People Ban: OH State Alert Page 10

Read More:  OH State Alert Page 11

---

Area man reaping rewards of homegrown tobacco
By Jim Carney, Beacon Journal staff writer
Aug 06, 2010
FREEDOM TWP.: Don Carey has accomplished his goal to not have to pay federal taxes on what he smokes.
Carey now puffs away his homegrown tobacco grown out of his frustration with rising federal taxes on tobacco-related products.
Carey is now harvesting his own tobacco, grown fittingly enough in Portage County’s Freedom Township.
This year’s crop looks good, said Carey, who is already smoking last year’s first venture in tobacco farming.
The 50-year-old said his anger over federal taxes rising as much 2,153 percent on some tobacco products last spring is ebbing.
”I lost that kind of animosity,” said the Peninsula man. ”It has lost its intensity because it no longer affects me.”
Last year’s harvest of several thousand plants on a three-quarters of an acre plot netted the construction worker about 400 pounds of finished tobacco leaves.
This year’s crop will likely be smaller, he said, because the number of construction jobs are more plentiful so his time spent in the field is less.
”There is no reason at all for me to ever go back and buy cigarettes again,” said Carey, who smokes anywhere from a half pack to 15 cigarettes a day.
This year’s plants, which boast about 25 different varieties, were planted on a smaller plot.
Carey said he’s thinking about experimenting more with cigar tobacco in the future.
”I am one of those people who likes to smoke,” he said.
He is also growing some experimental tobacco plants that are high in sugar content to see if they may be good for ethanol production.
The hot, humid and muggy weather the region has experienced this summer has been ideal for tobacco growing, Carey said, compared to last year’s cool temperatures.
So if global warming affects the Akron area’s temperatures, Carey said, he is prepared for the warm weather.
”[If] the tobacco belt moves out of Virginia into Ohio, I’m one step ahead of the game.”

---

PERSPECTIVE: Ohio ranks low on the freedom scale

February 28th, 2009

A new study out last week raised an intriguing question: How free is your state?

With state lawmakers in Ohio considering tougher seat-belt enforcement for civilians and shorter prison stays for criminals as two ways to balance the $54 billion, two-year state budget, the question seems both relevant and timely.

Ohio was ranked 38th out of 50 states on the index of personal and economic freedom developed by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University. In other words, only 12 states are less free.

The study ranks New Hampshire, Colorado and South Dakota in a virtual tie for first place. It ranks New York and California among the least free.

The index is wide-ranging and comes from an individual rights perspective, which defies many philosophical boundaries of the mainstream Republican and Democratic party platforms.

For example, Ohio’s prohibition against same-sex marriage is viewed as a wash in the study. Why? Because all marriage requirements amount to unnecessary government intervention. (As do blood test requirements and marriage license waiting periods, by their measure.)

Ohio’s law allowing residents to carry concealed handguns? Good.

The state’s relatively lax marijuana laws? Also good.

By the researchers’ measure, seat belt laws and sobriety checkpoints “count as notable infringements on individual liberty.” The index also issued freedom demerits for alcohol regulations, including “blue laws” against Sunday sales and taxes on beer, wine and spirits. Open-container laws and cell phone driving bans are viewed as minor nuisances.

Ohio’s ranking in the study’s so-called “paternalism” category would presumably only worsen if lawmakers pass legislation allowing primary enforcement of the state’s seat belt requirement. As it is now, a driver can only be fined if pulled over for another offense.

State lawmakers in the past have been resistant to making the switch. But money talks, particularly in this historically bad economy, and Ohio can land $26 million in federal highway money if it complies.

A “yes” vote on primary seat belt enforcement might be offset on the freedom scale by allowing certain nonviolent offenders to do less time, earn early release credit faster, or serve time in community-based settings as opposed to prisons. These are among ways state prisons officials are proposing to cut costs and reduce overcrowding.

