They have become as familiar as lawn ornaments around the Golden State, huddled in front of their favorite watering holes in all kinds of weather, pulling on their cigarettes, jawing about the world's problems.

It has been nearly five years since smokers became officially unwelcome in California's bars, to anguished cries from many tavern owners and patrons. Now the Big Apple, of all places, is looking to ban butts, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan is causing a furor.

"It was a tough thing," admitted Marge Kendrick, a longtime smoker and bartender at the Zebra Club in midtown Sacramento, where a cocktail and a smoke once went together like peanut butter and jelly. "People resisted it at first. But not anymore. They realize that this is the way things are going to be. Now they just get up and go outside."

When the ban, the nation's first statewide law prohibiting smoking in bars, took effect in January 1998, many dedicated smokers and tavern owners predicted doom. Bars would close, restaurant revenues would plummet, tourism and barroom camaraderie would suffer, they argued.

"It was a nightmare in the beginning," said Robert Berger, supervising environmental health specialist for Sacramento County, whose department is in charge of enforcing the ban in unincorporated areas. "We had lots and lots of violations. Lots of angry phone calls. Now it's rare. I can't remember the last time I had a complaint."

The economic impact of the ban has been widely debated. While some individual tavern owners claim business has dropped as much as 30 percent since the ban took effect, overall revenue for California bars and restaurants has grown every year since the law's enactment, according to figures from the State Board of Equalization. A spokeswoman for the California Restaurant Association said the ban has had no negative impact on the dining business, and in fact may be encouraging more families to go out more often. California remains the top draw in the country for tourism.

Meanwhile, surveys have shown that more than 80 percent of the state's residents prefer an environment free of cigarette smoke, and a University of California, San Francisco, study published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association found that smoking bans in taverns improve the health of bartenders.

Still, the ban, designed as a labor law to protect employees from secondhand smoke, has its detractors. Smokers' rights groups still decry the government's intervention into personal habits. Liquor trade associations have registered their opposition to the New York plan, as they did to California's.

But day to day, in taverns, pool halls and restaurants once clouded with tobacco smoke, even those most resistant to the ban have found ways to cope.

Outside the front door at Perkins Station, a haven for pool and dart players in the College Greens area, smokers amiably gather near a white plastic bucket that collects ashes and butts. Socal's, a venerable haunt in east Sacramento, offers a tiny enclosed "smoking porch" off the bar. Owner Bill Farrell said he spent about $13,000 to construct the porch as a matter of economic survival.

"I had to do it," Farrell said. "That first year was devastating. I never allowed smoking from Day One. I have some really special customers who are smokers, and telling them to stand outside in the rain was just unacceptable."

"It gets pretty crowded. Sometimes it just looks like a big can of sardines in there," said bartender Susan Terry.

"Really, I think the businesses that were hurt most by the smoking ban were the dry cleaners," he joked.

For some customers, shuffling out the door with their fellow pariahs has become something of a bonding experience.

"Someone will ask, 'Anybody ready for a smoke?' and we'll just go," said Kerry Johnson, sitting on a stool at the Zebra Club, a pack of Camels parked in front of him.

A few bar owners have found creative ways to get around the law, which applies only to taverns that have employees.

"All of a sudden, some of these places have no employees. They have 10 owners," said Anne Frey, Sacramento County's senior environmental health specialist and an enforcer of the smoking ban. Such arrangements have been legally challenged, she noted.

A small number of bar owners have simply opted to allow their patrons to light up, risking hefty fines. First offenses cost bar owners $281, and fines double and triple with repeat violations.

"My customers hate the law. I hate it," said one proprietor, declining to give her name. "Drinking and smoking go together for a lot of people, and now they have nowhere to go."

Business at her bar has dropped 20 percent to 30 percent since the ban, she estimated. So if customers insist on smoking, she allows them to do so for fear of losing them. Her bar has never been fined by the "smoke police," she said, but she is willing to take the chance.

After rabid resistance at first, officials now estimate that about 90 percent of businesses in the Sacramento area are complying with the smoking law. In the county, things are so good that enforcers have temporarily stopped conducting random "sweeps" for violators.

"Our jobs were fairly dangerous for a while," said Frey. "We felt physically threatened in some cases. Verbally, we were being abused terribly. That's not happening anymore.

