Proposed smoking ban has both sides fired up
January 18, 2006
Matt Zapotosky
These zealots have got to be stopped," said Bill Delaney of Delaney's Lounge on Alexis Road.
Delaney was referring to groups supporting a proposed statewide smoking ban. "We need to save jobs. We can't cut these families and these mothers who are trying to raise their children."
Delaney, who was instrumental in getting Toledo's 2003 smoking ban scaled back to its current form, has been lobbying in conjunction with the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association to scale back a proposed statewide ban. The proposed state ban — modeled after a ban in Columbus — prohibits smoking in all buildings frequented by the public. Though it allows exemptions for private clubs, it does not allow exemptions for bars, bingo halls or bowling centers as Toledo's current ban does.
"That's essentially the status quo; that's essentially what we have right now," said Tracy Sabetta, co-chairwoman of SmokeFree Ohio, of a ban that includes exemptions.
SmokeFree Ohio submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State on Nov. 17 a petition proposing the statewide ban, which was certified Dec. 28. State legislators will have four months starting in January to take action.
The legislators have three options: they can reject the ban, they can modify the ban or they can do nothing.
If legislators take no action, Ohio voters will decide on the ban this year. If legislators reject or modify the ban, SmokeFree Ohio can collect an additional 97,000 signatures to get the ban on the 2006 ballot in its original form. Sabetta said getting these additional signatures would not be a challenge for the group.
"We're fully prepared to do that," she said. "If they made a change that we would support, we wouldn't have to go back, but we feel that's highly unlikely ... We would rather just see the proposal go in its original form to the voters in '06."
But just as Sabetta and other health organizations are lobbying hard for the ban, Delaney and other bar and restaurant owners are lobbying hard against it. A group of them in Toledo meet every month to talk about what can be done.
"We want to compromise the issue [statewide] as we have done here in Toledo, as we have done in Bowling Green," Delaney said. "There is a reasonable way of doing this thing."
Economic impact
Arnie Elzey, operating manager of Arnie's Saloon near Westgate Shopping Center, said he lost 45 percent of his business because of Toledo's first smoking ban, and many of those customers have still not returned. He said he supports a statewide ban similar to the current one in Toledo, but he does not support a ban that does not include exemptions for bars.
"I don't particularly care for their rendition," Elzey said. "I think what we have in Toledo would be an ideal situation for the state."
But most ban supporters disagree with Elzey's assessment, stating that bans in other states and other cities have not had a significant economic impact.
"Usually the opposition tries to change the subject," said Stu Kerr, a former health commissioner in Findlay and the Northwest Ohio campaign coordinator for SmokeFree Ohio. "They'll bring up property rights arguments. They'll bring up economic arguments ... it's all bullshit."
Kerr cited multiple studies in other cities that indicate smoking bans have not had a significant, negative economic impact. He said businesses should benefit from going smoke free because 80 percent of the population is composed of non-smokers.
"Smokers ultimately have half the wealth of non-smokers," Kerr said. "If [bar owners] would market themselves to the 80 percent of the population who doesn't smoke, then they would have better fortunes."
Sharon Kuhnle, owner of Twin Oaks Bowling Center on West Sylvania Avenue, said the problem with Kerr's argument is that non-smokers generally do not frequent bars, bingo halls and bowling alleys. She said the economic impact of Toledo's 2003 smoking ban was "extreme" on her business, and she would only support a statewide ban if it exempted certain facilities.
"I'm not saying every non-smoker, but notoriously, non-smokers do not frequent bowling centers, bars, bingo halls — not in the numbers smokers do," Kuhnle said.
Jim Avolt, owner of The Distillery in South Toledo, said the original smoking ban in Toledo did not have any impact on his business because his patrons never stopped smoking. "We never stopped smoking at my place," said Avolt, adding he was arrested three times for his failure to comply with the ban.
Secondhand smoke
Kerr said owners' economic arguments are negligible when considered in the broad spectrum of public health. He said allowing smoking in any public building leads to secondhand smoke exposure.
"Even very short duration exposure is bad for you," Kerr said. "Any indoor place needs to be smoke free."
Kerr's argument is supported by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, the Ohio Health Commissioners Association, the Ohio Hospital Association, the Ohio State Medical Association and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids — all members of the SmokeFree Ohio campaign.
Toledo health commissioner Dr. David Grossman supports the statewide ban. He said he and his staff were active in collecting signatures for the petition.
"The commitment of the board and this department remains steadfast," said Grossman, who was also instrumental in Toledo and Lucas County's initial, more stringent ban.
Opponents of the ban claim the secondhand smoke argument is often exaggerated, particularly in advertisements run by anti-smoking groups.
"Their advertising is pure rubbish," Delaney said. "Don't pee in my pool? That's disgusting. They're showing a room that is so full of smoke there has to be five smoke machines pumping."
