State Ban Damage Update
Smokers not eligible for jobs in some Ohio casinos
3,200 applicants will be tested for nicotine usage, refused if found positive.
By Laura A. Bischoff,
**************
In hiring for its two Ohio casinos, Penn National has decided to exclude 25 percent of Ohio’s adult population: smokers, who use a legal product (“ For casino workers, smoking is no dice,” Dayton Daily News article, Jan. 27 Dispatch).
Of all the hypocritical moves. Consider:
Regional directorBuckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association
January 21st, 2011
By Lauren Evans & Andy Long
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A man was taken to Grant Medical Center late Saturday night in critical condition with at least one gunshot wound.
Columbus medics were called to the 4400 block of Walford Street on a call that said a man was having difficulty breathing.? Responders found that at least one bullet wound was to blame.
Police say that 42-year-old Alberto Chavez was outside smoking when he was shot.
Police found no witnesses to the shooting.
Anyone with information about this shooting is asked to call Central Ohio Crime Stoppers at 461-TIPS.
Local Bar Sued Over Smoking Ban
OH: Watch video. Department of Health figures show the state has spent $3.2 million to impose $1.2 million in fines on violators of Ohio’s smoking ban.?
Watch these videos:?
Maurice Thompson, legal counsel and director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, discusses a Franklin County judge’s decision in favor of the Columbus-area bar Zeno’s, which had been cited with $30,000-plus in fines for breaking the statewide smoking ban.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUSfPShp2uQ&feature;=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmqz14CidlA&feature;=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsgUr_DLS5E&feature;=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrhqDYttQXs&feature;=channel
Read about our latest news here: Opponents of Ohio Bans
Jun 07, 2010
By Stefano DiPietrantonio
?
March 4, 2010
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has asked the Franklin County Court of Appeals to place Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David E. Cain’s decision on hold pending appeal while the Department of Health continues enforcing the smoking ban as it always has: illegally (“Judge: Punish smokers, not bars,” Dispatch article, Friday). Cordray filed his appeal with the very court that made a ruling similar to Cain’s, back in October in the Pour House decision ( Dispatch article, Oct. 16).
Cordray seems to think the Ohio Department of Health is above the courts. The Health Department thinks so, too, since it ignored the Pour House decision by continuing to illegally enforce the smoking ban.
How does the state of Ohio plan to fine Ohio business owners when the state’s own actions say it’s OK to flagrantly ignore the courts, as the Health Department has since October?
Ohio’s top attorney agrees it’s OK, so long as he leads the charge.
Owners of Ohio’s bars and restaurants have been fighting to keep their businesses alive, their doors open and to feed their families. Against all odds, some are hanging on. Sadly, many are gone. When we see that the state can break the law, it angers us. Many who lost their businesses could have broken the law and stayed in business.
But they didn’t.
We will not forget who turned their backs on us and we will not forget that the state thinks it’s above the law.
PAM PARKER
Regional director
Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association
Grove City
February 25, 2010
COLUMBUS, Ohio — An opponent of Ohio’s ban on workplace smoking said a judge’s ruling in favor of a Columbus bar means other taverns who have been cited by the Ohio Department of Health could have their violations tossed.
The state plans to appeal the Franklin County ruling, which says the department exceeded its authority by holding bar Zeno’s responsible for the actions of its patrons.
Judge David Cain said the department fined Zeno’s despite “no smoking” signs, the removal of ashtrays and requests by employees that smokers extinguish cigarettes.
The bar was defended by the Columbus-based 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, which says the ruling allows bars across the state to challenge fines.
Health department spokeswoman Sara Morman said several similar cases have received opposite rulings in the same court.
Dec. 16th, 2009
by GARY HUFFENBERGER
A local woman accused of burning the fingers of a boy she was babysitting was found guilty Tuesday of felonious assault after she admitted guilt as part of a negotiated plea agreement.