"We still have a few stubborn cowboys out there, but in the past year compliance has been absolutely great. People have adjusted."

Besides California, Delaware, Utah, Vermont and South Dakota all have statewide laws prohibiting smoking in workplaces, including restaurants. Dozens of American cities have banned smoking in certain indoor areas.

Now comes Bloomberg's proposal, which has triggered widespread outrage in New York and effectively ended the mayor's political honeymoon.

Bloomberg, who has said he quit smoking 18 years ago, wants the City Council to widen cigarette smoking restrictions to outlaw lighting up in all bars and restaurants. Like California's law, his proposal is billed as a health initiative, and has its vocal supporters.

But it is proving hugely controversial, with many New Yorkers calling the plan sneaky, uncool and outrageous, among other things, and vowing defiance. Washington Post columnist Art Buchwald has even weighed in, warning that the measure could "change the mating habits of the singles class as we know it."

In recent weeks, proponents of the New York plan have been consulting with Californians who were instrumental in passage of the Golden State's law.

Dian Kiser, spokeswoman for BREATH, the California Smokefree Bars, Workplaces and Communities Program, said she has armed Bloomberg's people with plenty of information, statistics and advice.

"In California, we can hardly remember what it was like to not have a smoke-free workplace," she said.

"Mayor Bloomberg is giving the people of New York the greatest gift imaginable."

"Nobody has bothered to ask us what we think," said Ciaran Hegarty as he mixed cocktails at Langan's in Times Square. "This is America. It's a democracy, isn't it?"

Hegarty said he believes Bloomberg's plan is a scheme to make money on the backs of smokers.

"This is prohibition, and New Yorkers won't stand for it," he continued. "Drinking and smoking and talking, that's what it's all about in a bar. That will continue no matter what."

So.......you think smoke bans in private businesses are a GOOD THING?!

Restaurant sales taxes in Tempe tumble in June

Smoking Ban Puts Restaurant Profits Up In Smoke/They Finally Admit It!

California Smokers Use Prohibition Tactics to Get Around Ban

PUB AND BAR COALITION OF ONTARIO /August 2002

Official Figures from Ontario Brewers Confirm Disastrous Effects of Smoking Ban Almost $11.5 million loss in beer sales and tips over 10 months; Ottawa's losses more than three times the rate for rest of the province.
Total impact exceeds $25 million and rising.

NUTSHELL TAVERN, Rte 1, Biddeford, Maine closes its doors due to smoking bans.

Press Herald News, January 6, 2000 * MINGLES COFFEE SHOP, Kitchener, closes after non-smoking bylaw passed--45% drop in business Kitchener-Waterloo Record, July 31, 2000

