Ohio State Alert Update
Reynolds supports your right to puff.
The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the maker of Kools and Camels, is taking a leading role to pass a constitutional amendment that would protect public smoking in Ohio.
Read
Read The Smoke Free Workplace Act
Bar owners win one round in battle to stop statewide smoking ban
May. 05, 2006 COLUMBUS, Ohio - A Franklin County judge ruled Friday that a portion of signatures supporting a statewide indoor smoking ban are invalid, but whether that would keep the proposed law off the November ballot is unclear. SmokeFreeOhio, a coalition of health groups behind the proposal, will appeal the ruling and if unsuccessful has 10 days to gather replacement signatures, spokeswoman Tracy Sabetta said. Common Pleas Judge David Cain did not specify how many of the 117,000 signatures would be invalidated, calling for more evidence. The bar and bowling alley owners who sued to toss the signatures estimated the number at 44,000, spokesman Jacob Evans said. Ban opponents have started their own petition drive for a competing ballot issue, called Smoke Less Ohio, which would exempt bars, bowling alleys and other facilities from the ban on smoking in indoor public places. Cain ruled that it was OK when the signatures were collected to use out-of-state petition circulators. The law changed to limit out-of-state participation afterward. However, the ruling said backers incorrectly filled out the portion of the petition identifying who hired paid circulators. Relying on advice from Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's office, SmokeFreeOhio entered the American Cancer Society, which paid independent contractors to recruit the paid circulators. Cain said those contractors should have been listed on the forms instead. Attorneys for Blackwell's office will review the ruling over the next few days, spokesman James Lee said. The office has given consistent advice on how to fill out the forms, he said, but he could not immediately determine Friday how many other ballot issue campaigns may have asked for the same advice. SmokeFreeOhio had to submit 97,000 signatures before lawmakers began session in January, then allow the Legislature four months to act or ignore it. That time has expired. If enough signatures are invalidated that the group must collect replacements, it then must submit another 97,000 signatures within three months to get on the ballot. Read
Smoking ban foes lose bid to void rival petitions April 29, 2006 COLUMBUS - A state appeals court rejected an attempt yesterday by a coalition of bars, restaurants, and other opponents of a strict statewide ban on public indoor smoking to reverse the certification of petitions that put the question before lawmakers. The bar and restaurant coalition, calling itself Smoke Less Ohio, has already launched its own petition effort, proposing a constitutional amendment that would enact a less restrictive ban with exemptions for bars, bingo halls, racetracks, bowling alleys, and restaurants with separate smoking rooms. A three-judge panel of the 10th District Court of Appeals in Columbus refused to turn back the clock on the initiated statute process begun by a coalition of health organizations calling itself SmokeFreeOhio. The first-phase of the statute process is nearing an end. With lawmakers showing no inclination to act, the second phase will involve a new round of petitions to put the stricter proposal directly before voters on Nov. 7. It's possible both proposals could appear side by side on the ballot.
Statewide smoking ban showdown takes shape
April 20, 2006
COLUMBUS - A showdown over a statewide smoking ban moved closer to reality yesterday.
Attorney General Jim Petro yesterday approved language that a business coalition intends to place on petitions it will ask at least 320,000 registered voters to sign. The coalition includes bars, restaurants, retailers, and racetracks.
The petitions would place a proposed constitutional amendment on the Nov. 7 ballot, an alternative to a much stricter indoor smoking ban being pushed by SmokeFreeOhio, a coalition of health organizations.
"This is another step towards giving Ohio voters a real choice in November about our state's smoking policy," said Jacob Evans, lobbyist for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association and a leader of the business group.
"Our polling has shown us that Ohioans prefer a reasonable smoking policy over a total smoking ban," he said. "We plan to give them that option."
The constitutional amendment would permit smoking in bars, bowling areas, restaurants with enclosed smoking areas, bingo halls, racetracks, and designated smoking rooms in hotels and nursing homes. The stricter proposal, following the more time-consuming initiated-statute route, would ban smoking in nearly all indoor places frequented by the general public.
As a constitutional amendment, the business coalition's proposal would trump the initiated statute if voters should approve both at the polls. The amendment also would overrule bans enacted locally either through ordinance or referendum, including those in Toledo and Bowling Green.
