stated, 3,000 people a year die from SHS/ETS. WHERE ARE THE BODIES? No one can find them. Not one.
Federal Judge Osteen, an avid anti-tobacco Judge, vacated the report as a fraud, with the help of independent scientists, along with two Congressional Committees.
SHS was added to the carcinogenic tables in 2004 only at the insistence of the EPA using their fraudulent report as the reason.
I know of at least 250+ studies that show no risk from SHS/ETS with only 4 showing a risk factor of more than 3. That's risk not cause.
What has happened to reporting? If it's not Politically correct it doesn't get printed.
I've already explained that the feds are letting the states enforce these laws. In some states you can turn right on red after stopping and in some states you can't. The feds are letting the local communities legislate themselves when it comes to these matters and are no threat to the nation.
I "get it" also. You want to be able to smoke anywhere you want and other peoples health and comfort be damned. Well, the will of the people is for you to step outside for five minutes, enjoy your smoke and let others live smoke free.
Cambridge
Author of "What I just wrote"
Cambridge wrote, "I "get it" also. You want to be able to smoke anywhere you want and other peoples health and comfort be damned."
Cambridge, if visit my web pages (try starting at http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com ) you'll easily find tens of thousands of words I have written over the past few years since the publication of Brains. I defy you to find a single instance where I advocated that smokers should be able to smoke anywhere they want.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Reverendcrash,
No individuals have been fined because no individuals are being turned in to the health department. Most people go straight for the business. Also, it would generally require a rogue individual that was smoking somewhere when he was told not to, which generally is not the case. For the vast majority of problems, it is businesses letting it continue, not a person lighting up in protest in a place actually enforcing it.
FormerRes - You speak of intelligence, which, by your post, shows your lack of. The health care costs as an argument is so funny. What about all those with heart ailments due to a life filled with deep-fried foods and lack of exercise? Heart disease is a top killer, so let's ban overwight people from working and force them to buy gym memberships! Let's also ban all peope who speed as they put their life at risk of getting into an accident and causing my health care to go up! Heck, while we're at it, let's just drop health care altogether!
Those who do not like smoking, and their kids, have the right to leave the room if someone is smoking. When will the constitution be enforced and not manipulated to satisfy the hypocrites of the world?
As I said on the last article the Vindy wrote on this issue, this law is hypocritical as cigarettes are a legal substance. If you & your friends hate smokers so much, write your congressman and demand the sale of cigarettes to be banned. This IS the 21st century, right? That way, you won't be annoyed anymore by the 'coughing & wheezing' as you stated. You and your kids can go out and find another cash cow to bring in $955 million a year that will be lost from the cigarette taxes.
I would never want to ban cigarettes and lose that $955 million, I like things just the way they are. Nonsmokers get smoke free public places and the $955 million. April 1st those taxes go up again.
We should all have respect for the laws of the land and the people have spoken. God bless America.
Does anybody know where you can get one of those "I support nonsmokers" ribbons for the back of my car.
Cigarettes are bad for you.
Second hand smoke is bad for you.
Why is it such a big debate that we have a smoking ban now? Non-smokers, which obviously out number active smokers have spoken via the vote! One by one, states are passing bans, including Ohio. Its time for bar owners to stop crying and follow the will of the people! The sooner you do it, the sooner non-smokers will patronage you bar and buy your alcoholic drinks. Right now your only customers are the smokers...wouldn't you like the non-smokers business too?
YSU, if your point was valid you wouldn't see so many bar owners trying to file lawsuits to overturn smoking bans. Do you think that maybe they HATE making more money after bans? And you wouldn't have seen the pub closure rate in the UK shoot up from about 3 per week to over 36 per week in the year after their ban kicked in. That's a thousand percent increase in pub closures. And you wouldn't see post after post on trade industry boards where owners keep asking "Where are all the nonsmokers they promised us?"
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. To see a brief, one-sided, but honest and accurate examination of those lies go to:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257....
and read the "Stiletto" booklet there. If you have any substantive criticisms of it come back here and post them for everyone to see.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
McFadden:
I'm curious. How many cigarettes do you smoke per day? How much do you pay for a pack? How much will a pack cost when the taxes go up in April?
FormerRes, the air is still free. It's not yours, and yours alone, by any law of man or nature. If the air comes tainted with cigarette smoke, go breathe somewhere else. No one is responsible for you or your family having clean air; your irresponsibility when it comes to doing something as simple as moving your family to a safer place, and all the while whining about how unfair it is, just goes to show what's wrong with this country: it's continually populated by self-cloning idiots who feel compelled to impose their 'what's best for me is best for everyone' line of thinking. Do the world a favor. Grow up and don't breed.