Kuhnle said her bowling alley is always well under smoke guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
"What they're quoting would be the equivalent of a nine by nine room with no ventilation — I mean none, no windows, no doors, no nothing — and 100,000 cigarettes lit at the same time," she said of secondhand smoke advertisements. "Any bar, any bowling center, anywhere you go you're not going to reach that maximum amount of smoke, ever."
‘Level playing field'
Supporters of the statewide ban argue their proposal will eliminate complications resulting from some cities not having any bans. Grossman said like his initial county-wide ban that was overturned by the Ohio
Supreme Court, the statewide ban will "level the playing field" among bar owners. In other words, customers will simply go to bars in cities without smoking bans.
"It takes care of the complaint that you're making me non-competitive against my neighbor," Grossman said of the statewide ban. "It does make it more consistent."
Toledo bar owners said while competition might be fair between Ohio cities, a statewide ban would simply drive their customers to go to Michigan.
"If they do this ... everybody will cross the borders, especially here in Toledo and down in Cincinnati," Delaney said. "When they call this a level playing field, there is no such thing as a level playing field. You're taking away something that has been part of the bar business for centuries."
Kuhnle said the only positive thing about the proposal was it would affect every city in Ohio. However, she said the ban might hit Toledo hard because of its proximity to the Michigan border.
"Here in Northwest Ohio, we still have the same problems that we had before ... they will cross the line and go to Michigan," she said. "The City of Toledo does not need another kick in the teeth and that's what this will be."
A Libertarian perspective
Bar owners also say whether to allow smoking is a business decision that should be left in the hands of business owners.
"The whole issue has pushed me to a libertarian perspective," said Avolt of The Distillery. "The American Cancer Society isn't happy, and I don't give a damn. The American Cancer Society doesn't help me make payroll every two weeks, my customers do, and I've got to take care of them."
Kuhnle said only she knows what's best for her business: state health officials do not.
"We live in a free society, and we're discussing a legal product," she said. "This needs to be left up to the business owner. Let the business owner run his or her business as they know it should be."
Kerr said the health departments have a right to regulate business, especially when it involves an issue of public health.
"We know nobody should be around secondhand smoke," Kerr said. "The simplest thing is to ask smokers to please go outside."
Bar owners also say the issue of enforcement could be tricky, as exemplified by Toledo's original 2003 ban, which saw a large number of complaints before Toledo voters called for a looser policy in November 2004.
City statistics show 256 complaints and 169 violations in 2003, compared to 26 complaints and 0 violations in 2005. In 2004 — a time period which mostly fell under the original, stringent ban — statistics show 465 complaints and 24 violations.
The number dropped significantly from the first half of 2004 to the second, with 401 complaints and all 24 violations coming before the end of June.
Sabetta of SmokeFree Ohio said enforcement of the state ban would be complaint-based and would be up to local authorities. Those authorities would be selected by the Ohio Department of Health.
"We believe it would be better enforced by the health department," she said. "The first infraction would be a warning letter."
The opposite direction
Though most bar and restaurant owners interviewed for this article opposed the statewide ban, one restaurant owner supported it.
Dave Ruble, owner of Dave's Home Cooked Foods, said despite being a smoker himself, he would like to see a statewide smoking ban with "some teeth to it."
"If you're going to make it a law, don't make it a wimpy law," he said.
Ruble was an outspoken supporter of Toledo's initial ban, and he said going smoke-free has brought more customers into his restaurant. He said grandparents are more likely to bring their grandchildren now that there is no longer a smoking section, even though his previous smoking section was seven feet away from the non-smoking section.
"We had regular customers coming in all the time and we still do, but now they bring people that we didn't see before," Ruble said. "It did not hurt us; in fact, it did go the opposite direction."
Ruble said the current Toledo ban is not very effective because it offers exemptions based on number of employees.
"I think we missed the boat there when we went to number of employees," he said. "If [public health] is a premise, then this law that we have now does not affect [public health] and does not answer this question. We did not attack this issue."
Ruble said even talk of a stringent state ban is good because it is raising awareness of secondhand smoke.
"When you look at it from a societal standpoint, that's good that we're talking about health issues," he said. "That's a real positive, that people are aware."
County smoking program deemed a flop.
Statewide smoking limits face uphill fight
January 16, 2006
JIM PROVANCE
COLUMBUS — Ohio’s anti-smoking effort, funded by the tobacco settlement, has poured more than $2 million into passage and implementation of local clean indoor air laws.
But now that the Super Bowl of smoking bans is before the Ohio General Assembly — a statewide ban that would be among the strictest in the nation — the Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Foundation must sit on the sidelines, at least officially.
The 2000 law that created the foundation forbids it from lobbying or otherwise getting involved in a state ballot issue, the goal behind petitions certified by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and forwarded to lawmakers.