"Everyone has the right to breathe indoor clean air at work and in public places," said Tracy Sabetta, SmokeFreeOhio co-chairman. "There are 534,000 hospitality workers in Ohio. The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association and tobacco companies are pushing an amendment that would literally make it unconstitutional to protect them from secondhand smoke on the job."
SmokeFreeOhio gathered about 100,000 signatures to place the proposed law before the General Assembly. Once a four-month deadline for legislative action passes at the beginning of May, it will launch a second round of petitions to put the question directly to voters.
Statewide smoking ban decision left to voters
April 7th, 2006
Justin Thompson
An act that would place a statewide ban on smoking in workplaces will be put before voters in November, an Ohio state senator said.
“I don’t expect us to (act),” said Ohio Senate Majority Leader Bill Harris, R-Ashland.
Without legislative action, The Smoke Free Workplace Act, an initiative statute, will appear before Ohio voters on the November ballots, said SmokeFreeOhio spokeswoman Wendy Simpkins, who works for the American Cancer Society.
Other organizations supporting the act are The American Lung Association, The American Heart Association, The Ohio State Medical Association, The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, The Ohio Hospital Association, The Association of Ohio Health Commissioners and the American Cancer Society.
“We’re kind of in a lull right now,” Simpkins said. The initiative statute process involves first gathering signatures on the petition, having the signatures verified — which the group has done — and then giving the legislature appropriate time to consider any action.
When this legislative session commenced in January, the legislature had four months before a subsequent 90-day period to collect almost 97,000 more signatures and a statewide vote.
The petition with more than 100,000 signatures collected by SmokeFreeOhio was given to Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who verified the signatures through county boards of election.
If passed, the act would forbid “smoking and burning of tobacco in enclosed areas of public spaces and enclosed areas of places of employment.” This would apply to all “workplaces” — including restaurants and bars. An initial warning would be followed by $100 to $2,500 fine against proprietors and a $100 fine against individuals for each violation, for each offense within a two-year period.
Imposing fines and requiring businesses to meet the standards would be the responsibility of the Ohio Department of Health. A section of the act would stipulate that all fines collected as part of the program would be placed in a fund in the state treasury, which would be used by the department to further enforce the regulations.
“I personally oppose it from the fact of government (and) legislation taking away choice,” said Skipper’s Bar and Grill owner Joel Schectman. “It’s taking choice away.”
Schectman, who also owns The Blue Gator, said he thinks the outdoor patio at Skipper’s will remain an area for customers to legally smoke. The proposed act allows several exceptions such as patios, though if windows or doors do not prevent the migration of smoke into the interior of a building, the patio will then be considered part of the building.
Other exemptions include private residences, family-owned and operated businesses, specially designated areas of nursing homes, retail tobacco stores, “sleeping rooms” in hotels and the burning of incense during a religious ceremony.
The exemptions must meet more criteria; for example, private residences cannot be smoking sites during hours of operation as a child-care facility, and hotels cannot designate more than 20 percent of the rooms as smoking allowed.
“I think it would probably hurt business,” said manager of The Pub, Tom VanDyke. “I don’t know why they don’t let private establishments choose for themselves. It’s a popular political thing, but it’s like they’re shoving it down our throats.”
He added that the increase in foot traffic out front, as patrons leave to smoke would create “a whole bunch of mess.”
Other groups, such as RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company and the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, have been working to keep the initiative from dominating the November ballot.
“One of the tactics of opponents is to do something called preemption,” said Shelly Kiser, a spokeswoman for SmokeFreeOhio at The American Lung Association.
Preemption is the strategy of limiting the power of a statewide smoking ban, which the Smoke Free Workplace Act avoids by including a section that does not constrain localities from adding more restrictions.
“If a local ordinance wants to go above and beyond this, they can,” she said.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association has publicly opposed the act since its inception and is in the beginning phase of developing its own legislation.
“First of all, the (Ohio Licensed Beverage Association) has tried to work with the General Assembly and is now considering putting a legislation on the ballot,” said Jacob Evans, the vice-president for government affairs for the association.
The group has tried to reach a compromise with groups like SmokeFreeOhio, but “they don’t care to work with us,” he said. Its act would recommend many of the same changes, but would exempt restaurants, bars and other hospitality-based places.
