People Ban: OH State Alert Page 9

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

Ohio Update

The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, Inc a non-profit organization has filed a lawsuit against the smoking ban. They are asking that anyone interested in joining the organization may join. They work in conjunction with PJP.

The contact information is:

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

Partnership for Job Preservation
309 W. Alexis Rd. #3
Toledo, Ohio 43612
419-476-2883
www.pjpohio.com

Read Here

Read Newest Articles: OH State Alert Page 10

Ohio smoking-ban foes may create legal logjam
Appeals process could take years, many miles

April 29, 2007
By JIM PROVANCE, BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS – Those planning to go the distance to appeal fines for violating Ohio’s smoking ban should be prepared to put a lot of miles on their cars.

Some opponents of the voter-passed law have talked about creating a logjam of appeals in protest, but such battles eventually would lead to courts in Columbus, would take months or potentially years to resolve, and could cost far more than the fines imposed. The latter would be especially true for individual smokers, whose fines would be $100 maximum.

“If you check out Colorado, it cost the state $6,000 for a $200 fine,” said Bill Delaney, owner of Delaney’s Lounge in Toledo. “If this is the process, we could jam up Franklin County court till hell freezes over. Everybody thinks this is going to work out fine, but people are still smoking yet.”

Ohio’s law prohibiting smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and nearly all other indoor places frequented by the public officially went into effect Dec. 7. But barring a court decision to the contrary, the state Thursday will begin enforcing the law – investigating complaints and issuing warning letters and fines.

If decisions are appealed just through the point at which a case is reviewed by a hearing officer appointed by the local health board, the process would take months. If a fined business or individual smoker insists on appealing beyond that, the battle would take place in Franklin County Common Pleas Court in Columbus, nearly 150 miles from Toledo, and the time frame would extend from months to years.

“Maybe we’ll get rid of smoking by 2012,” said Dr. David Grossman, Toledo-Lucas County health commissioner. “It’s still rocky to me. You send one letter and then another letter, and there’s 30 days for this and 30 days for that, and if there are more appeals it could be weeks and months between courts.

“I think people do need a chance to appeal,” he said. “But you can’t be Machiavellian about this. You have the right to say, ‘I’m not doing what they’ve accused me of,’ but once the evidence obviously shows what they’re doing or if I see someone smoking, there shouldn’t be an open-ended appeals process. I think this will be cumbersome and difficult.”

Long appeals would mean long waits for local boards of health, as the enforcement arm of the Ohio Department of Health, to receive their 90 percent share of the fines collected. Those fines are designed to cover the enforcement costs.

“At this point, the court and the clerk are not envisioning a deluge of appeals landing on our doorstep,” said Patrick McSweeney, spokesman for Franklin Clerk of Courts John O’Grady. “We could very well be wrong.”

Any individual cited for insisting on lighting up in violation of the law would face a warning letter for the first offense and fines of $100 for each transgression thereafter. Businesses found to tolerate such activity would at first receive a warning letter and then face fines escalating from $100 to $2,500 per incident.

“We want to be respectful of businesses and give them every benefit of the doubt that we can,” Seneca County Health Commissioner Marjorie Broadhead said. She served on the advisory panel that helped the state health department write the rules for the law’s operation.

“The issuance of any kind of fine would be a last resort,” she said. “We’re ready to investigate. We will work with businesses. We’re ready to educate. If it does go to court, this is something we’ll have to work out.”

Wendy Simpkins, spokesman for the American Cancer Society in Ohio, said she expects the vast majority of businesses and smokers to comply with the law and that there will be few cases in which the appeals process would be taken to its extreme.

“There would be no circumstance where we would create smoking police,” she said. “It’s a civil offense, not a criminal offense. It gives the power to the individual. It only takes one person to make a phone call or send an e-mail to trigger appropriate action.”

Smoking ban law delay sought
Businesses say it violates rights
4/26/07
BY DAN HORN | DHORN@ENQUIRER.COM

Bar and restaurant owners asked a judge Wednesday to declare Ohio’s smoking ban unconstitutional, because it violates their customers’ right to light up.

The businesses sued late last year in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court after Ohio voters approved the ban, which prohibits smoking in enclosed public places or in businesses with employees.