Despite the legal prohibition, foundation board members and employees have circulated petitions for the ban on their own time and the ballot issue could get a boost from the foundation’s $7 million-plus “stand” ad campaign this year warning of the dangers of secondhand smoke. That ad campaign will go forward as planned but without mentioning the ballot issue.
The foundation has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars that came from the likes of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds into organizations like Tobacco-Free Ohio and the Licking County Board of Health that are actively involved in pushing the statewide ban. The foundation’s dollars, however, were earmarked for local ordinance efforts unrelated to the statewide effort.
“We cannot officially urge people to vote for this issue,” foundation Executive Director Mike Renner said.
“We can speak, and will speak, on the dangers of secondhand smoke and the value of having policies that protect innocent persons and nonsmokers from exposure to those toxins.”
He personally gathered some of the roughly 117,000 signatures certified by Mr. Blackwell to petition lawmakers to enact the statewide ban as proposed, and he plans to do so again this spring and summer to put the question directly to voters on Nov. 7.
“We have our job to do. What they do on their own time is their decision,’’ said Jacob Evans, lobbyist for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association. The association is part of a coalition of bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, private clubs, and others fighting the ban.
The coalition hopes to beat the anti-smoking activists to the punch by persuading lawmakers to pass a ban that would provide more exemptions, and it’s challenging the validity of the petitions in the courts.
The organization is also trying to raise money for what could be its own advertising campaign this fall touting its proposed ban to voters as the more reasonable of the two.
Mr. Evans said he believes voters will be able to differentiate between political ads urging passage of a ballot issue to protect people from secondhand smoke and the foundation’s more general message about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Susan Jagers, spokesman for the American Cancer Society of Ohio and co-chairman of the SmokeFreeOhio campaign pushing the statewide ban, said anti-smoking activists weren’t contemplating a statewide ballot issue when the 2000 legislative battle was fought.
“We didn’t want any limitations in state law on how [the tobacco settlement] money would be spent,” she said.
“We thought it should be left to the [foundation’s] board of directors to decide how to reduce youth and adult smoking in Ohio.”
Foundation spokesman Beth Schieber said it’s possible the foundation could pull its advertising as the November election approaches, as it did during the heat of the 2004 presidential election.
She said the move would not be an attempt to distance the “stand” campaign from the ballot issue, but rather an indication that television air time likely would be at its most expensive during that time.
Tobacco settlement dollars funneled through the foundation have been used by organizations to successfully seek passage of ordinances that largely prohibit smoking in indoor public places in Columbus, several of its suburbs, Summit County, and a pair of Licking County communities.
Tobacco-Free Ohio spent $371,623 in 2004 to push ordinances in urban and suburban Cleveland and the Toledo suburbs of Maumee, Sylvania, and Oregon.
No ordinances resulted.
The lack of success in suburban Toledo was credited, in part, to passage of a voter referendum that watered down Toledo’s smoking ban by exempting bars, bowling alleys, and some restaurants.
“Our grant expired more than a year ago,’’ said Tracy Sabetta, Tobacco-Free Ohio spokesman. “We weren’t involved in the [statewide] campaign at that time. Any unexpended funds were returned to the foundation.”
The foundation was created in 2000 using part of the state’s $10 billion share of the national settlement with major tobacco companies.
States had argued that the companies’ marketing practices had forced them to spend billions treating smoking-related illnesses like lung cancer and emphysema.
It remains to be seen what role, if any, the tobacco industry may play in trying to beat back the stricter statewide ban pushed by SmokeFreeOhio.
The opposition has said it will raise funds for its campaign and would not rule out accepting tobacco money.
Philip Morris USA spokesman Jennifer Golisch said the Virginia-based company has no plans to get involved.
“There are places where smoking should be prohibited, such as in elevators, places where fire hazards exist, and places where there are primarily children such as playgrounds and schools,” she said.
“But there are reasonable ways to respect the comfort and choices of both smoking and nonsmoking adults,” she said.
“We believe business owners, particularly the owners of restaurants and bars, are most familiar with how to accommodate the needs of patrons,” Ms. Golisch said.
Anti-smoking activists remain suspicious about documents from a prior court settlement that showed the industry had at least planned on working with the hospitality industry to push for preemption laws prohibiting local action on smoking bans.
“I don’t have memos,” Mr. Renner said. “I don’t have canceled checks, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the tobacco industry is supportive of the licensed beverage organization or the hospitality industry people.
“I’m certain there are discussions in which the tobacco industry’s expertise is being shared with the beverage association.”
Weakened smoking ban pursued
2 Ohio lawmakers push for exemptions
1/10/06 By JIM PROVANCE
COLUMBUS - Some lawmakers plan to make it difficult for Ohio's legislative leaders to steer clear of a looming war over smoking in indoor public places. Read
Snuffed for good?
