People Ban: OH State Alert Page 11

Ohio

Ohio Update

OH county: No fat smokers for health commissioner
December 06, 2013
DAYTON, Ohio (AP) – One southwest county is requiring its health commissioner be a non-smoker who isn’t overweight.
The health department for Dayton and Montgomery County this week adopted new employment policies that will require the health commissioner to be tobacco-free and maintain a body weight that “exemplifies a healthy standard of life.”
Current health commissioner Jim Gross says the person in the position needs “to practice what he or she preaches.”
The Dayton Daily News (http://bit.ly/1iG9CM1 ) reports that the weight restriction applies only to the commissioner. The health department’s board of directors will determine the appropriate body weight for each new commissioner.
But the zero-tolerance tobacco policy will apply to all new applicants beginning the first of next year. Other employees have until April 1 to quit.


These Ohio Supreme Court Judges SHOULD have recused themselves from the smoking ban case.
Donations from:? Pfizer Political Action Committee and Political Contributions.
?
09 – 10
O’Conner $2,500
Lenzinger $2,500
?
07 – 08
O’Conner $5,000
Stratten $5,500
Goodman $3,000
?
05 – 06
Cupp????? $5,500
O’Donnell? $5,500
The Pfizer political action committee, Pfizer PAC, is a nonpartisan organization that provides opportunities for employees to participate in the American political process. The Pfizer PAC is an employee-run organization with a steering committee made up of Pfizer employees from around the country. When choosing to make a contribution to a candidate, the Pfizer PAC considers candidates’ views on issues that impact Pfizer and its employees as well as the presence of Pfizer facilities or employees in the candidate’s district or state. The PAC steering committee reviews and approves all recommendations for PAC contributions on a monthly basis.
Pfizer’s procedure that limits Pfizer colleagues’ campaign and election activities during working hours also restricts the use of Pfizer resources to support federal and state candidates, political parties and political committees.


OH: Pam Parker radio interview on The Josh Tolley Show. Smoking Bans: Killing our jobs, our health, and our freedom.

Easing of coercive anti-smoking tactics welcome
June 23, 2011
For weeks now, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association have criticized the governor and legislature for cutting funding for smoking-ban enforcement and smoking cessation. If these non-profits are so concerned, why aren’t they paying for these programs? Why should taxpayers?
In fact, the Cancer Society generated $9,009,812 in revenue from QuitLines, providing smoking cessation to 27 state agencies. It lobbies for money for smoking cessation and smoking bans, then profits from it all.
Liquor permit holders have lost $419.2 million in liquor sales since the ban (which does not include beer, vending losses, etc.); the state has lost $28 million in liquor sales taxes.
Home and social-gathering consumption of liquor has increased by 14.6 million bottles since the ban (hardly a desired outcome). Mom-and-pop bar owners have cut hours, gone bankrupt, laid off employees and lost money.
Valuable resources have been diverted from health departments’ higher priorities to chase smoking complaints. This experiment in behavior control by demonizing people who use a legal product, banning its use on private property, throwing smokers into the cold, denying them jobs, is a colossal failure. It was always about forcing people to quit smoking. It failed.
Kudos for cutting funding. It’s time to move on. Let adult-only businesses post smoking signs, employ Ohioans and help Ohio out of its money problems.
Pam Parker
Grove City
Ms. Parker is regional director of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association.

As of June 3, 2011 the funds have been cut for enforcement of the ban.
The 1851 Center is quoted near the end of the article, says its case is still pending.

High Court will Review Smoking Ban Constitutionality
April 6, 2011
By 1851 Center for Constitutional Law
COLUMBUS – The Supreme Court of Ohio today agreed to become the first state supreme court in the nation to determine whether a statewide smoking ban violates bar owners’ property rights. The Court also agreed to review whether the Ohio Department of Health has consistently exceeded its authority in fining business owners under the ban.
The case is brought by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, an Ohio-based public interest law firm, on behalf of Zeno’s Victorian Village, a family-owned Columbus tavern.
The Center argues the smoking ban unconstitutionally deprives business owners of fundamental property rights. It also argues that the state health officials’ methods while enforcing the ban exceed their unconstitutional authority and is at odds with the plain language of the ban. The legal center’s Motion for Jurisdiction is available here.
“Irrespective of what one thinks of the merits of this law, it was never intended to result in the indiscriminate imposition of $5,000 citations on innocent business owners,” said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “These enforcement complications are largely a function of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole: local taverns are not public property, and owners of these properties have a right to decide how their indoor air is used, just as potential patrons have a right to freely enter or exit.”
The 1851 Center believes this will be Ohio’s most important decision on property rights since the Ohio Supreme Court decided Norwood v. Horney in 2006, prohibiting takings of private property for economic development. “In Norwood, the Court called Ohioans’ property rights, including the right to use property, ‘fundamental’ and ‘sacrosanct,’” said Thompson. “This case will determine whether the Court really meant that.”
After a politically-charged filing against Zeno’s by then-Attorney General Richard Cordray, a Franklin County Common Pleas court ruled that state and local health officials had overstepped their authority in enforcing the law. “When an individual is asked to stop smoking but refuses, liability is transferred from the property owner to the individual,” Judge David E. Cain wrote in his February 2010 decision.
The Ohio attorney general appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court and prompted the current appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, Ohio Liberty Council, COAST, and the Ohio Freedom Alliance filed amicus briefs with the high court supporting the 1851 Center’s position, and asking the Court to review the case.
The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Cincinnati Reds’ celebration cigars bring smoking complaints
September 30, 2010
By Jane Prendergast?
The Cincinnati Health Department will investigate the Cincinnati Reds for violations of the state smoking ban after people complained players smoked cigars indoors while celebrating their National League Central Division title Tuesday night.
A lot of players could be seen on TV smoking the cigars, and Reds owner Bob Castellini was passing them out. But video doesn’t affect the investigation – the health inspector has to actually see someone smoking, said Rocky Merz, health department spokesman.
Five people called a statewide smoking ban complaint hotline, Merz said. Those complaints were sent to the city health department today for investigation. Castellini will get letter soon notifying him of the alleged violation.
State law requires a health inspector to go out within 30 days at about the same time of day as the alleged violation, Merz said. That means an inspector might be attending one of the playoff games to see if anyone is smoking then.
“We come in unannounced, obviously,” he said. .
If the inspector sees someone smoking, the Reds will be sent a letter notifying them of the violation, which the team can appeal. No fine is attached to any initial violation. If another complaint is filed and an inspector responds again to the ballpark and sees someone smoking, the Reds could be fined $100. The fine escalates to $500 after that.
In some investigations, inspectors can interview witnesses. That won’t work this time because all the complaints were anonymous, Merz said.
Terry Evans, who oversees riverfront operations for the county, said he wasn’t aware of the smoking complaints therefore could not comment.
The Reds declined to comment, team spokesman Rob Butcher said.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*