The Mercatus Center has a whole list of crimes that it views as “victimless” for which governments are penalized for imposing in the index. Those include many drug offenses for individuals over 18, violations of liquor laws, gambling and prostitution.

Also on their list of paternalistic government activities are: bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws, regulations requiring motorists to carry personal injury insurance, home- and private-school regulations, campaign finance rules and asset forfeiture laws that allow government to take property without a conviction of the owner.

Ohio is ranked 46th of 50 in the study’s personal freedom ranking, above only Rhode Island, New York, Illinois and, the lowest, Maryland. Alaska, Maine, New Mexico, Arkansas and Texas offer residents the most liberties in this area, the study found.

Amy Hanauer, executive director of Policy Matters Ohio, a nonprofit liberal think tank in Cleveland, said she finds the idea that New York is the nation’s least free state absurd.

She said the study appears to give high marks to states with particularly low taxes, such as Colorado.

“You can talk about freedom broadly – being able to practice the religion of your choice, speak the language you choose, dress the way you want. But to lump that in with the freedom from paying taxes is something I’ve always found troubling and not very persuasive,” she said.

“The public sector is what enables us to pursue many other freedoms in our lives,” she said, “by keeping us safe, keeping our water clean, and giving us the ability to know that we are not surrounded by people who are in desperate want, which can also affect our freedom.”

State Sen. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican, tended to agree with the study that Ohioans’ freedom is suffering. He noted Ohio has sanctioned red-light cameras, restricted payday lenders, passed a statewide smoking ban, and voted down legalized gaming all in the past year or two.

“The Republican Party and the state Legislature as a whole would be well-advised to promote a widely accepting message of individual freedom and individuality if they want to attract people and jobs to this state,” he said.

Ohio gets its highest marks – 29th of the 50 states – in the area of regulatory freedom. This category ranks states based on their labor and utility regulations, health insurance mandates, occupational licensing requirements, eminent domain laws, land and environmental regulations, and their systems for allowing residents to recoup legal damages.

Ohio ranks 40th for its fiscal freedom, which takes into account budget constraints and the size of a state’s government related to its private sector. South Carolina, New Hampshire and Colorado are the top three. New Yorkers have the least amount of fiscal freedom.

A state’s fiscal and regulatory freedom combine for an economic freedom score in the study. Ohio’s was 32nd.

The researchers – political scientists William Ruger of Texas State University and Jason Sorens of the State University of New York at Buffalo – note that no one area of the country nor political party appears consistently to offer citizens more freedom. Much has to do with state politics, a state’s social attitudes and ideological leanings and its institutional design.

Liberal states are more lenient on marijuana and same-sex partner laws, for example, but tougher on gun owners, home-schoolers, motorists and smokers. Conservative states also fell in the middle of the study’s pack. Mississippi, for example, has marijuana laws that are “a study in contradictions,” its taxes are high, and its liability system is one of the worst in the nation.

Moderate, centrist governments offer their residents the most freedoms, according to the study.

“As Americans grow richer in future years, quality of life will matter more to residence decisions, while the imperative of decent employment will decline by comparison,” they wrote.

By JULIE CARR SMYTH, AP Statehouse Correspondent

On The Net:Freedom in the 50 States:  An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom

---

Warrantless search ruled unconstitutional

By Lou Grieco
December 04, 2008

COLUMBUS — A warrantless search of a suspected drug house, made after a police officer standing in a neighbor’s yard saw drug activity through a window, was unconstitutional, the Ohio Supreme Court said.

The court did not issue a ruling on the unanimous decision from the Ohio 2nd District Court of Appeals, but dismissed the case Tuesday, Dec. 2, stating the high court should not have agreed to hear it.

That means the opinion written by appeals court Judge James Brogan will stand, said attorney Daniel O’Brien, who represented defendant Kevin Peterson in the case.