The law is supposed to take effect May 3, but the business owners want Judge Fred Nelson to grant an injunction blocking enforcement until their challenge is decided in court.

They outlined their case for the first time Wednesday, arguing the new law violates privacy and property rights in Ohio’s constitution.

“Are you arguing there is a constitutional right to smoke?” Nelson asked.

“I believe you do have a constitutional right to make that choice,” said Lou Sirkin, the lawyer for the businesses.

He said property owners have a right to use their property as they see fit, and that right includes allowing customers to smoke a legal product. If others don’t want to be around the smoke, Sirkin said, they can go somewhere else.

“The right to make decisions relevant to your own property is an inherent, fundamental right,” Sirkin said. “Nobody is forced to go to these places.”

Lawyers for the state and the American Cancer Society, which supports the ban, said the new law is no different than other government health and safety regulations.

They said government has the power to impose rules that may limit some individual rights for the welfare of society. In this case, they said, the rules are intended to limit exposure to second-hand smoke and health risks associated with it. “Government has the right to regulate inherently dangerous workplaces,” said Donald McTigue, a lawyer for the American Cancer Society. “We as individuals don’t live in a vacuum, we don’t live by ourselves. We live in a society.”

The state’s lawyers also argued that the constitution offers no protection to smokers who want to light up in bars or restaurants.

“There is no fundamental right to smoke,” said Peggy Corn, a lawyer with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.

Sirkin, however, compared the property rights of his clients to those of homeowners in Norwood who recently won a court battle over eminent domain, or the government taking of property.

The state’s lawyers disputed that comparison, saying the law only regulated how property might be used – not whether the owner is entitled to keep the property.

County home spent about $10K of tax dollars for tobacco
4/24/07
By Brad Bauer, bbauer@mariettatimes.com
The Washington County Home spent approximately $10,200 of taxpayer money last year to provide tobacco products to the 42 smokers who reside there, the director said.
Stephanie Davis, program director of Selby General Hospital’s Washington County Tobacco Prevention Project, which operates on grants from the state, said the tobacco spending at the county home is a bit ironic.
“I would much rather see tax money being spent for tobacco prevention efforts,” Davis said.
Ted Williams, administrator at the county home, said most of the residents don’t have any income. He said the philosophy of the home is to be as warm and comfortable as possible.
Read More

Ohio county lacks funds for smoking ban
April 20, 2007
RAVENNA (AP) — The health commissioner of Portage County said his department can’t enforce the state’s new smoking ban due to a funding shortage.
Ohio OKs rules to enforce smoking ban
Cleveland Plain Dealer – Cleveland,OH,USA
Columbus — Ohio’s workplace smoking ban will be enforced starting May 3, six months after voters approved the measure that threatens to upset the …

Fines to start soon on smoking ban
WKYC-TV – Cleveland,OH,USA
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — State officials say thousands of Ohio bars, restaurants and other workplaces that have violated the state’s new smoking ban will not …

2 court actions filed to bar ban on smoking from taking effect
Toledo Blade – Toledo,OH,USA
COLUMBUS – Two court actions have been filed to prevent new smoking-ban rules from taking effect even before a legislative panel takes them up on Monday. …

Agency may finalize smoking ban rules
April 14, 2007
By MARC KOVAC
Dix Capital Bureau

COLUMBUS — A state agency next week could finalize rules prohibiting smoking in public places, paving the way for enforcement actions against businesses and individuals before the end of the month.

The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review is scheduled to review the final draft of the enforcement rules on Monday. The meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. in the Ohio Senate Finance Room.

“Assuming they don’t invalidate, that will be the last step,” said Kristopher Weiss, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Health, which has played host to public hearings and received 100-plus written comments from residents about the smoking policy, instituted through a ballot initiative approved by voters in November.

Businesses technically were supposed to prohibit smoking as of early December, but enforcement cannot be implemented until the state finalizes rules outlining penalties. The draft rules call for:

— No smoking in public places or places of employment or in adjacent areas.

— Business owners and managers to take “reasonable steps, including but not limited to requesting individuals to cease smoking.”

— The posting of “no smoking” signs.

