Posted on 01/27/2006 4:35:37 AM PST by SheLion
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.
Two points from this article that is right on:
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."
Let business owners decide this issue, not reactionary zealots.
Protect our small private businesses owners. The loss of revenue from a forced smoking ban could be devastating!
Let the business owner and his patrons decide. NOT the nanny highly paid professional anti-smokers!
Smoking Bans are choking the economy!
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?"
And I'm completely allowed to.
By a pretty big company.
Shades of the 80s, huh? ;-)
Wow, that was quick! You're gettin' faster 'n faster. LOL Good job. As I told you-I was a bit pi$$ed the just had to parrot that one line about ETS being deadly (Oh? Why won't OSHA act on it, then? Hmmm...), BUT-it's AMAZING this even saw print-especially since this is basically still another leftist rag. They bash Bush/Repubs/Conservatives?christians in all their cartoons, several of their 'columnists' are for a smoking ban everywhere in the U.S. even though that doesn't have a thing to do with whatever they're writing about at the time, they've talked against the Patriot Act, etc. Basically, they're a small version of the Toledo Blade. When a paper like THAT gets it-I have to say, it's went too far, and more and more non-smokers are starting to see the light.
Wow! Wonderful! What state? Just curious. Guess there are a few free states left, by God.
As a nonsmoker, I won't patronize places who do allow smoking. That's my choice, if a business feels they can do without my patronage and still have a going concern, then so be it. I agree, it's the business owners prerogative.
Fixed.
I work in Iraq. Where just about everyone smokes and you can do so inside everywhere.
I don't think there are any states that are free anymore when it comes to smoking in public buildings. Even Europe is getting pretty persnickety about that.
I'm getting spoiled on this. ;-)
Well, ain't that special.
There's no argument from us that first- and secondhand smoke is deadly.
In response to this "secondhand smoke is deadly" proclamation I'll quote Kerr, "bullshit."
Solution: Open a casino -- the state will then "study" the impact and make a decision "later".
Bah. I should have known better. Oh, well, at least you're working in a free country.
LOL True! Just like New Jersey.
And I'm completely allowed to.
By a pretty big company.
Shades of the 80s, huh? ;-)
Oh!! God Bless You!!!
And you are SOOOOOO lucky!! Enjoy it for me, ok? One never knows when the anti-smoking puke bags will come to take that right away from you.
But where you are located, I think you will be pretty safe for now! :)
Freedom here is courtesy of the good ol' USA. ;-)
They removed a dictator and provided the right to vote. They never messed with trying to implement smoking laws. (They would be ignored here anyway, like they are in Kuwait.)
You can smoke ANYWHERE you want in the airport, too. Anywhere. I love standing at the Immigration booth getting my passport stamped while smoking a cigarette.
Why doesn't OSHA respond? Probably for the same reason that the WHO refuses to talk about ETS anymore. heh!
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
The World Health Organization, 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.