* TWELVE RESTAURANTS CLOSE in Brookline, MA , after smoking ban decimates business Lowell Sun, March 28, 2001
* In British Columbia, 200 WORKERS in 46 establishments have lost their jobs because of the smoking ban National Post, March 3, 2000
* Hotelier Don Ritaller, Victoria, fired his entire staff of 12
* J. P. MALONE'S PUB in Richmond, laid off eight of its 20 employees
* CLYDE'S RESTAURANT GROUP, one of the most popular and successful restaurants chains in the Washington DC area since 1963, suffered a staggering loss of sales after smoking was banned
* A survey of 300 alcoholic beverage serving operations in California, selected at random from a list of 7,216 shows that 60% experienced a decrease in business averaging more than 30%; 7% showed increased business averaging 8%. Guest Choice Network + 50.4% of the respondents indicated an increase in customer complaints/fights; + 65.0% indicated a loss of regular customers; + 59.0% indicated a loss of tips/gratuities for the bar and/or serving staff.
* THE DULUTH GRILL has closed after 16 years due to the smoking ban Duluth News
* 130 TOBACCONISTS in California have been forced to close since the 1998 smoking bans and punitive tax increases SF Gate, July 1, 2001
* Thousands of employees have had their hours cut, and hundreds have lost their jobs because of the loss of the smoking customers who form a majority of their customer base.
" Dread, pink slips greet smoking ban ," Globe and Mail, December 29, 2000
* A recent study from British Columbia pointed out major economic and job losses after a provincial smoking ban took effect in January: After 80 days of the bylaw, 730 EMPLOYEES were let go , 9 BUSINESSES CLOSED and more than $16 MILLION was lost . The Ottawa Citizen Online, August 27, 2001
* Letter from a waitress in BC: " My livelihood is being jeopardized for my own protection, and I never asked to be saved ."
* A hotel-industry study released this week shows that San Francisco's hotel-occupancy rates have shrunk to 1994 levels. City hotels are operating at 74% capacity. Rooms priced at more than $160 are about 69% full. While those numbers aren't disastrous, they are a far cry from the stuffed hostelries we've been used to the last few years. San Francisco Examiner, April 19, 2001
* TWO MORE RESTAURANTS have closed in Weymouth, MA : J.C. Grear's in South Weymouth and the Aloha in Hingham. A fourth restaurant said business is way off. Weymouth News
* Corvallis, OR: Employment at the Peacock has dropped from 50 to 14. Owner John Carter says the business has lost 38 percent of its lottery income and more than half of its basic bar revenue since the law took effect State records support Carter's lament about lost business. The Register-Guard, September 24, 2000
* Clergymen complain that 40 BINGO HALLS have closed because of the smoking ban. These halls supported local charities. Sun-News, February 7, 2001
* BUD'S PLACE in Cambridge and said his sales have fallen 23 per cent since the smoking ban was implemented. His staff has shrunk to 12 from 17 and a full-time employee he's had on staff for 10 years has been cut back to three shifts a week " Restaurateurs rebel against smoking bans " The New-Standard, December 10, 2000
* Wareham rescinds smoking ban when restaurant owners prove business decreased 25-40%. "We knew it would hurt," Board of Health Chairman Ralph R. Thompson said of the board's decision to implement the ban, adding that he and his fellow board members weren't aware of just how devastating the ban's impact would prove to be on area businesses. Representatives from Wareham's Elks club said the ban had cut the attendance at their weekly bingo nights in half, crippling their ability to raise funds for scholarships and other civic endeavors . Standard-Times, 12/20/2000
* In Washington State a smoking ban at the Spokane Interstate Fair went down in flames Monday after attendance dropped by roughly 22% (despite perfect weather) and county commissioners were deluged with calls and letters of protest. "Fair policy up in smoke," Dan Hansen, Spokesman-Review, 9/14/99
* Susan Barnes of the WATERWORKS RESTAURANT in Rockland ( Maine ) said she has lost more than $8,000 a month in liquor sales to other establishments since the restaurant smoking ban went into effect. Bangor Daily News, February 5, 2000
* Peter Martin, owner of John Martin's MANOR RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE in Waterville, said he proclaimed all Sundays in January to be no-smoking. Food and beverage sales dropped 25 percent and off-track betting revenue dropped 30 percent , he said Bangor Daily News , February 5, 2000
''On Saturday night, we had a band, two bartenders, two waitresses, a doorman, a floor man, and we grossed $33,'' said Dorsey Carey, manager of HANDLEBAR HARRY'S bar/restaurant in Cordage Park, after smoking was banned.. Boston Globe Online, September 9, 2001
* Owner of the CHATEAU LAFAYETTE, Jill Scott, said: "People can't say this isn't hurting us. I've closed down my kitchen and cut five shifts . I don't know where people are going, but they aren't here." Ottawa Sun, Tuesday, October 2, 2001
* After smoking bans were implemented, the number of Buffalo BINGO ESTABLISHMENTS dropped by about 20 percent, while city bingo fee revenues declined by 36 percent, according to officials. The Buffalo News, By BRIAN MEYER, News Staff Reporter, 7/24/01
* Mesa, AZ, banned most restaurant smoking in 1996. THE MARQUEE, the ZUR-KATE and ARIZONA JACK'S are the exceptions. They demonstrated that they lost so much business as a result of the ban that they were allowed to permit smoking. The Washington Post, Monday, February 19, 2001; Page A03
* The most recent Gallup poll on smoking, November 13-15, shows that even in the current climate more than half of Americans, 53%, still want to allow smoking sections in restaurants; a solid majority still favors the preservation of smoking areas in the workplace, 63%, as well as in hotels and motels, 72%. "...it really comes down to whether or not we have a right to tell private business owners what they can do in their own business." Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, The Cabin, September 6, 2001
The List goes on and on...........