Thirty-seven-year-old Teresa J. Moore signed a court document admitting that on May 9 she knowingly caused serious physical harm to the 8-year-old boy “by using matches and a lighter to burn multiple fingers of the child.”
Clinton County Common Pleas Judge John W. Rudduck referred Moore’s case for pre-sentence research in which Moore’s background will be examined and information about Moore will be provided to help the judge when he sentences Moore on the second-degree felony conviction.
The Clinton County Adult Parole Authority will conduct the pre-sentence investigation of Moore and provide the judge a report by the sentencing date. The judge encouraged Moore to cooperate in the process.
The maximum prison term in the case is eight years and the maximum fine is $15,000.
As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors consented to recommending to the judge that a second charge, endangering children, which also is a second-degree felony offense, be dismissed.
If Moore is sentenced to prison, a period of supervision by the Adult Parole Authority after release from prison is mandatory.
The sentencing hearing is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2010, at the common pleas courtroom.
Earlier this month, Rudduck ruled on a motion by defense to exclude from evidence statements Moore made during a children services interview days after the incident.
Defense attorney Anthony J. Baker, in late October, filed a motion to suppress, challenging if statements by his client were obtained in violation of her federal and state constitutional rights.
The issue revolved around an interview of Moore conducted at the Clinton County Children Services facility by a children services staffer in which Moore was not given Miranda warnings. In Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that certain procedural safeguards must be afforded defendants to protect the privilege against self-incrimination.
In Rudduck’s Dec. 8 decision on the motion to suppress, he wrote, “Central to any constitutional analysis of this sort is determining whether the defendant was in custody and subject to a custodial interrogation at the time alleged incriminating statements were provided. No reasonable person could conclude defendant was in custody on May 15, 2009, when she voluntarily appeared before [children services] investigator [Jodi] Brisbine and voluntarily consented to answer her questions.”
Rudduck concluded that Moore’s statements were not obtained by violating her constitutional rights and denied the motion to suppress the statements.
The children services interview wasn’t the first time Moore’s willingness to talk about the incident came into play in this case. The crime was reported by Patricia Waelti (pronounced “well-tee”), a Wilmington woman who on May 14 offered to help a woman she didn’t know with a broken-down car in the Kroger parking lot. After some conversation, the stranded woman reportedly confided in Waelti that she had burnt a boy’s fingers as a punishment for smoking cigarettes.
In a News Journal interview last May, Waelti said the woman, later identified as Moore, showed her the boy’s fingers. To describe their color in her interview, Waelti pointed to a bright Christmas-red sweatshirt. The blisters on the boy’s fingertips “looked like they had been popped and clipped,” said Waelti.
The child victim’s mother, 37-year-old Michelle M. Worthington of Wilmington, previously was sentenced in the incident to four years in prison for permitting child abuse. Her boyfriend, 39-year-old William L. Ballard of Wilmington, was sentenced in the incident to one year in prison for permitting child abuse.
Worthington and Ballard reportedly witnessed the finger-burning, according to Clinton County Prosecutor Rick Moyer.
?
VFW Post 1090 had been making $40,000 in annual donations to local charities before the smoking ban but you don’t see too many stories talking about the impact of the ban on such things.
?
The antismoking lobby is trying to make sure people focus on the “positive,” such as the nice clean air inside the empty bar, rather than on such unimportant negatives as the veterans slipping on the ice while forced to stand out in the cold or the children’s charities that close down due to lack of donations.
?
Veterans clubs here in Philadelphia have a similar problem but it’s all just a matter of what antismoking advocates call proper “Perception Management.” Perhaps the post should be asked to rearrange its dumpsters so that the vets could stand out of sight behind them and the ban would get better support. Maybe that would make the Antismokers happier…. although it won’t help the children.
?
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers Brains”
?
—-
?
Fuming Over Fines
By Bill Rodgers – Tribune Chronicle
?
WARREN – In the three years Ohio has been smoke-free, not a single building has qualified for the ”private club” exemption, according to state officials, leaving some clubs like the VFW Post 1090 in Warren expressing outrage and frustration.