— The removal of ashtrays and other receptacles used for discarding smoking materials. (There’s an exception for receptacles that are part of historic or architectural value, which can remain in place but not used).

— Penalties ranging from warning letters for first violations to fines ranging from $100-$2,500 for businesses and a warning letter or $100 fines for individuals.

Proponents, including representatives of the American Cancer Society, health organizations and other groups, supported the issue and efforts to stop smoking in public places. They said the rules will put businesses on a level playing field competition-wise.

Opponents, including a number of small-business owners, said the prohibitions will affect their livelihoods and questioned the constitutionality of such a ban.

The final draft included several changes made after the public comment period, including a provision making some private clubs (like VFW posts) exempt. Clarification also was provided concerning anonymous complaints against businesses and individuals allegedly violating the ban, and a measure was added allowing “No Smoking” signs to be posted on a stake at a building entrance (instead of attached to a wall).

Copies of the draft rules are available online through the Ohio Department of Health Web site (www.odh.ohio.gov).

Marc Kovac is the Dix Newspapers capital bureau chief. E-mail him at mkovac@dixcom.com.

Altering smoking ban rules would be a challenge

4/7/07
By CLYDE EVANS, State Representative

The smoking ban bill rules developed by the Ohio Department of Health have generated considerable discussion in recent months. As a member of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR), I have begun to receive questions concerning the new rules.

Because the people have passed the law, I do not have the authority to reject the rules used to implement the law. I can only invalidate the proposed rules if I believe that they do not comply with one of the criteria explained below.

The smoking rules and regulations that will be used to administer Issue 5 will be challenged. Once a law is passed, the government agency that is designated to enforce the law is charged with the responsibility of writing rules and regulations that are needed to enforce the law.

The executive branch, the governor, manages the agency that administers the law once it is passed by the Legislature or, in this case, an initiative that is passed by the people.

Once the rules and regulations are written, they are used by the agency to enforce the law unless the rules and regulations are challenged by a citizen of the state. If the agency believes the challenge is unwarranted, it will notify the challenger of its position. If the challenger does not accept the agency’s position, the agency will either negotiate or permit the rules to be challenged before JCARR.

Regardless of JCARR members’ position on the law, they have no authority to invalidate any of the rules unless they fail to comply with one of the following: rules cannot exceed the scope of the law, conflict with another rule, conflict with the intent of the legislation and the rule making agency must prepare a complete rule summary and fiscal analysis.

Many Ohioans are concerned that the implemented law will differ from the intent of the people who voted in November. If that is the case, the only action citizens can take is to submit another initiative that would amend the first initiative and work for its passage.

You have sent me here to represent your interests. I will focus on the issues that concern the citizens of my district, so please feel free to contact my office if there is any issue you feel deserves attention.
(Evans can be reached by calling his office at (614) 466-1366 or writing to Representative Clyde Evans, at 77 S. High St., 13th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215.)

Smoking lingers long after ban
Some businesses choose to ignore law; state to wipe out complaints until enforcement plan is in place

3/25/07
By Tracy Wheeler, Beacon Journal medical writer

Since Ohio’s indoor smoking ban took effect Dec. 7, more than 16,000 complaints have been filed with the Ohio Department of Health against businesses, bars and restaurants for ignoring the new law.

Actual enforcement of the law, however, is still more than a month away, as the department tinkers with details of how enforcement will be carried out.

The lag time between the start of the ban and its enforcement has created confusion and stubbornness among some business owners.

“To me, it seemed like they started it and stopped it, then said they’re not going to enforce it,” said Scott Brewer, president and co-owner of the Brubaker’s Pub chain. “They haven’t been very clear. They haven’t been clear about the penalties, about what they expect, about whether customers can smoke on the patio. The guidelines have not been laid out very clearly.”

As a result, Brubaker’s is one of many restaurants and bars still allowing customers to smoke.

In Summit County, 29 complaints of noncompliance with the ban have been filed against the seven Brubaker’s locations. The Chrysler stamping plant in Twinsburg has had the most complaints in the county: 31. The top four subjects of complaints also include Whitey’s Booze N’ Burgers in Richfield with 29 and Musketeers Bar & Grill in Richfield with 22.

None of the complaints, though, will lead to fines or penalties.