January 10, 2006 Stephanie Spencer
But efforts by a group named Smoke Free Ohio to push for a statewide ban on smoking in public places was put on hold over holiday break, when opponents in Wood and nine other counties challenged SFO's signature-gathering tactics.
Read
SMOKERS ARE NOT SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS
How is it right that nonsmokers are allowed to tell restaurant, bar and bowling alley owners that they are not to allow smoking in their establishments? Did these nonsmokers just wake up in 2006 and decide that, all of a sudden, smoking was bad for everyone?
How is it right that people who "rub" or "dip" tobacco are still allowed to have tobacco in these establishments? Is it not a health issue if the waiters and waitresses have to dispose of their spit cups, cans or bottles? The people who dip or rub are allowed to spit on the sidewalks where we all walk, and people do not think that this is unsanitary?
As a smoker, I am outraged that my right was taken from me and from the owners of these establishments. Have the establishments that used to allow smoking not spent thousands of dollars on ventilation systems?
What will be the next right taken from smokers? Will we not be allowed to smoke outside, in our own cars or homes? I hope that it will not come to this, but if a few nonsmokers can decide that establishment owners can't allow smoking in their businesses, I look for a decision that we will not be allowed to smoke outside, in our own cars and homes.
We smokers are not second-class citizens. Did we lose the right to be first-class citizens just because we smoke?
Stephanie McCloud
St. Louisville
Jan 5, 2006
Read
Lawsuit wants smoking-ban petitions nixed
January 4, 2006
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
COLUMBUS - A coalition of Ohio bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and private clubs fighting an attempt to enact a broad indoor smoking ban in public places filed suit yesterday to invalidate Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's certification of the petitions.
"It's our belief that the secretary of state overstepped his authority in certifying the petitions while protests were still pending," said Jacob Evans, lobbyist for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association. "In Franklin County, for example, it certainly appears there were several hundred, if not thousands, of fraudulent signatures submitted."
The suit was filed in the 10th District Court of Appeals in Columbus.
Yesterday marked the start of the four-month clock for lawmakers to consider a proposed law submitted by SmokeFreeOhio, a coalition of health groups.
Mr. Blackwell last week certified the petitions as containing about 117,000 valid signatures of registered voters, more than the necessary 96,870. He forwarded the proposed law to lawmakers.
The law, which would supercede Toledo's weaker ban, would enact one of the strongest statewide bans in the nation, making it illegal to light up in virtually all enclosed places where the public congregates.
Mr. Blackwell's spokesman, Carlo LoParo, said the secretary of state's office had yet to see the suit.
"Our interpretation of the law is quite simple," he said. "Once the secretary is notified that a sufficient number of signatures has been filed, which he was by the county boards of election, he has no choice but to forward that information to the General Assembly, beginning the initiated statute process."
Opponents of the ban say they have filed court challenges in 31 counties challenging nearly 41,000 signatures.
Both sides count Lucas, Wood, Seneca, Hancock, Erie, Defiance, and Allen among the northwestern Ohio counties where challenges have been filed. No such suit, however, could be located as of yesterday in Lucas County Common Pleas Court.
The common thread running through the suits is a challenge to the practice of using non-Ohioans to circulate petitions.
Smoking ban's backers cite measure's simplicity
January 6, 2006
A proposed statewide indoor smoking ban voters may see on the November ballot doesn't go into detail defining bars or restaurants or bowling alleys, Tracy Sabetta, co-chairman of SmokeFreeOhio, said yesterday during a taping of The Editors television program.
"The reason it's been titled the 'Smoke Free Workplace Act' is because it's very simply covering any establishment in Ohio that has an employee," she said. "If you have an employee, you're covered."
Smoking would be allowed on outdoor patios, but the proposal makes no provision for separate smoking rooms.
"We just figure if you're looking at something statewide, you need a level playing field for all businesses, all workers, all patrons," Ms. Sabetta said. "It eliminates a lot of the confusion for those who are enforcing it."
She said those behind SmokeFreeOhio - most prominently, the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association - are not interested "in exempting the health of certain categories of workers."
Ms. Sabetta and Stuart Kerr, northwest Ohio coordinator of SmokeFreeOhio, spoke about the initiative with Thomas Walton, vice president and editor of The Blade. The Editors will be broadcast at 9 tonight on WGTE-TV, Channel 30, and at 12:30 p.m. Sunday on WBGU-TV, Channel 27.
Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell last week certified petitions submitted by SmokeFreeOhio, although opponents of a smoking ban filed court challenges of signatures in 31 counties. The petitions are the first step in the process, Ms. Sabetta said.
The General Assembly has four months to act on the proposal. If legislators don't act on it, or if they make changes that SmokeFreeOhio doesn't approve of, the group can collect another round of signatures - about 97,000 are needed - to place the measure on the November ballot.