Group Uncovers Massive Ohio Election Fraud
Related Web site: www.opponentsofohiobans.com
Toledo Bar Wins Smoking Case
October 16th, 2009
By James Nash – Columbus Dispatch
COLUMBUS – Bar owners who try to keep their customers from smoking can’t be penalized under the state’s anti-smoking law just because a patron disobeys, an appeals court ruled yesterday.
The Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision that a Toledo bar violated the statewide smoking ban because an inspector observed a lit cigarette in a mint tin.
The bartender at the Pour House, 4301 Bennett Rd., said she told the patron that he couldn’t smoke inside, and the man left with the cigarette still smoldering.
A Lucas County inspector, operating on a tip about smoking at the bar in early 2008, found the lit cigarette and cited the business for violating the 2006 smoking ban. The bar was fined $500.
Attorneys for the Pour House said it and other bars shouldn’t be punished for violating the smoking ban when they try to prevent customers from smoking.
The three-judge appeals court agreed.
“Without evidence that the proprietor permitted smoking, there is no basis for finding the proprietor violated the statute,” Judge William A. Klatt wrote.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association hailed the ruling.
“We’re pleased to hear that we can’t be the cops and that once we’ve told the customer to extinguish the cigarette, they’re the ones violating the law, not the establishment,” said Jacob Evans, a spokesman for the association.
During a hearing on the Pour House’s alleged violation, a hearing officer accepted the bar owner’s statement that he had posted no-smoking signs at entrances and attempted to enforce the ban. Likewise, the hearing officer believed the bartender’s explanation that she asked the customer to extinguish his cigarette.
Nevertheless, the hearing officer said the law is clear: Establishments caught with customers smoking or clear evidence of smoking are in violation.
Ohioans passed the anti-smoking law in November, 2006, and it has not been seriously challenged through a lawsuit or a referendum.
In August, the Ohio Department of Health sued two bars, including Zeno’s in Columbus, for repeatedly violating the ban. Zeno’s said the state’s enforcement was inconsistent and discriminatory. The suit is pending.
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:24 PM
Subject: 1851 Center Files Challenge to Ohio Smoking Ban and Seizure of Tavern
For Immediate Release?????????????????????????????????
Contact: Lauren
Kresge, 614-224-4422
Thursday, September 17, 2009???????????
It was filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.
“Small businesses like Zeno’s do not exist to sustain the fickle preferences of far-off voters who never patronize it.? Meanwhile, the Health Department issues crushing $5,000 fines without meaningful investigation.”
Cigar Store Owners Support Appeal of Smoking Ban Enforcement Case
COLUMBUS, Ohio August 22, 2009 – Ohio’s three-year-old smoking ban is costing small businesses big money and jobs. That’s why the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association is siding with proponents of an appeal of a lawsuit against draconian enforcement of the ban.
In a case before the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County, it is being argued that enforcement of the ban has gone too far when health department inspectors make no allowances for the best efforts of establishment owners to ensure that patrons adhere to the letter as well as spirit of the law.
“It’s a mess. Businesses are losing money and jobs in the midst of an economic crisis. This means the state is losing money, too, but the state’s loss of tax revenues are at least being partially offset by fines collected for alleged smoking ban violations,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director for the IPCPR.
McCalla cited a recent Federal Reserve Bank study of the economic impact of a statewide smoking ban in the state of Illinois. The study proved that the state lost more than $200 million in tax revenues from nine Illinois casinos directly stemming from the one-year-old ban. They collectively lost some $400 million in revenues while casinos in a neighboring state with no smoking ban had flat revenues for the year.
“And there are more losses where that came from – more lost business income, more lost tax revenues and more lost jobs – because of a smoking ban. It’s bad enough we have to put up with an economic downturn while legislators look for ways to make things more difficult for small business owners instead of helping them turn the economy around,” said McCalla.