Ohio voters approved the smoke-free workplace law in November, effectively banning smoking in virtually all enclosed public places, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and bingo parlors. By law, businesses must remove all ashtrays and post “No Smoking” signs that carry the telephone number people can call toll-free to report violations: 866-559-OHIO (6446).

However, the law contained no rules of enforcement. And until enforcement rules are in place, the Ohio Department of Health has agreed not to issue warning letters or fines against businesses breaking the law.

Instead, the state is sending informational letters to offending businesses, outlining the basics of the law.

And any complaints received before enforcement begins will be wiped away. Only those received after enforcement begins will be investigated.

The state health department has been working on the rules since December: writing them, holding public hearings and making changes. Before the rules can go into effect, they must be approved by the Ohio General Assembly’s Joint Commission on Agency Rule Review, which is scheduled to take up the issue at its April 16 meeting.

If the rules are approved at that meeting, they could take effect as soon as April 26. But if changes are needed, the rules could be delayed several more weeks. By law, enforcement must begin by June 7.

The smoking ban approved by voters excludes homes, tobacco shops, designated hotel rooms and enclosed areas of nursing homes.

Last week, a new exclusion was added: private clubs, such as veterans’ halls, provided that those clubs hire only members as employees, are not open to nonmembers and do not admit anyone younger than 18.

“We’re glad this is happening,” said James Kleintop, a member of the VFW Ralph Huff Post 1062 in Cuyahoga Falls.

The hall has banned smoking since the day that voters passed the measure, Kleintop said, but it has come at a price.

“It really has hurt our business,” he said. “There are a lot of older guys here who have been smokers. Our business has been really down. Really down. We’ve lost business the last three months or four months. We’ve been in the red big-time.”

Establishments in bind

Restaurant and bar owners say the delay in enforcing the law has put them at a disadvantage. If they ban smoking in their business, patrons may go down the street to competitors that allow smoking. If they don’t ban smoking, they open themselves to complaints.

“Basically, we say, `Hey, we don’t allow smoking,’ but if someone asks for an ashtray, I let them smoke,” said John Pegley, owner of M T Pockets Pub in Akron. “I don’t appreciate being told how to run my business. A guy who doesn’t want to come to my place because he doesn’t like smoke, that’s fine. I understand that.”

But, he said, banning smoking will hurt his business, his 14 employees, and his two children.

“I can’t tell the electric company or the finance company, `Hey, I’d like to pay you, but I can’t.’ I’m going to do what I have to do. I’ve just got to make a living.”

Once enforcement begins, Pegley and Brewer, the Brubaker’s president, know they’ll have to take a different approach.

“I have every intention of following the law,” Brewer said. “I mean, a law is a law.”

Pegley, too, says he’ll follow the law. But he won’t like it.

“When I was growing up, I was always taught that the difference between being American or being Russian or communist was that communism tells you how to use your money, what to do. That’s how this country has become. It’s an attitude of, `We know what’s best for you.’ I know how to live my life. I don’t need the government telling me how to live.”

Most eventually comply

With fines ranging from $100 for a second offense to $2,500 for a fifth, businesses may find it difficult to ignore the law once enforcement is in place.

“We are seeing somewhere between 80 and 90 percent compliance” among local businesses, said Summit County Health Commissioner Gene Nixon. “That’s not what I’d like to see, but it’s significant.”

He has talked to some business owners who are ignoring the law, and they tell him that “once the law is in place, they intend to follow the letter of the law.”

The experience of other cities and states has been that noncompliance fades within weeks of a smoking ban taking effect, Nixon said. He has no reason to expect Summit County will be different.

“Will there be anybody who refuses to cooperate? I suppose,” he said, “but I hope not.”

All 31 pages of the state’s proposed rules can be found on the Ohio Department of Health Web site, www.odh.state.oh.us/.

Report of threat at smoking-ban hearing causes quite a stir

March 06, 2007
James Nash, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

This much is not in dispute: With about 45 minutes remaining in a contentious public hearing last week about Ohio’s smoking ban, the two co-chairwomen of the successful antismoking campaign got up and left.

Why Tracy Sabetta and Susan Jagers slipped out of the room, like much in the question about ridding public places in Ohio of smoking, is open to debate.