“I think it’s a victory for the Constitution,” O’Brien said Wednesday, Dec. 3. “When the police are looking in your window without a warrant, they’ve gone too far.”

Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office spokesman Greg Flannagan said the court’s decision would lead to the dismissal of Peterson’s charges.

Under prior court decisions, police are not precluded from noticing and acting on evidence of illegal conduct in a private residence without a warrant when the evidence is in plain sight from where the officer has a legal right to be, prosecutors argued.

O’Brien argued that according to the U.S. Supreme Court, a resident enjoys an expectation of privacy in his residence and in adjacent outdoor areas. He argued that the officers had no right to trespass into the yard so close to the house that they could see inside a basement window and see things not visible to a normal passer-by.

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2057 or lgrieco@DaytonDailyNews.com.

---

Smoke-ban foes support effort to gain exemptions
Pair of bills in legislature leave proprietors hopeful
July 24, 2008
By JULIE M. McKINNON, BLADE STAFF WRITER
Nearly two years after voters passed Ohio’s smoking ban, some Toledo area business owners and private club officials are backing a legislative effort to exempt some bars and other establishments.
Ohio’s draconian smoking ban has financially hurt bars, private clubs, and other businesses, said Pam Parker, co-founder of Opponents of Ohio Bans.
A drop in wholesale liquor sales, closures, and other ill effects are proving it to lawmakers, she added.
“If we don’t get our businesses back as business owners, we’re not going to have anything,” Ms. Parker told about 75 people during a meeting last night in Sommerset Hall,
2458 Tremainsville Rd. “This is our last shot,” she said.
Opponents of the smoking ban long have held that voters were confused by the ballot’s wording, which led them to believe family-owned businesses and private clubs would be exempt.
Two bills were introduced in June in the state legislature to exempt more businesses from the smoking ban, which prohibits smoking in most establishments.
The Ohio Senate version – which would allow smoking in family-owned businesses, private clubs that are nonprofit, and all outdoor patios – has a better chance of approval, said Pat Carroll, president of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association.
The Senate bill defines family-owned business as those that are not publicly owned or traded; have a president or chief operating officer from the family who has controlling interest, and are located in free-standing structures or separated from other businesses by firewalls.
The other bill, introduced in the House, would exempt stand-alone bars from the smoking ban.
Stand-alone bars must not be located within or share common entrances with enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited, and they cannot derive more than 10 percent of gross revenues from food sales, the House bill says.
Smoking ban opponent Bill Delaney, owner of Delaney’s Lounge in West Toledo, said the groups may organize a rally in Columbus after the legislature is back in session.
He asked those attending last night’s meeting to start gathering signatures in support of the Senate bill. “We need to get the truth out,” Mr. Delaney said. “We have to let people know exactly what’s going on.”
He added: “We need everyone behind us. We need more and more behind us.”
Ms. Parker said public health groups first went after smoking, which is weeding out the number of bars. Their next targets will be alcoholism and obesity, further hurting bars and other establishments, she said.
She also questioned the motivation of the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to fund smoking bans. It also is one of the biggest institutional shareholders in Johnson & Johnson, which makes smoking cessation patches, she said. “How has this been allowed?” Ms. Parker asked.

---

Who Really Profits From Smoking Bans?

            Opponents of Ohio Bans say “Just follow the money.”

    COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 23, 2008 /PRNewswire/ — “Smoking bans in the U.S. have
been funded by those who directly profit from the sales of Nicotine
Replacement Therapies (NRT),” said Debi Kistner with Opponents of Ohio
Bans. Robert Wood Johnson, the late CEO of Johnson & Johnson, established
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) tax exempt non-profit 501(c)(3)
in the early 1970s. According to their November 2005 publication, “Taking
on tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Assault on Smoking”, from
1991 to 2005 the foundation paid $446,398,054 in tobacco-control grants.
Grantees that did not move from tobacco education to tobacco control became
ineligible for further grants.