SmokeFreeOhio leaders have been meeting with legislative leaders, "letting them know that we would prefer they take no action and allow us to collect the second round of signatures to put this before Ohio voters, where we know that we will be successful," Ms. Sabetta said.
The law would supersede smoking bans that are less restrictive - Toledo's, for instance. Bans that are stricter - Powell, Ohio, bans smoking on outdoor patios - would stand.
If voters approve, the Ohio Department of Health will write the rules to put the ban in effect, Ms. Sabetta said. SmokeFreeOhio prefers that the law be enforced by local boards of health when they conduct regular inspections.
"The police would not be involved. These are civil penalties," Ms. Sabetta said. "We're not looking at creating any kind of smoking police here."
Legislature considers proposing its own statewide smoking ban
12/30/05
COLUMBUS | Lawmakers are considering a pre-emptive strike against a group that has moved a step closer to putting a statewide ban on indoor smoking before voters in November.
Backers of the ban learned Wednesday that they had collected enough signatures on petitions to place the issue before the legislature. But first, they must fight a group representing bar owners that has challenged the petitions.
They also may have to deal with legislators who want their own, less restrictive ban, said Rep. Bill Seitz of Cincinnati, the No. 6 House Republican and an opponent of a statewide ban.
The ban proposed by SmokeFreeOhio would prohibit smoking in public places such as restaurants, bars and offices. Seitz said businesses that would be affected by the ban are talking about asking the legislature for a ban that would set aside areas for smokers in restaurants, bars, country clubs, hotels and other public gathering spots.
"If that is inevitable, let's at least have one that is reasonable," Seitz said. "I know this is a fairly large coalition that is interested in this issue."
That's precisely why SmokeFreeOhio has asked the legislature to do nothing, spokeswoman Tracy Sabetta said. Under Ohio law, if the legislature does not act, backers can gather more signatures and put the issue on the ballot. Sabetta's group is concerned that lawmakers would make so many exceptions it would render the bill meaningless.
"We have asked them to take no action," Sabetta said.
SmokeFreeOhio submitted about 165,000 signatures to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's office. Blackwell said Wednesday that 117,026 of the signatures were those of Ohio voters and the proposal was forwarded to the legislature.
Lawmakers have four months from reconvening on Jan. 3 to pass the issue, or backers can collect 96,870 more signatures, or 3 percent of the total vote for governor in 2002, and place the plan directly before voters.
Group to fight smoking bans
Bar owners claim petition for state ordinance invalid
COLUMBUS (AP) -- Backers of a statewide smoking ban have collected enough signatures on petitions to place the issue before the Legislature, but first, they must fight a group representing bar owners that has challenged the petitions.
The bar owners say the people collecting the some of the signatures violated state election laws.
The statewide ban would prohibit smoking in public places, such as restaurant, bars and offices.
SmokeFreeOhio submitted about 165,000 signatures to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's office. Blackwell said Wednesday that 117,026 of the signatures were those of Ohio voters and the proposal was forwarded to the Legislature.
That means lawmakers have four months from reconvening on Jan. 3 to pass the issue, or backers can collect 96,870 more signatures, or 3 percent of the total vote for governor in 2002, and place the plan directly before voters.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association said Wednesday it has challenged petitions in 10 counties. It says the circulators came from out of state, listed the wrong employer or committed other violations of Ohio election law.
A similar challenge was made by Ohio First, a group opposed to the four election-related ballot issues that voters rejected on Nov. 8.
The 10th Ohio District Court of Appeals threw out the Ohio First challenge over residency requirements but did not rule on the merits. It only said the case did not qualify as "extraordinary" and require immediate attention.
"Our question here wasn't answered in this case," said Jacob Evans, a lobbyist for the beverage association. "We just want to make sure the process was followed in gathering these signatures."
In a Dec. 1 letter to county boards of elections, Blackwell said that questions about a circulator's home or occupation were not grounds to invalidate the petitions.
SmokeFreeOhio, a coalition of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and other health groups, thinks it will prevail if the challenges go to court, spokeswoman Tracy Sabetta said.
Once the petitions' status is resolved, SmokeFreeOhio wants the Legislature to do nothing. It says it doesn't want a watered-down version and would prefer to take it to the voters intact.
However, it could prompt lawmakers to act on their own, said Rep. Bill Seitz of Cincinnati, the No. 6 Republican in the House and an opponent of a statewide ban.
State smoking ban next?
Proposal sent to General Assembly, may find its way to November ballot
December 29, 2005
James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Petitions seeking a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants contain enough valid signatures to send the matter to lawmakers, the state’s chief election official ruled yesterday.
That sets the stage for a possible ballot issue next fall.
But even before Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell said petitions for the proposed Smoke-Free Workplace Act contained 117,026 valid signatures — 20,156 more than the number required to send the issue to the legislature for consideration — lobbyists for bars and restaurants began to file challenges in several counties.