Sabetta said she left because an assistant attorney general in the room relayed a veiled threat from a man in the audience. But opponents of the smoking ban accuse Sabetta of making up the threat to drum up sympathy and brand them as dangerous malcontents.

A mention of the alleged threat in a Dispatch story Wednesday brought an outpouring of skeptical phone calls and e-mails, some demanding that the newspaper retract its story.

Sabetta and Wendy Simpkins, the American Cancer Society spokeswoman quoted in the story, stood by their account yesterday.

They were backed by Assistant Attorney General Melinda Snyder Osgood, who said she told Sabetta that a man in the crowd had used an obscenity in asking about Sabetta’s whereabouts and suggested verbally confronting her after the meeting. Osgood said she also reported the comment to a State Highway Patrol trooper at the meeting and asked her to keep an eye on the man.

“I never perceived a threat of physical violence, but I thought it might be in her best interest not to get into a yelling match with this person,” Osgood said yesterday, adding that she did not know who the person was.

But the two troopers who were on hand to maintain order contradicted Osgood’s account. In an interview, they both said they have no memory or record of any threat against Sabetta and that Osgood never alerted them to any potentially threatening statements or actions.

“We weren’t ever contacted about any threats or asked to keep an eye on any specific individual,” Trooper Hugh Fredendall said.

The hearing pitted opponents of the state’s strict anti-smoking regulations — approved by voters in November and scheduled to be enforced next month — against supporters including Sabetta and Jagers.

Seattle-area writer and smokers’ rights advocate Norman Kjono, who called on The Dispatch to retract its account, said the American Cancer Society has a history of inventing threats against its personnel in debates over smoking laws.

Sabetta said that’s never happened in Ohio. She also said that before the meeting, she got an e-mail with a picture of a gun pointing toward her.
jnash@dispatch.com

It seems as if SMOKE FREE OHIO has been caught in one heck of a lie! In this day and age threats are not considered as non sense by police agencies! Here is what we have found out in regards to the so called threat. By the way the info is from the dispatch reporter J.Nash, myself in communicating with him and others that have contacted the Ohio Highway Patrol in regards to the so called threat!
Sent to J Nash after he wrote the story.:
From: Billy Whyde [mailto:starhauler@alltel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:09 PM
To: James Nash
Subject: Smoking ban meeting

Hello again. I was at the meeting myself wish we could have at least have said hello. I read your story about the meeting but the Cincinnati Enquirer makes no mention about a possible threat.

I was at one time a passenger screener over at CMH and must admit I was surprised by the lack of security at the meeting myself. As some individuals might have lost everything already because of former bans I could see where retaliation might be possible, dang I’d think someone would have thought about that.

From J Nash in response:

I was surprised too, as I didn’t see anyone aggressively approach the American Cancer Society officials. (There were some disparaging comments about Tracy Sabetta and the society, but that doesn’t rise to a threat.)

I emailed back to J Nash the following:

The Cancer Society officials say there was an anonymous threat relayed to them by patrol troopers at one point during the meeting, so they chose to leave early. I did see them get up and depart about 45 minutes before the meeting adjourned.

If a threat was made is the American Cancer Society under protection? Please follow up on this as it now is a question of credibility.
In reality anyone could target ACS they are all over, fund raising activities could be targeted, a meeting like this one where ever. Does the ACS really believe they are in danger? Hmmm whole new story for sure.
I myself would hate to see Tracey get non challengeable press coverage by using security as a reason myself. She really with her lying comments opens herself up. If you recall she stated that cities with smoking bans in Ohio are doing very well complying. Take a tour of the bars in Columbus that was a out right lie by her. Also the over exaggerated vote only about 32% of Ohio registered voters voted for issue 5 not the overwhelming not 58% of the voters ! Please try to address both sides in a impartial manner if you can.
J Nash response:
I did hear back from Wendy Simpkins, the cancer society spokeswoman who was the source of the information about the alleged threat. She stands by her story and offers additional evidence and sources. I’ll check it out next week, but for now, she is not recanting the account.
Now this is what we at the meeting and what we have found out from the OHP.
Re: More twists from Columbus

I ended up calling the Dispatch this morning about the article that is causing all this to be passed around. I spoke to a very nice lady and at some lenght. I told her who I was and that I was sitting very close to the group from ACS when the two highway patrol persons were
there talking to them and I never heard anything about them leaving
early due to threats.