“You’ve got to meet the needs of your clientele,” he said, adding his group and others wanted a reasonable compromise as opposed to a smoking prohibition. He said he expects the stringent smoking ban to pass, though he noted public support has fallen over the last few years as more information has been disseminated.
The owner of O’Hooley’s Pub & Brewery decided to turn his bar smokeless March 17, a move that the other area owners might be making in the near future.
“I’m wondering if it’s going to be inevitable,” VanDyke said.
| Health zealots exaggerate data on second-hand smoke hazards | | 2006-04-03 | The whole issue of the danger behind passive smoking came in 1993 when the federal EPA (warning signs should immediately begin flashing) issued its "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." The study claimed that 3,000 people die annually due to second-hand smoke. In 1998, Judge Osteen of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled, "The EPA's procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law" and "... EPA cherry picked its data..." Yeah, you read correctly, the court threw out the study saying it was biased and invalid. Granted, organizations such as the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and U.S. Surgeon General all state that second-hand smoke is a killer. However, all of these organizations cite (yep, you guessed right) the flawed EPA study that was thrown out in a U.S. District Court. Furthermore, these organizations inflate the number of deaths each year from 3,000 to 50,000. Do they cite scientific data to support this claim? Absolutely not, they simply issue a projection based on mortality rates from heart disease and other causes of death. In other words, if you bite the big one after having lived with a smoker, they simply chalk you up into their fabricated statistic. But for argument's sake, let's use the EPA statistic and concede that 3,000 people die each year from lung cancer due to second-hand smoke. The EPA claims that you are 25 percent more likely to develop lung cancer if exposed to second-hand smoke. That sounds like quite an increase, but a normal person without exposure to passive smoke runs a 1:100,000 chance of developing lung cancer. According to the EPA, the chance increases to 1:80,000 if exposed to passive smoke. In other words, 10 people out of 1,000,000 will develop lung cancer without exposure and 12.5 out of 1,000,000 will develop lung cancer with exposure to second-hand smoke. This is statistically insignificant. So only 2.5 people per million develop lung cancer due to second-hand smoke, and that's if you buy into the EPA's flawed study. We get it; some of you don't like second-hand smoke. If you don't like second-hand smoke, persuade a bar uptown to ban smoking and you can patronize that establishment. But don't stand here and tell me you're on some crusade to defend the health of those who work in these places, as well as your own, when you don't have a clue as to what you're ranting about. Those employees make a choice to work in an environment where smoking is permissible. Last time I checked, I wasn't stepping over dead bodies every time I walked into a restaurant or bar that allowed smoking, and I'm sure you haven't either. Curt Winzenreid Richland Avenue Athens Read
|
******************
Letter: Letter attacking second-hand smoke studies uses discredited arguments
2006-04-10 A recent Letter to the Editor questioning the danger of second-hand smoke ("Health Zealots Exaggerate Data on Second-Hand Smoke Hazards," Curt Winzenreid, April 3) contained a thoroughly discredited list of arguments that even the tobacco industry would be too embarrassed to make. I'd like to point out two glaring errors. First, the writer states that the 1993 federal EPA study classifying second-hand smoke as a Class A carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent for which there is no known safe level of exposure) was thrown out by a North Carolina judge. He neglects to mention that the judge's decision was overruled by the Court of Appeals, and all of the tobacco industry's challenges to the EPA report were rejected. Secondly, he claims that health groups have no scientific data to support the claim that second-hand smoke causes about 50,000 deaths each year. This is simply absurd. The dangers of second-hand smoke have been studied and confirmed by the U.S. Surgeon General, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and every other major governmental, scientific and medical body that has ever looked at this issue. The scientific evidence is clear, convincing and overwhelming. Communities across the country are acting to protect employees and the public from the harms of second-hand smoke. In just the past couple of months, New Jersey, Utah and Colorado have all passed laws that will prohibit smoking in all indoor public places, including restaurants and bars. Ohioans deserve the right to breathe clean air as well. Micah Berman Executive Director, Tobacco Public Policy Center Capital University Law School Columbus Read******************