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I analyzed the Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pre-smoking ban year), and 1994 to 1999 (Post smoking ban). The media, with furnished information from the anti-smoking industry, wants to tell us that everything is fine, there is NO damage to the restaurant industry. In fact they tell us that the restaurants are doing better than ever since the ban and there is no cause for alarm.

When you look at those two periods, you also have to consider the overall economic tendencies 1989 to 1993 was at the tail end of a recessionary period, with ZERO growth. The "Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic beverages are sold; eating places where beer and wine is served; and eating places where all types of liquor is served. I call the first group FAST FOOD or FF, and combine the two remaining groups into RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB.

The analysis I conducted shows the following:

Even though there was Zero growth, the FF sector showed an increase in sales of 11.7% Whereas the RB showed a modest gain of 1.2%. Another interesting feature of the report issued by the Board of Equalization is the number of permits issued in the various categories. The permits for the FF sector increased during this period by 15.7%, while the permits for the RB group declined by .9%, or 293 fewer RB.

Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999, the overall economy (taxable sales statewide) increased by an incredible 31.9%. Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they increased also, with FF sales outpacing the overall figure at 38.4%, while the RB sales were below the overall economy figures, at 28.6%. However, the clincher, and what the Media and the anti-smoking industry does NOT tell you, is that the number of permits issued for FF rose by 12.7%, whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which means that there were 1,039 fewer RB’s in California. In other words, during a period in which we saw a tremendous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business.

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.

Otto J. Mueksch
President, Californians For Smokers Rights

The economic impact of the ban has been widely debated. While some individual tavern owners claim business has dropped as much as 30 percent since the ban took effect, overall revenue for California bars and restaurants has grown every year since the law's enactment, according to figures from the State Board of Equalization.

It would be nice to have some real numbers here. If business went down 30% and has since risen 1%/year, the fact that it's rising would not change the fact that the ban seriously hurt business.

What's really discouraging here is that so many people seem so unwilling to recognize that markets act as mini-democracies: if a business allows smoking, that's a pretty good sign that more customers specifically want to allow smoking than customers who want to forbid it. What the smoking nazis seek to do is forbid businesses from giving their customers what they want.

If a 10% of the prospective diners in a community refuse to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking, and 20% refuse to eat at one that does not, then (assuming diners represent market share commensurate with their numbers) if the community has at least 10 restaurants, there will be at least one that forbids smoking and at least one that allows it [if the anti-smoking zealots don't interfere]. The remaining restaurants could split in any ratio, but will probably roughly mirror the 2:1 margin of customers who base their dining decisions the issue.

One key to understanding market behavior on these issues, btw, is recognizing that if any group which represents a large market share is being under-served, one or more businesses in the field will stand to benefit by serving that group, even if it means the loss of some or all of its existing customers. For example, suppose there were 11 restaurants, none of which totally forbade smoking. At least one of those restaurants must have a sub-10% market share. If that restaurant is the only one to forbid smoking, it would stand to win an instant 10% market share from people who want a smoke-free restaurant. Since its current market share is less than 10%, winning the 10% share from smokers would be a benefit, even if it cost some or all of the existing customer.

Of course, this is a slight over-simplification; businesses may legitimately value on long-time customers more than new ones. On the other hand, very seldom will a business stand to lose its entire clientele as a result of catering to an untapped market segment. Thus, while the principle that market niches don't go unfilled doesn't hold true 100% of the time, businesses will 99.44% of the time act to serve untapped markets if the government lets them.

To the restaurant and bar owners of Bemidji. You had better listen to the pro-choice people here. My husband and I are both non-smokers. We used to own 2 restaurants and a half -share in a bar-nightclub here. in Victoria B.C. ,Canada In 1999 the Capital Regional District(CRD)here enacted a 100% smoking bylaw here. We did not protest, after all we were and would not be adversely affected by the smoking bylaw, so we thought. We never violated the bylaw. Our restaurant-bar and grill was already 70% non-smoking 25% smoking before the bylaw,anyway.We did not believe it would matter to us. We were so, wrong.