Read close to be three seats away from that group when the highway
patrol persons were there talking to the group from ACS.

I also objected to the way that the whole number of votes was
presented in the article. I think that they consistently and
constantly use the wrong numbers to make it look like more people
voted for this ban than actually did.
— In ohiosmokersrights@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

I sent this to the Ohio Highway Patrol today be interesting to see what their reply will be.

On the 27th of Feb. 2007 two patrolman were assigned duty at the Open Public Meeting held by the Ohio Department of Health in Columbus, Ohio. For what purpose I do not know but I would guess as general security. It was published in the Columbus Dispatch that a threat had been made against American Cancer Society Personnel and the patrol advised them of this where as they left early. Supposedly.

From J Nash the Dispatch reporter in my correspondence with him.

Hello again. I was at the meeting myself wish we could have at least have said hello.

I read your story about the meeting but the Cincinnati Enquirer makes no mention about a possible threat.

Well if there was a threat, what was the threat? The Highway Patrol investigating the threat? Seems like they would. Is this a now ongoing threat? You now have a real story. As much as the American Cancer society tries to downplay the effects of this smoking ban there are going to be businesses that fold as a result.

His response

Me again:

Are you going to follow up on this? It seemed to me they ducked out especially after being challenged to a debate? Did the Highway Patrol really get a threat? By who? Was this a ploy by the American Cancer Society to make the meeting appear as if out of control to attempt to discredit the meeting?

If a threat was made is the American Cancer Society under protection? Please follow up on this as it now is a question of credibility.

In reality anyone could target ACS they are all over, fund raising activities could be targeted, a meeting like this one where ever. Does the ACS really believe they are in danger? Hmmm whole new story for sure.

I myself would hate to see Tracey get non challengeable press coverage by using security as a reason myself. She really with her lying comments opens herself up. If you recall she stated that cities with smoking bans in Ohio are doing very well complying. Take a tour of the bars in Columbus that was a out right lie by her. Also the over exaggerated vote only about 32% of Ohio registered voters voted for issue 5 not the overwhelming not 58% of the voters ! Please try to address both sides in a impartial manner if you can.

So in effect under freedom of public access is there a incident report available of this incident that I may ask for, if so I do now.

If this so called threat was not true does this give the American Cancer Society the right to invoke the name of the Highway Patrol in this fashion?

Request feed back from the Patrol in regards to this matter.

This was posted by nativealien in Oohiosmokers rights by nativealien message 3806:

Two, I just got off the phone with the Highway patrol and they don’t
have any reports of anything going on at that meeting. I am awaiting
a return phone call from the officers that were present because there
is no report of any problems at that meeting.

In case anyone else wants to call the OHP, the direct dial number for
the department that would handle this is 614-752-0234.

nativialien again post number 3814:

I just spoke to the Lt in charge of the OHP officers that were at the meeting on Tuesday and he said that none of his officers reported anything odd or any threats of any kind, to anyone. Next is my call
to Miss Simpkins.

Message 3815:

Re: [ohiosmokersrights] 2 Questions About the ODH meeting…. I spoke to a Major Booker this morning at the Highway Patrol. He said no threats were made and that the reporter from the AP that called them were told that very thing.
message 3823:
Re: 2 Questions About the ODH meeting….

I am reposting this, but anyway, I spoke to Darrell Rowlands at the
Dispatch today, he is the editor for Public Affairs which is thedepartment that J Nash writes for. Mr. Rowlands assured me that hewould be checking into this supposed threat and that he would get back with me about it. So far I have heard nothing from him.
message 3825 my own post:
>I called the Patrol at the number listed about 4:40PM on 2 March 2007 and talked with investigations. “No threat was made at the meeting to the American Cancer Society” He stated he has had numerous calls on this! I stated the Patrol ought to make a press release about this since it appears as if threats are not consider serious
since no investigation was done. At least the news article induces that thought to the public. He stated new releases from the department don’t get far. I called Mr. Nash and requested he did a follow up story on this with as much spotlight as what the meeting received as it is apparent that the American Cancer Society has lied
and involved the Ohio Highway Patrol!
Try asking the Ohio Highway Patrol yourself and PLEASE BY ALL MEANS REPORT YOUR FINDINGS!
Billy Whyde
740-404-7602