From: AArchie446@aol.comDate: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:02:30 EDT Subject: Rebuttal:Micah Berman, EX Dtr tobacco public policy center. To: news@athensnews.comDear Editor: In response to Berman's response I searched his letter to find some trace of scientific data to counter Berman's charges that the Curt Winzenruid letter (April 3rd) was not true. I will say that Mr. Berman has not done his talking points so well, There is NOT a single organization anywhere in any country that has the scientific data the a single person has died from exposure to SHS, Berman states that the world health Organization is one of these groups that spew the 50,000 death from SHS. Wrong! The fact is that a WHO study done in 114 countries over ten years found NO relationship between SHS and cancer. In fact some studies found SHS exposure had beneficial effects. Mr. Berman Knows well that the false statements made by his anti smoking industry is all that the public funded activists have to support smoking bans, Nothing but a manufactured and made up falsehood to support their "agenda." The supporting scientists of this junk scientific data are now receiving the public scrutiny that they deserve This outrageous charge that smokers murder 50,000 non smokers every year by exposing them to SHS is criminal defamation in any state law. To put it as plain as possible, It is a downright lie. Sincerely, Archie Anderson FORCES Minnesota
Statewide Smoking Ban May Be On Ballot
March 19, 2006
Supporters of a statewide smoking ban in Ohio are celebrating a legal victory.
A state magistrate has turned down a challenge to petitions seeking to enact an indoor smoking ban.
Supporters turned in enough signatures in December to put the issue before lawmakers.
If the Legislature fails to act by early May or introduces a bill that significantly changes the proposal, supporters can gather a new round of signatures to put the law before voters.
Bar owners who oppose the ban had filed a challenge to the decision by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to certify that there were enough signatures.
The bar owners have about a week to appeal. Attorneys for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association are reviewing the ruling.
Polls on Ohio smoking ban contradict each otherMarch 13, 2006 Shaheen Samavati Groups on both sides of a statewide smoking ban debate released polls Tuesday with contradicting results. Read
Ohioans won't support total smoking ban
March 8, 2006
Poll results released late Tuesday show most Ohioans favor a smoking ban that exempts bars, bowling alleys, private clubs and restaurants that reserve separate rooms for smoking.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association polled 600 voters and found Ohioans would reject a total smoking ban by a 52 percent to 46 percent margin.
But a majority of those polled support a modified ban, and 62 percent believe business owners should be allowed to determine their own smoking policies.
Locally, the city of Centerville implemented a smoking ban that went into effect last spring. Except for a handful of bars, restaurants and tobacco stores, the city's businesses are all required to be smoke-free.
Bar, restaurant group battles to buy time on smoking-ban vote
March 08, 2006
James Nash
Ohioans shouldn’t get to vote on a proposed smoking ban in restaurants and bars in November because Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell acted prematurely in approving a petition for the ban, lawyers argued in a court hearing yesterday.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association last December filed more than a dozen challenges to last year’s petition drive for an indoor smoking ban. Yesterday, attorneys for the trade group contended that Blackwell overstepped his legal authority by forwarding the petition forms to Ohio lawmakers even as the challenges were pending.
The association’s challenge, if successful, would delay a vote on the proposed smoking ban until November 2007.
Anti-smoking activists submitted more than 167,000 signatures from throughout Ohio last November calling for a November 2006 ballot measure to ban smoking in public establishments.
The group SmokeFree Ohio, led by the American Cancer Society, said the signatures are valid and demonstrate the depth of support among Ohioans for smoke-free restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and other establishments.
Within weeks, the association of bar and restaurant owners formally challenged the signatures in 34 counties. Election officials should throw out signatures collected by paid, out-ofstate signature gatherers, the association said.
On Dec. 27, saying that state law doesn’t ban out-of-state petition circulators, Blackwell certified the petitions and forwarded them to the General Assembly.
By law, the General Assembly has four months from that time to consider its own anti-smoking measure. If lawmakers don’t act, which SmokeFree Ohio hopes is the case, the matter would go before voters in November if anti-smoking activists gather another 96,780 valid signatures.
SmokeFree Ohio co-leader Susan Jagers said she’s optimistic that Franklin County Court of Appeals Magistrate Kenneth W. Macke will rule in favor of allowing a vote on the proposed ban this year. Macke presided over an hour-long hearing yesterday with attorneys for Blackwell, SmokeFree Ohio and the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association. Macke is expected to rule in about a week.