I think it's the smokers that are whining about stepping outside in the fresh air for five minutes while they get their fix.
Camrbidge wrote, "I'm curious. How many cigarettes do you smoke per day? " Cambridge, I'm curious. Why do Antismokers always think that asking that question will provide them with some sort of satisfaction? I smoke about a half pack a day. In terms of taxes, I roll my own. Which, thank you, allows me to bring up another rather important poin in this overall discussion.
President Obama has defaulted in a VERY big way on a promise to the poorer part of America.
He has signed the SCHIP bill with a TWO THOUSAND PERCENT tax increase aimed at what is arguably the single poorest large and well-defined minority group in the entire country: those smokers who can't afford to buy cigarettes but who have historically rolled their own from loose tobacco instead.
Even if you're not a smoker, think about the folks you know who smoke: how many of them are hurting enough for money that they roll their own? Nationwide there probably aren't more than a million or two that do so, and while some of them are "elitists" or "guilty tree-huggers" or "smoking activists," most of them are simply too dirt poor to be able to go out and buy packs of Marlboro.
So what does Obama and Congress do to buy Big Tobacco's cooperation in not heavily opposing SCHIP? Simple: hit this poor, almost totally unorganized and defenseless minority group with a 2,134% tax increase so that they'll be pushed into a bracket where they might as well just go out and give Philip Morris their money.
The SCHIP tax increase on cigarettes themselves is wrong: ALL Americans love children and ALL Americans should help with their health care. To say smokers are the ONLY ones who care for children is wrong.
But to then go on and attack a small, voiceless, and helpless minority group with the largest single tax increase in the entire history of America goes beyond wrong: it is morally criminal.
So thank you Cambridge for bringing this point up.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
OK. So you smoke about 10 cigarettes a day. I'm going to assume that you smoke some in your own home, some in your automobile and some outside. I don't believe that could possible leave more than two or three times in a day where you might step outside for five minutes.
How could it make more sense for people like yourself to cause anyone working or entering an establishment to breathe second hand smoke than that five minutes outside.
I think what is fortunate is that you don't represent most smokers, in that, they get it. I think most people that smoke try to be respectful but there will always be a few that will cry if asked for a little consideration.
Cambridge, on the contrary, what *you* don't get is that if an owner allows smoking in their establishment and invites only smokers and those who don't mind a few wisps of smoke to enter, then *you* are the one not showing consideration if you enter and try to make everyone else kowtow to your preference.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Actually, cambridge, if you work a little bit on your reading skills, you'll find the article isn't about smokers, it's about business owners who want to be able to offer their customers the ability to light up in their establishments. That non-smoker whining is interfering with the way establishments are allowed to run their businesses. That *isn't* right. Non-smokers and employees alike have the opportunity to both work and patronize places that will cater to their non-smoking preferences - if a business wants to offer smokers the same, that should be a business decision.
The best way to have a business offer smokers what they had before the law changed is to change the law to suit the smokers. You should get registered voters to sign a petition for the law you want. Than the voters can vote to change the law. Or not.
It should be easy to get enough signatures. Just go where smokers congregate. You should try Oncologist offices, heart Doctors offices, the Cleveland Clinic, any hospice and places where you get those little bottles of oxygen. Hope this helps and good luck with that.
cambridge you are a disgusting human being. You continue to mock people with illnesses and those addicted to nicotine. God help your soul. I am sure you lead a perect life and exercise daily, eat only healthy foods and are a model person. Would you be making fun of a heart attack victim if they led a life full of fatty foods and no exercise? Would you be mocking a woman dying of breast cancer because she didn't do a monthly breast check? You are truly disgusting and are the model of what is wrong with our society. A bunch of bigots that feel as if their way is the only way and conveniently forget their faults as they cast stones at everyone around them. My guess is that you have a miserable life and the only thing making you feel better is to make fun of others. Good luck with that.
I continue to mock people that defend smoking and the people that defend their right to pollute the air everyone else has to breath and than tells everyone else "if you don't like it stay home". What I don't do is call people names because they disagree with me.
You might want to reread some of the posts, how some claimed that smokers lungs are healthy and try to debunk the facts that second hand smoke is dangerous or that nonsmokers have something wrong with their brains.
As for me being a smart ass and you not appreciating my sense of humor. I can understand that. I don't care but I do understand it. But if the Nuns and 12 years of Catholic school didn't change that your lecture doesn't have a chance.