Both sides are bracing for months of battles over whether Ohio should join 10 states in outlawing smoking in public places.
Using paid signature gatherers, anti-smoking activists aligned with SmokeFreeOhio, the umbrella group pushing for the ban, collected 167,626 signatures across Ohio this year. Blackwell forwarded the proposed law to the legislature yesterday, starting the clock on the four-month deadline for lawmakers to act.
But SmokeFreeOhio wants lawmakers to do nothing, which would allow the group to gather an additional 96,780 valid signatures from Ohio voters to place a measure on the November 2006 ballot.
House Speaker Jon A. Husted, R-Kettering, has said he expects lawmakers to honor SmokeFreeOhio’s request.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, a trade group for bars and restaurants, argues that a total ban would drive smokers from businesses across Ohio. The association filed formal challenges to petitions in 17 Ohio counties Tuesday and yesterday, asserting that SmokeFreeOhio’s use of out-of-state residents to gather signatures was improper.
While state lawmakers are considering legislation to ban that practice, there’s no law barring nonresidents from circulating petitions in Ohio, said Don McTigue, the attorney for SmokeFreeOhio.
"It’s quite clear under Ohio law that there’s no requirement that a circulator be an Ohio resident," McTigue said. "I fully expect we’ll come out of these challenges just fine."
Jacob Evans, vice president of government affairs for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, said the group has questions about the signature-gathering process in some counties. "Our whole goal is to make sure the process is followed properly," Evans said. "Our goal all along has been to come up with a compromise. The proposal SmokeFreeOhio has come up with is an extreme position that’s a minority view in Ohio."
The beverage association favors a more limited measure that would require restaurants and bars to have separately ventilated rooms for smokers and ban smoking in bowling alleys only during certain hours.
The industry group has lobbied lawmakers to enact a more limited ban when the issue reaches them in early 2006.
The formal challenges to signature-gathering in 17 counties could delay the process, but SmokeFreeOhio officials said yesterday they’re not worried.
"It’s not a surprise," said Wendy Simpkins, a spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society’s Ohio chapter, the major backer of SmokeFreeOhio. "Challenges are a part of the signature-gathering process. We have more than we need."
Paid-petition circulators collected about half of the signatures submitted to Blackwell’s office, Simpkins said. She did not know how many of the signatures were collected by non-Ohio residents.
The beverage association’s challenges won’t persuade SmokeFreeOhio to work toward a compromise, leaders of the anti-smoking group said. They said they are confident that most Ohio voters will opt for a total ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and other public establishments.
The challenges must be taken up by individual county boards of elections.
Let Ohioans decide
General Assembly should allow statewide ban on smoking to reach ballot
December 05, 2005 Ohio residents deserve to breathe clean indoor air. Ohio businesses deserve a level playing field. And Ohio voters deserve the opportunity to make both happen.
Read
Statewide smoking ban just the tip of the iceberg
November 23, 2005
If you own a home, do you feel like you should be able to say what goes on in it? What is different about owning a business? The owner of an establishment should be able to run his business as you are able to run your home.
The smoking bans are getting way out of hand. Nobody is forced to patronize any certain business. If they don't like the smoke, they should "stay out of the kitchen."
Only places we are forced to go to, such as court and stores, where smoking is a real fire hazard, should be an automatic "no smoking."
There are plenty of resturants for smokers and nonsmokers to take their pick.
They pushed it down our throats that it would not reduce patronage to bars and restaurants if smoking was banned. But now they want a statewide ban so it won't send bar and restaurant patrons to the suburbs. What will they want next? Ban smoking, period? They lie to get what they want, then go after more.
I hate a smoked-filled bar, so I leave.It's a simple solution.
GROUPS TO BUTT HEADS ON PUBLIC SMOKING BAN PLAN
Sunday, November 20, 2005 MUSTARD SEEDS RICK SENFTEN
It’s nothing but a smoke screen.
Every time a restaurant or tavern proprietor is asked whether such “hospitality” businesses should be smoke-free, count on this agitated reply: “It would kill business.”
The answer presumes a couple of things, each one bull:
1. Smoking bans are unfair to the little guy; that hotels, motels and other places that can afford smoke rooms and smoke patios have an advantage over space-tight neighborhood bars. If true, this would level the field: Same rules for all, no exceptions.
2. Smoking is the reason people go to eateries and bars. This implicit notion ignores that even more people (nonsmokers represent 75 percent of the public) may patronize places where they don’t have to gag down secondhand smoke, and they can take their kids without slowly killing them. Plus, they don’t have to feel guilty about those poor nonsmoking, need-the-job servers they leave behind in a cloud of poisonous air.