“Not only should there be no such thing as legislated smoking bans, but the Ohio inspectors are slapping fines and citations willy-nilly against businesses that are doing all they can to enforce the law while their customers light up, inadvertently or not,” he added.
McCalla says the IPCPR, an association of some 2,000 small-business owners of retail smoke shops and premium cigar manufacturers and distributors, is not against an individual business owner’s right to ban smoking on their premises.
“When government decides to run those businesses by telling the owners they can’t allow smoking there, it steps across the line of freedoms as established by the constitution. If you don’t want to be with smokers, don’t go into an establishment that allows smoking. Period,” he said.
###
Contact:
Tony Tortorici
678-493-0313
tony@tortoricipr.com
The petition
2. Ex-Surgeon General Carmona 2006 Report
3. The money behind the bans – the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
4. Those who profit
5. Who are the 53,000?
6. Why are total bans the law when we have OSHA whose job it is to protect all workers?
7. Global corruption (Congress must investigate the U.S. involvement)
8. Why are there no lifetime limits placed on donations from foundations?
P.O. Box 402
Grove City, OH 43123
www.opponentsofohiobans.com
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/conghearing/index.html
On May 18, 2009 Ohio State University researchers claiming they had done a “New Study” that showed smoking bans do not hurt employment in “bars and restaurants.”
?
As is *always* the case with Antismoking research, there’s a trick involved.? Here’s the analysis by the Club’s Mid-Atlantic Director, Mike McFadden
?
===
???
The authors of this study had two separate sets of NAICS employment data:? Data for bars, AND data for full-service-restaurants.? They deliberately chose NOT to publish any analysis on what happened to bar employment.??
?
Some might conclude that they simply withheld such results because it would have damaged the political cause the researchers and their antismoking funders, ClearWay Minnesota, intended to support.?? There’s an obvious motivation to have performed such a separate analysis since the results, if they went the “right” way, would have made the study’s conclusion FAR more powerful! After all, just picture the headlines: “NEW STUDY SHOWS EVEN BARS GAIN BUSINESS AFTER SMOKING BANS!”
?
When I asked the study’s lead author about this I was simply told that the analysis of both together was “the most appropriate” approach.? I then noted that I found this puzzling unless the researchers were fairly new to the field since historically it’s always been thought that bars suffer disproportionately.? I asked, “Are you saying such a separation and its value to your study did not occur to you and your colleagues and that none of you or your peer-reviewers / journal editors thought to take a look at that data?”
?
Her response to me, instead of offering a reasonable explanation, was this:
?
“You may want to familiarize yourself with some of the scientific literature on economic effects on the hospitality industry.”
?
She then attached an old study blaming any contrary research results on tobacco industry funding and corruption.? This seemed a rather odd response since my own research has always been quite explicitly unfunded.
?
This is not what I would call a professional response to a reasonable question. Picture if I did a study on the economic meltdown, examining the data for its effects on Blacks and Whites. I know the Black community has a better reason for concern and has also been most featured in the media as suffering, but despite having both sets of data I simply decide it is “most appropriate” to combine the numbers for Blacks and Whites and present a report concluding that there was no harm from the meltdown.? I do this despite knowing that, since Whites outnumber Blacks ten to one, any Black suffering will of course be covered up.?
?
I then present my study to the media, arguing there’s no need for government change by saying, “We certainly did not detect anything close to the dramatic claims that opponents make based on the concerns that they have for Blacks.” (That’s an actual newspaper quote from the lead researcher with the word Blacks substituted for Bars.) The headlines the next day then read: “New Research: Economic Meltdown Does Not Hurt Blacks, Whites.”
?
My opinion about researchers who would do such a thing may seem harsh, but I fail to see much, if any, path between the choices of incompetent or unethical. The fact that my emails did not elicit a response of “Gee, we ARE new to the field and just didn’t think of separating bars.” would seem to strongly imply the latter point of view.
?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers’ Action Network (PASAN)
Read
http://www.jacobgrier.com
Read More: OH Ban Damage Page 2