If the vote is postponed, Jagers said she’s still confident that a majority of Ohioans would favor a ban on indoor smoking.
"Every time our campaign is in the media, we gain support," she said. "If for some reason it’s in November 2007, we’ll be in an even stronger position to win."
Jacob Evans, vice president of government affairs for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, said the delay would give his group more time to build support for a more limited measure to curb smoking in public establishments.
The association supports allowing people to smoke in bars, requiring restaurants to have separately ventilated areas for smokers and nonsmokers and allowing smoking in bowling alleys during certain hours.
Yesterday, both the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association and SmokeFree Ohio promoted new polls as evidence of public support for their positions.
The beverage association commissioned a poll March 5-6 of 600 likely general election voters with a margin of error of 4 percent. According to the poll, voters reject a complete smoking ban by a margin of 52 percent to 46 percent and favor the more limited ban by a margin of 71 percent to 27 percent.
SmokeFree Ohio commissioned a poll of 800 voters, with a margin of error of 3 percent. The group said 60 percent of respondents said they would vote for a prohibition on smoking in public places, while 36 percent would vote against it.
Let smokers smoke freely
1/25/2006
If Ohio voters are given the chance to vote on a proposed statewide smoking ban, let's hope our fellow citizens take the time to educate themselves on the big picture.
The proposed ban, unlike the local ordinance, prohibits smoking in all public buildings. It allows exemptions for private clubs, but not bars, bingo halls and bowling centers, as Toledo's ban does.
Smoking is not illegal. Unhealthy and expensive, but not illegal. If an American business owner wants to operate an establishment that allows smokers the freedom to smoke, why should their decision be overridden by people who aren't patronizing those places anyway?
In our Jan. 18 cover story, "Where there's smoke," several local bar and restaurant owners expressed their frustration with the proposed ban. Many of them described the impact of the local restrictions as "extreme" and detrimental to their business.
We also spoke with Stu Kerr, a former health commissioner in Findlay and the Northwest Ohio campaign coordinator for SmokeFree Ohio, the leading proponent of the ban. Kerr dismissed the bar and restaurant owners' concerns: "They'll bring up property rights argument. They'll bring up economic arguments ... it's bullshit."
Any group that dismisses economic arguments and property rights must be held in suspicion; if Kerr can discount these bedrocks of business so easily, he's trampling on precious entrepreneurial principles.
Sharon Kuhnle, owner of Twin Oaks Bowling Center on West Sylvania Avenue, said it best: "We live in a free society, and we're discussing a legal product. 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."
There's no argument from us that first- and secondhand smoke is deadly. Our solution is not to ban smoking from every corner of the city; our solution is to avoid places where smoking pollutes the air. That's a personal decision. That's how the free market works.
Let business owners decide this issue, not reactionary zealots. Read
SMOKING BAN AN ISSUE OF CHOICE
As a smoker, isn't it my choice to enter or not enter an establishment when they don't allow smoking? Then shouldn't it be a nonsmoker's choice whether to enter an establishment that allows smoking? Isn't the issue about choice?
"Public places" should be ones which taxpayers' money supports, businesses or entities which the city, county or state controls -- for example the public library, fire department, schools, etc. Aren't businesses such as bowling alleys, bars, department stores and restaurants privately owned? Shouldn't it be the business owners' choice as to whether they cater to smokers or nonsmokers?
If a business owner doesn't have the right to allow smoking in his place of business, then what is to stop the government from stepping in and forbidding me from allowing smoking in my home -- which I run my business out of and for which I pay the mortgage? A nonsmoker can choose not to enter an establishment or visit my home, where smoking is allowed. However, they cannot choose not to be hit by a drunk driver who just left the establishment they choose not to enter.
Obviously our lawmakers would rather deal with drunks than smokers. I can't remember ever hearing that a family was destroyed by a hit-and-run smoker.
I believe we live in America because here we have the freedom of choice, and aren't there much bigger, more important issues our leaders could be fighting for?
Christina Lupher Frazeysburg January 22, 2006 Read
Read the OH State Alert History
|