BATTLE AHEAD
You’ll hear a lot of this industry babble once SmokeFreeOhio lands a statewide issue on a 2006 ballot. SFO last week handed the secretary of state 167,000 signatures (more than 5,000 from Stark County).
Stark County Health Commissioner William Franks is a local driver of this issue, which puts county government officially on board.
The group hopes to get the issue to voters by next November. This means pro-smoking groups — who equate defense of their habit with the great civil rights battles regarding race, gender, ethnicity and physical capability (they call anti-smoke folks “nico-Nazis”) — are already mobilizing. To get a load of these people, scan the United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter:
ALREADY ABOARD
Seventeen Ohio towns already have indoor smoking bans, including Columbus and Toledo (reputedly the smokingest city in the nation); so far, the cleaner air hasn’t killed anybody. Hey, doesn’t this mean more potential restaurant and bar customers?
In fact, the American Heart Association reported last week that Pueblo, Colo., and Helena, Mont., saw heart-attack reductions of 27 percent and 40 percent after enacting smoking bans; statewide bans have been effective in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, New York and Maine. Such cities as Albuquerque, Austin, Boston, Dallas and Lexington, Ky., have benefited from bans, too.
If the pro-smoke folks could make such health claims, they surely would, rather than blowing — well, you know what.
Voters’ petitions turn up the heat on smoking
Friday, November 18, 2005
BY Robert Wang REPOSITORY STAFF WRITER
Jackson Middle School teacher David McCoy got tired of teaching his students about the hazards of smoking, only to see them work in restaurants where they were breathing in secondhand smoke.
“A lot of people who don’t have a lot of skills ... don’t have a lot of choice in what kind of job they have,” he said. “A lot of times, (teens) don’t know the damages of secondhand smoke.”
McCoy, 51, of Perry Township gathered signatures at events like Massillon concerts and the Ribs Burnoff, in the hope that voters would ban smoking in restaurants and bars. On Thursday, he, Garry Beltz of Green, Jean Salby of Canton and Stark County Health Commissioner Bill Franks met in Columbus with other volunteers for SmokeFreeOhio, a coalition of nonprofit groups.
They presented more than 167,000 signatures — more than 5,000 from Stark County — to the Ohio secretary of state’s office in support of a ban on smoking in public places indoors.
“There’s like a silent majority of people who really want to see an end of smoking,” said McCoy.
But Alison Harr, a manager at Cheers Tavern and Grille in Jackson Township, figures that such a ban would cost her business.
“I have always thought of it as a choice,” said Harr, adding her opinion may not be the bar’s. “You know when you’re coming into a bar that people are going to smoke and drink. ... I have the choice to work here or not.”
Cleveland bar owner Gary Nolan, president of the Small Business Coalition, said the ban would cause “devastation” to the hospitality industry. He said it’s not proven secondhand smoke threatens people’s health. He said people won’t go to bars if they’re not allowed to smoke there, and teens have dozens of nonsmoking places they can work.
If enough petition signatures are valid, the Ohio Legislature would have until May to decide whether to approve the petition language. If it doesn’t, organizers would have to get about 97,000 more valid signatures to put the issue on the November 2006 ballot.
If voters approve it, state law would ban smoking in nearly all buildings including the workplace, but exceptions would include homes not being used as a business, smoking rooms in hotels, nursing homes, patios and private clubs without employees.
Franks said SmokeFreeOhio is trying to circumvent state legislators because they would be influenced by the tobacco companies and the bars.
“It probably would be such a watered-down bill it wouldn’t make a difference to the public health,” he said.
“We certainly aren’t telling smokers not to smoke,” said SmokeFree spokeswoman Wendy Simpkins. “We’re just asking them to step outside and respect that 75 percent of the population choose not to smoke.”
GROUPS TO BUTT HEADS ON PUBLIC SMOKING BAN PLAN
Sunday, November 20, 2005 MUSTARD SEEDS RICK SENFTEN
It’s nothing but a smoke screen.
Every time a restaurant or tavern proprietor is asked whether such “hospitality” businesses should be smoke-free, count on this agitated reply: “It would kill business.”
The answer presumes a couple of things, each one bull:
1. Smoking bans are unfair to the little guy; that hotels, motels and other places that can afford smoke rooms and smoke patios have an advantage over space-tight neighborhood bars. If true, this would level the field: Same rules for all, no exceptions.
2. Smoking is the reason people go to eateries and bars. This implicit notion ignores that even more people (nonsmokers represent 75 percent of the public) may patronize places where they don’t have to gag down secondhand smoke, and they can take their kids without slowly killing them. Plus, they don’t have to feel guilty about those poor nonsmoking, need-the-job servers they leave behind in a cloud of poisonous air.
BATTLE AHEAD
You’ll hear a lot of this industry babble once SmokeFreeOhio lands a statewide issue on a 2006 ballot. SFO last week handed the secretary of state 167,000 signatures (more than 5,000 from Stark County).