    As of March 31, 2008 the foundation owns 35,435,189 shares of Johnson &
Johnson (JNJ) common stock (valued at nearly 2.3 billion dollars) and is
one of the company’s largest institutional holders. As a tax exempt
foundation RWJF pays 1 percent tax on realized capital gains and dividends
from its investments, while other investors pay 15 percent. Johnson &
Johnson profits from the sales of Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette products. The
foundation therefore directly profits from cigarette tax and smoking ban
laws they’ve provided grants to create. In January 2008, 1,000,000 boxes of
the company’s nicotine replacement products were reportedly sold and
Nicoderm CQ is touted as the “best selling smoking cessation patch in
history”. April 15, 2008, Forbes reported that Johnson & Johnson profit
jumped 40% during the first quarter of 2008.

    The foundation created the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids and
has provided more than $84,000,000 in grants to fund that advocacy group.
As a non-profit the foundation can’t legally lobby but the center can. The
center aggressively promotes increased taxation on tobacco products.

    The foundation sponsors conferences on “how to identify ways to
increase the use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments” and
awarded the American Cancer Society a nearly $1,000,000 grant to “expand
the use of tobacco cessation treatments”. It’s about the money, profits for
stockholders and control. Tobacco control is the best marketing strategy
that pharmaceutical dollars can buy.

    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has been warning
the government for over a decade of the RWJF’s desire to control the health
care policies of this country. Following the pattern for tobacco control,
the foundation has pledged $500,000,000 in grants for anti-obesity. Johnson
& Johnson will profit once again from anti-obesity public policy advocacy
through its Splenda brand of artificial sweetener.

    Follow the money behind any ban, study, survey or poll. Questions are
written and asked to solicit the responses desired by those who pay for the
results. Do independent research. Don’t believe everything you read. For
example, the results of a survey released April 29, 2008 of 607 Ohio voters
(hardly a sampling of Ohio citizens) showed 65% of respondents supported a
75 cents per pack cigarette tax increase to fund the economic stimulus
package and fully fund more smoking cessation. The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation funded that survey.

    Among those who lose under the foundation’s advocacy are Ohio families
who have invested their life savings, hard work and futures in owning their
piece of the American Dream. In addition, charities no longer benefit from
generous donations by private clubs. Smoking bans as draconian as Ohio’s
ban do harm businesses. The debate is over. The introduction of SB 346 is a
welcome relief to these family owned businesses and private clubs who have
lost billions in potential income (reference: Opponents of Ohio Bans press
release of June 12, 2008). We owe a debt of gratitude to Senators Schuler,
Seitz, Cates, Niehaus and the other co-sponsors of the bill. We strongly
urge the House to quickly pass this legislation as many businesses are
barely holding on.

    “Why is it legal for a non-profit foundation to directly profit from
stock that is driven by the sales of products coerced by a law that their
grants create? Where are those, such as state attorneys general, who are
supposed to protect consumers’ interests? Why should a pharmaceutical
company and their private foundation be profiting while Ohio’s businesses
fold? We believe these questions raise important issues that must be
addressed by Ohio legislators,” said Pam Parker with Opponents of Ohio
Bans.

---

 

April 28, 2008
By Peter Ambrose

TOLEDO (AP) – County health departments are running up steep bills in their efforts to stamp out smoke across Ohio.

A year after the state’s workplace smoking ban went into effect, some county health departments have found enforcement to be too costly. At least a dozen local entities have turned over inspection and violation duties to the Ohio Department of Health.

The Toledo-Lucas County health department alone has spent $40,000 hunting down violators, while banking just $630 in fines. Costs stem from overtime,  mileage and other added expenses.

Ohio Health Department spokesman Kristopher Weiss says the state is working with local departments to make the process more efficient and less costly.