Dear ……..,

Thank you for your e-mail. James Nash, a reporter from the Columbus Dispatch, inaccurately reported that troopers asked the two people to leave. Our troopers did not ask anyone to leave, and in fact, reported that the hearing was uneventful. Our department contacted James Nash, who stated he was advised that information from a spokesperson from the American Cancer Society. Again, no threats were made, and the Ohio State Highway Patrol did not ask, urge, or suggest that anyone leave the hearing. We were strictly there to provide security, and no action whatsoever was taken during the hearing. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Sgt. B.W. Gockstetter
OSHP Public Affairs

OPPOSITION BY SMOKERS, BUSINESS OWNERS
Tempers flare at hearing on Ohio’s smoking ban

February 28, 2007
James Nash

A last-ditch fight against the state’s antismoking law became so heated yesterday that two proponents of the law left a hearing early for their own safety.

The State Highway Patrol advised the two American Cancer Society representatives to leave the Ohio Department of Health hearing because of threats from some in the crowd, said Wendy Simpkins, spokeswoman for the society.

With just weeks remaining before businesses face penalties for violating Ohio’s new statewide smoking ban, dozens of smokers and business owners fought yesterday to throw out all or part of the law.

The president of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association told the health department that depriving patrons of the right to smoke in bars ultimately would deprive bar owners of their property by forcing them out of business, which would usurp their property rights.

And a parade of other business owners and smokers said the ban tramples on basic freedoms. Three mentioned communism and socialism, and one invoked the name of Adolf Hitler.

A woman said it would violate her First Amendment right to freedom of religion because, as an American Indian, she uses tobacco in spiritual rituals.

The arguments might have been the last gasp of smokers and the business owners who depend on them before Ohio’s comprehensive indoor smoking ban takes effect, probably in April.

About 58 percent of voters approved the ban in November. It has been state law since December, but enforcement has been on hold until state health officials devise rules including penalties for violators.

With the rules nearly complete, smokers and businesses seemingly pulled out every possible argument to thwart the ban.

Several said the law could be vulnerable because the ballot language exempted private clubs such as veterans’ halls, but the subsequent rules make it clear that smoking isn’t allowed in clubs.

Tracy Sabetta, a cancer society lobbyist, said there is no conflict, because her group didn’t write the ballot language.

Patrick Carroll, president of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, said voters should have been informed of all of the specifics before the election.

“In essence, this is backdoor communism, because we’re filling in the blanks of a law that’s already been passed,” he said.

One frequent patron of Hookah lounges, which offer water pipes and tobacco, said the ban could cause more people to smoke at such businesses because they are exempt as long as 80 percent of their revenue comes from tobacco sales. Many Hookah lounges are dropping food and coffee sales to reach the target, eliminating options for nonsmokers who want to hang out there, said Hookah regular James Moyer.

Opponents of the smoking ban won’t get far with arguments that it infringes on private-property rights or religious freedom, said Micah Berman, executive director of the Tobacco Public Policy Center at the Capital University Law School.

“Despite many creative arguments, some of which have been rehashed this morning, no antismoking law has been struck down as unconstitutional in court,” Berman said. “I am fully confident that Ohio’s smoke-free workplace act will survive any legal challenges.”

Legal or not, the ban on smoking will hurt everyone, including World War II veterans and children, opponents said in more than two hours of testimony and dozens of written comments submitted to the Ohio Department of Health.

Several veterans’ hall commanders said they wouldn’t tell a veteran to put out his cigarette, because the veteran made sacrifices for freedom. The manager of a social program for recovering alcoholics said the ban could lead to child abuse, because smokers will leave clubs like hers and go back to drinking.

Backers of the ban held firm.

“We are confident that once Ohio goes through its adjustment process, it will be a smokefree state and healthier for it,” said Dave Covell, president of the Ohio Environmental Health Association.

A legislative panel will hold a final public hearing, probably in March or early April, on the constitutionality of the smoking rules before they go into effect.