Just step outside for five minutes, get your fix and let the rest of us breathe fresh air.
gistol:
I just took some time out of my "miserable life" to go through your posts and opinions on other subjects. I was mostly interested in your passion in defending the treatment and the well being of animals. I don't have any pets at this time but I agree with everything you said because what you stated is not only true but it's the right thing to do.
I'm sure you can understand my confusion when you disregard the health of humans and their right to a smoke free workplace but so passionately point out that even animals have rights.
While agreeing with your views on the treatment of animals I would ask you to consider the rights of nonsmokers because "it's the right thing to do".
Cambridge, I do not agree with calling names because someone disagrees with me. For you to make a mockery of those suffering from lung cancer is dispicable. I will not change my mind on that. Although, I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I also appreciate your last post that was more of a conversational debate, instead of just making fun and using sarcasm.
I want to be clear that I do respect non-smokers. At the same time, I also respect the smokers out there, and the business owners. I think it should be a choice for a business owner to run a smoking establishment or a non-smoking establishment. In that case, smokers and non-smokers have a choice on where they feel comfortable patronizing.
The other large problem I have is the hypocricy in this law. On one side, it is enforced by speaking of 'health', while at the same time, there are no real programs out there to help smokers, such as Insurance companies do not have to cover the patch or gum. If smoking is harmful (and I agree it is), then it should be treated like every other addiction and require health care companies to fully cover smoking cessation aids. In addition, the state makes nearly a billion dollars a year, JUST on cigarette taxes. If Ohio lawmakers and those supporting the ban of cigarette use will use the 'health' platform to encourage banning smoking everywhere, then why still allow cigarettes as a legal purchase? If it was really truly a health issue, cigarette sales would be banned. Now that would be a step to prove this is about health, and not just a money maker.
gistol:
I agree with you that one of the reasons cigarettes are not banned completely is the tax revenue. I can also see how some could see that as hypocritical. I think the other part of the reason is that smoking is a life style choice. It's no bodies business if someone wants to smoke.
As far as where people can smoke. There have always been restrictions on where people could or could not smoke. As more laws are passed more restrictions are placed on the smoker. I can imagine the frustration but smokers might as well accept the fact that if your going to smoke your going to have to do it in private. There's the world the way you want it to be and there's the world the way it is. I don't doubt that most smokes are nice people and are considerate. I think around 30-35% of adults smoke. 90% of those smokers are considerate. It's that 10% and their "If you don't like it...! attitude I'm going to slam every time.
As far as the government or insurance companies paying for smoke cessation programs, I'm all for it.The less people that smoke the better fro everyone. That being said, until a smoker comes to grips with the fact that something as lame as cigarettes are controlling their lives they are doomed. The first step in quiting is to realize "I DON'T NEED THIS IN MY LIFE". I stopped smoking 30 years ago. When I got my head strait and was going through the process I didn't run from smokers or had to fight the temptation when I saw people smoke. It was the contrary. When I saw someone smoke I took the time to watch them and focus on the fact that this person just took their hard earned money and spent it on sticks of cancer causing chemicals, lit them on fire and inhaled the fumes. When you can get your head in that place it is much easier to quit.
As far as the sarcasm. Like Popeye "I am what I am". I don't mean anything by it, it's just my sense of humor and if God doesn't get it I'm going to hell. When I started checking the Vindy on line they had a different format and I didn't comment but I enjoyed the banter. There were a bunch of crazy people posting and it was very entertaining. I'm Italian and one person would always post a list of famous African Americans from Ytown and the list was always all Italian. I laughed every time I read it. There was a kid called the "Caps Kid", and I didn't agree with anything he wrote but he defiantly cracked me up. I miss that part of this forum probably due to the fact that I'm child grown old but like Popeye said....! I realize people don't know my demeanor when I write what I write. I'm not trying to be mean it's just my sense of humor.
Peace.
Cambridge,
Thanks for clearing things up and also explaining your bacground on this issue. Quitting smoking or any addiction is one of the hardest things to do, if not the hardest. Everyone quits for different reasons and uses different tools, whether they be psycholgical tools or nicotine aids.
I sincerely hope that those that are opposed to smoking really take a stand on the right things. The wrong thing (in my opinion) is to tax smokers to death and prevent them from acquiring jobs and providing no help to them quitting. The right thing to do would be to spend the tax dollars from smokers on programs to help them quit. Smokers know that cigarettes are a waste of money, that they are frowned upon and that they are harming their health. With that, you would think quitting would be a snap, but obviously it's easier said than done. I've known so many people hate being a smoker, but cannot quit. The emphasis on these laws needs to be on health and helping one quit this awfully addictive habit. Instead of discriminating and taxing smokers to death, it's time to recognize smoking as the addiciton that it is.
Peace to you as well.