---

County health department seeks funding
3/23/08
By JOHN JARVIS The Marion Star
Officials cite increased cost of doing business
MARION – The Marion County Health Department needs additional revenue for next year to continue providing its services at current levels, county health officials say.
Joe Benson, county health department administrator and fiscal officer, said the district board of health will have no cash reserve at the end of this year.
“Some funds may have a cash reserve, but the general fund, no,” Benson said.
He plans to ask the county budget commission, consisting of the prosecutor, auditor and treasurer, to increase the amount of revenue the health department receives from the townships and villages within its jurisdiction. Currently, the health department receives the equivalent of 0.4 mills.
Rob Lill, district health board president, said a surplus the board had approximately 10 years ago has been used up covering the increasing expenses of the district, which serves all of Marion County except for the city of Marion.
“The wages have gone up over the last five years,” Lill said. “Insurance has gone up. Workers’ comp has gone up. Everything that we do, it just costs more to do business.”
Lill said the board has “run a tight ship,” adding that the health department’s employee pay scale is at the “lower end” among health departments in Marion and surrounding counties. “We’ve watched that. We can’t go any lower. (Employees) can go to Franklin and Delaware County and get more money. … We’re not perfect, but we’ve run pretty lean.”
The health department may have to consider increasing fees, which it already did at the beginning of this year, or ask voters to pass a levy if the budget commission doesn’t approve a revenue increase, Lill said.
Jennifer Croskey, county assistant prosecutor who serves as the health department’s legal adviser and as a member of the budget commission, said that if the health department asks for a revenue increase the commission would have to decide if the request was warranted, considering the impact on township and village budgets, as well.
“When you’re talking about increasing the fee that some townships have to pay, you have to think about those townships’ budget needs, too,” Croskey said. She said some townships and villages could afford to pay the higher amount while others might have to consider putting a levy on the ballot to accommodate the higher fee.
“I don’t think the budget commission is going to make a decision without consulting with the townships and villages about what it would do to their budget,” she said.
Another option being discussed by the district health board and other groups is consolidation of the county and city health departments.
A separate effort involves a study and report completed by Maximus Inc. paid for by the Marion Area Chamber of Commerce that concluded a consolidation would save the city/county $254,000 per year and improve services, a figure Benson disputes.
The county health department’s general fund receives its revenue primarily through a fee paid by villages and townships in the health district based on the total real property valuation in the village or township, respectively. Currently the health district receives the equivalent of 0.4 mills, while fees and permit charges generate funds for various services such as public health nursing, food service and sewage service.
Last year, the health department received $258,085 from the townships and villages, according to the Marion County General Health District 2007 annual report. Benson said that figure will be approximately $244,000 in 2008 and $256,000 in 2009.
“That $256,000 puts us right about where we were at in 2006,” he said, adding that that was not enough.
Unfunded state mandates requiring more extensive school inspections and enforcement of the state smoking ban also add to the health district’s financial challenges, said Matt Work, county health department environmental health director. A “rough guess” at the additional cost the school inspection requirements would create is $7,467 to $11,998 for personnel hours alone. He said that wouldn’t include the additional cost required in training costs and overhead.
Other state mandates for which the county health department receives little if any state funding include investigations of animal bites, rodents, ticks and lice; disaster preparedness; public education about mosquitoes, indoor air mold and radon; and investigation of housing complaints.
Benson said the health department could have improved its financial situation by incorporating various purchases into the cost methodology that law requires it to use to set fee amounts and by being prepared better for a $44,000 workers’ compensation claim, but even those corrections would not have prevented the currently projected shortfall.
He said he awaits information regarding his recommendation the board reduce the hours of health department employees across the board to reduce expenses.
“Some of it you might not just be able to (cut),” he said, referring to health department services. “You don’t want to cut any services that generate revenue, but we may have to lay off people. We may have to look at that.”
Reporter John Jarvis: 740-375-5154 or jjarvis@nncogannett.com