Stark County Health Commissioner William Franks is a local driver of this issue, which puts county government officially on board.
The group hopes to get the issue to voters by next November. This means pro-smoking groups — who equate defense of their habit with the great civil rights battles regarding race, gender, ethnicity and physical capability (they call anti-smoke folks “nico-Nazis”) — are already mobilizing. To get a load of these people, scan the United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter:
ALREADY ABOARD
Seventeen Ohio towns already have indoor smoking bans, including Columbus and Toledo (reputedly the smokingest city in the nation); so far, the cleaner air hasn’t killed anybody. Hey, doesn’t this mean more potential restaurant and bar customers?
In fact, the American Heart Association reported last week that Pueblo, Colo., and Helena, Mont., saw heart-attack reductions of 27 percent and 40 percent after enacting smoking bans; statewide bans have been effective in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, New York and Maine. Such cities as Albuquerque, Austin, Boston, Dallas and Lexington, Ky., have benefited from bans, too.
If the pro-smoke folks could make such health claims, they surely would, rather than blowing — well, you know what.
OHIO SMOKING BAN ADVOCATES PUSH FOR STATEWIDE LAW
Smoking camps square off
Backers of public ban want statewide vote; opponents say bars, restaurants need a break
Friday, November 18, 2005
James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Anti-smoking activists submitted more than 167,000 signatures yesterday calling for a November 2006 ballot measure to outlaw smoking in public buildings throughout Ohio.
Bar and restaurant owners quickly counterattacked, saying such a ban would devastate hundreds of businesses. They called for milder restrictions on smoking in restaurants and bowling centers and no restrictions in bars.
Both sides seemed primed for battle before Ohio lawmakers, who are expected to decide by May whether to endorse a full or partial smoking ban, or take no action.
At a news conference yesterday before submitting 167,626 signed petition forms to Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell’s office, anti-smoking activists said they hoped the General Assembly would decline to act on a ban. That would clear the way for SmokeFree-Ohio, the umbrella group pushing for an indoor-smoking ban, to gather another 96,780 valid signatures to place the matter before voters in November.
Bar and restaurant owners said they plan to ask legislators to adopt a less stringent measure that would continue to allow smoking in bars while requiring restaurants, private clubs and bowling centers to maintain separate rooms for smokers and nonsmokers.
They said their case is bolstered by a poll they commissioned showing that only 36 percent of likely Ohio voters favor a total prohibition on indoor smoking, while 55 percent would prefer a compromise. The poll was conducted within the past week for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association by the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies. It has a margin of sampling error of 3.1 percentage points.
If lawmakers opt for a compromise, anti-smoking advocates said they would circulate a petition calling for a total ban that would be decided in the November 2006 election.
A full ban would harm restaurants, bars and bowling centers so severely that some would go out of business, leading to layoffs, bankruptcies and lost tax revenue, said Bob Smith, president of Bowling Centers of Ohio, a trade organization.
Columbus restaurateur Thom Coffman said business has declined in his bars by as much as one-third since Columbus banned indoor smoking in public places in January.
"This is truly what this is all about — the right of business owners to keep their businesses alive so they can keep employing people," said Coffman, vice president of the Ohio Restaurant Association. "My nonsmoking customers are telling me, ‘Tom, this just isn’t fair.’ "
SmokeFreeOhio leaders said it’s unfair to expose nonsmokers to cancer-causing fumes. And they dismissed the assertion that restaurants and bars would lose business, citing the case of a Cleveland bar owner whose sales jumped more than 9 percent after he declared the bar smoke free in August 2004.
Ten states and 21 Ohio municipalities have enacted indoor smoking bans. After Columbus outlawed smoking in bars and restaurants, 11 other Franklin County communities followed suit.
Tracy Sabetta, co-chairwoman of SmokeFreeOhio, said she expects bars and restaurants to lobby lawmakers for exemptions, but insisted that the effects would be less than opponents fear.
The bar and restaurant lobby plans a concerted effort to persuade lawmakers to pass a less stringent anti-smoking measure, hoping it would neutralize public support for restrictions on indoor smoking, said Jacob Evans, vice president of governmental affairs for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association.
Voters in several cities who favored a no-smoking law weren’t given the opportunity to enact a less stringent measure, he said.
"If you take a total ban versus nothing at all, the total ban wins," Evans said. "But if you take a total ban versus a partial ban, the partial ban will win."
As they lugged 97 boxes full of signed petition forms into Blackwell’s office, volunteers for SmokeFreeOhio said they weren’t interested in compromise. A half-measure still would expose thousands of Ohioans to unwanted secondhand smoke while possibly eroding the stronger laws already in place in Columbus and other cities, they said.
It’s unclear whether a partial statewide smoking ban would supercede the local measures.
