Toledo, OH:

Toledo Free Press ^ | January 18, 2006 | Matt Zapotosky

[SheLion]

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.

[SheLion]

THE REAL FACTS OF THE SMOKING BANS IMPACT ON BUSINESS'S
The Facts

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California.

Maumee, Ohio March 31, 2002The Linck Inn, a historic old building in Maumee, Ohio (just beyond Toledo limits, but also in Lucas County) that has been converted to many things through the years-the last few being restaurants-has closed.

The Blade had a very large article recently, and attended the auction, where the owners tried to sell it. A very informative article, particularly in the building's historical background-BUT-nowhere in the article was it mentioned that the present owners had made it the first no-smoking restaurant in Lucas county.

That was quite a few years ago-and, I wonder where all that business from those free-spending anti's went? The one owner made the comment "no one has ever made a success with a restaurant in that building, with possibly one exception."

Incidentally-no one bought it. The only offer was for a fraction of what it was worth. Personally-I hope they have to eat it.

[SheLion]

In my haste to post this, I left off the Title of the Article. Could you please add the title for me?

Proposed smoking ban has both sides fired up

[cgbg]

Smokers ultimately have half the wealth of non-smokers,"

Somebody should tell this guy that it is politically incorrect to admit that policy has been created to discriminate against the underprivileged. :-)

[SheLion]

In my haste to post this, I left off the Title of the Article. Could you please add the title for me?

" Proposed smoking ban has both sides fired up"

In my haste to post this, I left off the Title of the Article. Could you please add the title for me?

" Proposed smoking ban has both sides fired up"

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Oh Brave New World these "progressives" are preparing for us; rich as a tofu cheesecake, cheerful as a Super Wally, healthy as an airport.

Smokers, who pay gigantic sums on their taxable products, are driven out. Gays, whose lifestyle "issues" raise colossal public expenses, are welcomed. Result, a huge tax burden on home owners, productive workers and businesses.

Banning their way to bliss. A dangerous philosophy.

[OldYank1]

I thought there was a recent study showing the effect of second hand smoke was pretty much bogus. There was no real evidence of any death or illness being caused by second hand smoke. Anyone have any information on this?

[SheLion]

I thought there was a recent study showing the effect of second hand smoke was pretty much bogus. There was no real evidence of any death or illness being caused by second hand smoke. Anyone have any information on this?

Did you read the links I provided in Post #1?

[SheLion]

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

[NeilGus]

I don't smoke and have no use for smokers. Still, I believe that smokers should be allowed to "enjoy" this vice if they wish.

I suggest that they argue that a smoking ban is an infringement of their right of free speech. It worked for nude bars, why can't it work for them???

Or maybe it infringes on their right to privacy.

They just need to find a broadminded liberal to read that right into the constitution for them.

:-)

[SheLion]

I don't smoke and have no use for smokers. Still, I believe that smokers should be allowed to "enjoy" this vice if they wish.

Oh thanks a lot! ~sarcasm off

You make us out to be lepers. :(

[SheLion]

(Where's the Admin Mods????!!!)

In my haste to post this, I left off the Title of the Article. Could you please add the title for me?

" Proposed smoking ban has both sides fired up"

In my haste to post this, I left off the Title of the Article. Could you please add the title for me?

[RandallFlagg]

I thought there was a recent study showing the effect of second hand smoke was pretty much bogus.

It wasn't recent. It was from about ten years ago, if I remember correctly.

[NeilGus]

It was not meant that way. Both my brothers smoke as did my father. I have friends that smoke. They all wish they could quit.

My point is that they should not be treated like criminals because of this vice.

[SheLion]

It wasn't recent. It was from about ten years ago, if I remember correctly.

Give me a hint, Randall.  I have just about all of the studies.

[SheLion]

My point is that they should not be treated like criminals because of this vice.

Without a doubt.  Cigarettes are the only commodity that is legal to buy, yet smokers are made to feel like criminals for using it.

[RandallFlagg]

UK Sunday Telegraph...

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
____________________________________________________________

--From Rush's site.

[RandallFlagg]

Nice to know that at least Rush Limbaugh's on our side, eh?

___________________________________________________________
2nd Hand Smoke Is Harmless!


I, El Rushbo, am about to blow the minds of all of you who have swallowed the one-sided propaganda that tells you second-hand smoke is the deadliest substance known to humanity. I will do so with an article in The Electronic Telegraph from March 8th, 1998.

The article is titled: "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official"

Now, you may not have heard of this paper before, but I'll bet you've heard of the group that withheld this study showing that there may be no link between second-hand smoke and cancer - the group is WHO, the World Health Organization.

I bring this story up because a minority group that has been demonized and discriminated against for years is finally starting to fight back. Thousands of smokers are expected Saturday at one o'clock in the afternoon in New York at South Ferry where they'll begin a march on City Hall.

The smokers will protest a Draconian proposal to ban cigarettes in every restaurant and bar in New York City. The smokers are to be joined by restaurateurs, waiters, and bartenders whose livelihood will be damaged by the ban being pushed by anti-smoking Nazis.

Many Callers for Freedom Until It Comes to Smoking


Here you have New York City, where anything goes, where you can get anything you want any time, day or night, 365 days a year. Yet, if the city council gets its way, you won't be able to smoke a cigarette anywhere. You already can't smoke outside at Yankee Stadium or Shea Stadium or any other public city venue. You cannot smoke in bars and restaurants that have more than several people. Now they're going to extend the ban to virtually everywhere - and it's not an illegal substance!

One flier drumming up support for this thing says, "We must show in force that we will not tolerate the ever-increasing politically correct changing of our great city by a handful of prudes who disregard our basic rights. What's next, no booze at the bar? It can happen."

Bringing up this story brought on a torrent of feel-first, logic-second calls, as well as those from non-smokers who support the right of smokers to smoke and of businesses to offer what services they will. This was an incredible spicy day of broadcast excellence, folks, and you can listen to it all right here.

[RandallFlagg]

I especially like this part:

____________________________________________________
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. _________________________________________________________________

[SheLion]

Here's another one:

Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/4/06

Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.

Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.

Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.

But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.

The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.

For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.

In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."

Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.

 

[SheLion]

--From Rush's site.

From Rush's site?  I posted this at Free Republic in 2002. hehe!

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
13 November 2002

Posted on 11/13/2002 9:23:09 AM PST by SheLion

 

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

click here