---

Open letter to the Governor
July 25, 2007

By what right did this Work Free Workplace oops  Smoke Free Workplace Act  have to demand a jurisdiction of a State Law to only one court? I know of no other state law that requires a violation of a state law  to be heard by only one specific court. Are not speeding violations, felonies, drug crimes all held in the jurisdiction of the County Court where the offense allegedly happened? 
Does this now open up the door for new laws to be implemented for judicial proceedings upon a new level? I can see a law now that transfers a judicial hearings to a special court that has been aligned for that special purpose. Should all of the drug crimes be tried in a lower income bracket county to enhance court cost for those counties? Should a felony trial for domestic abuse be held in a lower income county to provide a reason for a SUPER JAIL to enhance employment where there is none?

Should attorneys state wide be put under a price control system to insure that lower income counties can provide the same level of justice as a more wealthier county? Columbus attorneys charge more on the hour than say a attorney in Meigs County so be delegating jurisdiction we can create job security. Some one see some thing wrong with this?

The Franklin County Common Pleas Court are on the board of Maryhaven that endorsed Smoke Free Ohio, funny why the law directs all appeals to go through them. KANGAROO COURT!

Kind of interesting I believe.
– Billy P. Whyde

---

Warning letters sent out Wayne has four businesses on list of smoking ban violators

July 24, 2007
By MARC KOVAC

Dix Capital Bureau
COLUMBUS — Health officials have sent 122 warning letters to establishments that have broken the statewide smoking ban, marking the first level of enforcement action against violators.

Cuyahoga County locations topped the list, with 30 warnings issued by the Ohio Department of Health. Wayne County had four, issued to Kidron Inc. in Dalton, Prime Woodcraft in West Salem, E-Sales Express in Wooster and Treasure Point Arcade in Wooster. Holmes and Ashland counties had none.

Last November, voters approved a ballot issue prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment. Bars, restaurants and most other gathering places were supposed to stop customers from smoking as of early December, but enforcement couldn’t begin until the Ohio Department of Health completed rules outlining penalties.

Those rules took effect in May, prohibiting smoking in public places or places of employment or in adjacent areas and requiring business owners and managers to take reasonable steps to stop patrons from lighting up. Violators face fines of up to $2,500.

Local health districts are mostly responsible for investigating and potentially leveling actions against violators. The state health department is handling investigations in five counties (Portage, Highland, Guernsey, Ashtabula and Brown), which opted out of enforcement, while another (Harrison) has informed the state of its desire to opt out, said Kristopher Weiss, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Health.

Health officials investigate potential violations, with employers or building owners given time to counter claims or appeal findings. Warning letters are sent to locations where violations have been confirmed and represent the first level of enforcement action, Weiss said.

Subsequent violations can result in fines. The warning letters outline the specific details behind each violation and note “subsequent violations may result in the imposition of a civil fine upon the proprietor or individual. This fine may range anywhere from $100 to $2,500. Once a finding of violation has been issued, fines may be assessed on a daily basis for continuing violations.”

---

Yale Law School Student Scholarship Series
’Til Naught But Ash Is Left To See’:
Statewide Smoking Bans, Ballot Initiatives, and the Public Sphere
Patrick S. Kabat
2008
From the article:
“The Ohio Smoke Free Workplace Act is a case study in the liability of
ballot initiatives to procedural abuse, and demands remedial legislative attention.
This was no grassroots proposal, representing the considered deliberation of Ohio
voters on all interests in play. This proposal was cleverly drafted by a well-funded
special interest group, qualified for the ballot with purchased signatures and sold
to Ohio voters without meaningful consideration of the exemption scheme. It can
only be hoped that enlightened legislators will have the courage to supply the
deliberation absent from the enactment process – to moderate, as Hamilton aptly
put it, “the blow mediated by people against themselves.”
http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context;=yale/student

---

Bid to alter smoking ban fails, for now
Coshocton Tribune – Coshocton,OH,USA
By JULIE CARR SMYTH AP Statehouse Correspondent COLUMBUS — An effort by bar and club owners that seeks to partially reverse the state’s smoking ban in …

Smoking Ban Petition
June 12, 2007
Courtney Rochon

It has been six months since the Ohio smoking ban took effect and some area businesses say so far.. not so good.

Bar owners are launching a petition drive in hopes of rolling back part of the state’s smoking ban.

They used to smoke in here, but now have to go out here.

Something the VFW in Marietta is up in arms about, along with many other business across the state of Ohio.

“I think we need a place were we can light up at the Veteran’s Club and be able to enjoy a cigarette,” says VFW member Larry Carver.

Bars owners across the state have teamed up to fight the ban and need 402 thousand signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

It would allow smoking in private clubs, bars, and also in bowling alley’s after 6 pm–something the VFW says is their right.

“These guys have backed this club for 40 years. I’m supposed to walk up to a guy who’s 85 and lighting a cigarette and tell him not to do that? I can’t do that and i won’t do that,” says VFW President Ronnie Davis.

The VFW says the ban has also been bad for business.

Since the ban took effect they’ve had to close one of their biggest money makers–bingo because the people just haven’t been coming.

For now, there are many empty bar stools are at VFW Post 5108.. something members say was not the case at this time last year

Voters approved the ban back in November, but many area businesses are fighting it because they say the law is much stricter than they originally understood.

---

Bar owners looking for smoking ban exemption

Jun 6, 2007

COLUMBUS (AP) – Bar owners are seeking an exemption to the state’s smoking ban for some taverns, saying voters didn’t understand how restrictive the ban would be and businesses are losing too many smoking customers.

The proposal would allow smoking at bowling alleys after 6 p.m., at bars where no more than 10 percent of sales are food and at private clubs, such as Veterans of Foreign War posts. A group of about 300 bar owners will try to take the plan to lawmakers first and then to voters on the November ballot if rejected in the Legislature.

Smoking is prohibited in most indoor public places under the ban approved overwhelmingly by voters last November. Voters also rejected a competing constitutional amendment backed by a different group of tavern owners and liquor store operators that would have excluded restaurants and bars from any smoking ban, by a nearly 2-1 margin.

“Most people I talk to, smokers and nonsmokers, are confused about what they voted on last time,” said Hermann H. Tegenkamp, a Cincinnati bar owner backing the new attempt to exempt bars.

The ban is causing bars to lose significant business, said Patrick Carroll, president of the Cincinnati-based Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association.

“Too many places are losing too much money. Some are on the verge of closing their doors,” he said.

His group gave the Ohio attorney general a proposed constitutional amendment this week along with 1,417 signatures to begin a review.

If the language is approved as factual, the group must collect 140,000 signatures to force the Legislature to consider it. About 400,000 signatures would be needed to put the issue on the ballot if lawmakers refuse.

The American Cancer Society, which spearheaded the smoking ban ballot campaign, issued a statement Monday calling the proposal a “slap in the face for Ohio voters.” Granting exemptions would put thousands of Ohio workers at risk of the dangers of second-hand smoke, the group said.

In a separate court fight, the state is defending an exemption it granted private clubs, appealing a Franklin County judge’s ruling against allowing smoking at the clubs.

*******
Copy of initiative petition.
http://coshoctontribune.com/assets/pdf/B97487666.PDF
*****
 

---

BLPHA, Inc
4217 Smith Road, Suite B
Norwood, Ohio 45212
1-513-731-0123 – Cathline Turner
1-513-484-9860 – Pat Caroll
cocktail1717@aol.com

Launch of petition drive
Bar owners want to limit smoking ban

June 5, 2007
By James Nash, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Saying anti-smoking activists duped Ohioans into voting for a restrictive no-smoking measure, bar owners started a petition effort yesterday to carve out exceptions to the ban.

The petition would put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to allow smoking at bowling alleys after 6 p.m., at bars where no more than 10 percent of sales are from food, and at private clubs such as veterans halls.

Smoking is prohibited at those businesses and nearly every public indoor place in Ohio. About 58 percent of voters last November approved the ban.

A rival measure sponsored by the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, a coalition of bar and restaurant owners, failed with about 36 percent of the vote.

Nonetheless, bar owners and veterans groups say voters are willing to pare back the ban because they didn’t expect it to be so sweeping in scope, said Hermann H. Tegenkamp, a Cincinnati bar owner who is one of the four petition sponsors. The others are bar owners in Cleveland and Toledo and the state commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Ohio.

“Most people I talk to, smokers and nonsmokers, are confused about what they voted on last time,” Tegenkamp said. “This time we’re going to get it right.”

The question of whether smoking should be banned at veterans halls and other private clubs is in court. Gov. Ted Strickland is appealing a Franklin County judge’s ruling that the smoking ban should apply to those establishments.

As a constitutional amendment, the new measure would bar cities and counties from enacting stricter anti-smoking measures. It would need about 402,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

The American Cancer Society, which sponsored last year’s anti-smoking ballot measure, said the proposed amendment resembles last year’s failed Smoke Less Ohio initiative.

“It’s laughable to think that they could put forth a similar proposal and have a different outcome, especially since Ohio voters now enjoy the clean air they voted for,” the cancer society’s Tracy Sabetta said in a statement.

Proponents of the new measure submitted petition language to Attorney General Marc Dann’s office yesterday. Dann’s aides have 10 days to decide whether the language is accurate, after which it would go to the Ohio Ballot Board. An OK there means proponents can begin gathering signatures.

jnash@dispatch.com

---

Opponents work to get smoking ban issue back on the ballot

June 4, 2007
By JIM PROVANCE, BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS — The smoke from the last war has barely dissipated, but lines are being drawn again for another ballot battle in November over where smokers can light up in Ohio.

An organization representing bars, bowling alleys, private clubs, and others this morning filed paperwork with Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, the first step on a long road to gathering more than 400,000 signatures to put a question on the Nov. 6 ballot to write exemptions from the strict Smoke Free Workplace Act into the Ohio Constitution.

Restaurants, however, are conspicuously absent from the battle this time around.

“The voters spoke when they said they didn’t want smoking in restaurants,” said Jason Corder, Toledo consultant for the Cincinnati-based Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association. ” “The restaurant association asked us to leave them out of it.”

He said the association has also filed paperwork with the secretary of state’s office to create a political action committee, the Partnership for Job Preservation of Ohio, to raise and spend money on the petition effort and, if successful, the ballot issue.

Mr. Corder said all the money spent to date has come from private business owners and the general public. No decision has been made as to whether it will accept money from the tobacco industry, which heavily financed last year’s failed Issue 4, a constitutional amendment proposed as an alternative to Issue 5, the strict ban successfully pushed by the American Cancer Society and other health organizations.

The permit holders association filed more than 1,400 signatures with Mr. Dann. If at least 1,000 are confirmed to be those of registered voters, Mr. Dann will determine whether summary language that would be shown to potential petition signers accurately represents what the proposed amendment would do. If approved, the association would have until early August to submit more than 400,000, geographically balanced signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

All of the initial signatures to start the process were gathered in Lucas County, said Mr. Corder. Bill Delaney, owner of Delaney’s Lounge in Toledo, is among the four committee members who put the petitions before Mr. Dann.

The proposed amendment would add stand-alone bars with no more than 10 percent of their income derived from food sales, non-profit private clubs, smoking cessation programs, and medical and scientific research programs to the short list of indoor workplaces exempt under the current law. Bowling alleys would be exempt but only after 6 p.m.

Ohio smokers make run for border
Michigan bar trade upticks as Buckeye State ban takes hold

---

Read More:  OH State Alert Page 9