We believed that with a level playing-field as the CRD promised us, our businesses might even see higher profits. We were fools to buy into this anti-smoking rubbish . We lost our bar-club within eight months of the bylaw's introduction. Our partner filed for bankruptcy. Forty-two of our workers became unemployed.

In the previous five years The business was generating gross sales of over $2 million per annum. Our business was down over 50% in 1999 peaking at 65% in the winter months. We closed early most weeknights and on several occasions on weekends. It was a bitter blow to our family and all the people involved with our business.

Fortunately we had other investments that did do well for us. Our other investments: We own and operated two restaurants one a bar and grill(200 seats), where my husband is the manager and I co-manage, along with my brother a pizzeria delivery and take out only) in a small strip-mall. The bar and grill in the last two and a half years is barely turning a decent profit. We do have a fair sized patio and in the spring-summer months we have been making out alright. The winter is a different story. Business is down over 35-45%. Our staff is reduced by 12 and my husband puts in over 90+ hours per week. We normally employ 28 people. Before the bylaw. This used to be our full-time staffing year-round. We can no longer afford to hire the help except during the spring-summer season. We also had to stop hiring live music, we used to have bands every night of the week. It was too costly. We never thought the bylaw would have such a drastic impact but it has on most businesses in our industry.

We were told that smokers would, in time accept the bylaw and things would actually be better for most businesses. This has not happened in most places here. I have talked to many other business people in our industry and I know many of them personally. They have no reason to lie about this. We were sold a bill of 'bad goods.' The almost the entire industry in Victoria is paying for it.

I know of 40+ businesses that have closed directly on account of the smoking bylaw, here. There will be many more to come. Our take-out pizza parlor: is thriving on the other hand. Sales have steadily increased and we are now doing over 30% better in gross sales than we were before the smoking bylaw.

Still this is a far cry from off-setting the loss of our bar and the profits from our restaurant-bar and grill. We are luckier than most. Our family has helped us financially in our times of money woes and the loss of our business bar-club).

We would sell the restaurant bar and grill) tomorrow, but the market value has dropped so low, we must keep working until we can at least break even on what we paid initially for the business. No one in their right mind wants to be in the restaurant business in this city, unless they are a chain-restaurant, high class dining, take-out-delivery or a donut shop.

The bar-nightclub-pub business here is down at least 15%-50%. And it's not improving. People: smokers and non-smokers are staying home. Or going outside the city to locales where smoking is allowed Non-smokers are not replacing smokers in bars, clubs or restaurants . The anti-smoking operatives are lying to all of you. Do not be fooled. Bringing a smoking ban or bylaw to your community will bring nothing but hurt and economic suffering to most businesses in the hospitality field.

My husband and I have over 60 years between us in this industry. The most insulting thing I ever heard was when we attended a council meeting to voice opposition to the bylaw, when we had a first-hand look at how two out of our three businesses were suffering. When we said our bar-club was going to 'go under' if the bylaw continued our council members commented that "maybe we should seek another line of work, obviously we had no idea how to run a business." My husband had to be restrained. Some idiot in a business-suit who has never to my knowledge ever patronized any of my businesses with any regularity, who has no experience running such a hospitality establishment is telling us with over 60 years experience, that we have no idea how to run our places. We had turned constant profits since becoming business owner for over the last 25 years. These people who claim second-hand smoke is a health issue are not kidding. The health of your financial well-being is in jeopardy if smoking is banned in your city. You will lose tourist dollars and valued customers.

A word of well-earned advice. People who did not patronize restaurants and bars in your community when smoking was allowed will seldom, if ever come out even if those businesses become smoke-free. Non-smokers and the anti-smokers pushing for government imposed smoke-free drinking and dining will not even put a dent in the amount of customer base that you will lose. That's not all you will lose. Monetarily speaking, we have lost in excess of $530,000.00 Canadian dollars from the loss of our bar-nightclub. Over $220,000.00 in revenue from our bar and grill-restaurant. We have gained about $120,000.00 from our pizza parlor. Do the math: smoking bylaw=-$750,000.00+$120,000.00=-$630,000.00 And our early retirement. We are not taking into account the loss we would take if we tried to sell our bar and grill-restaurant at market value.

Do not believe the 'anti-smoking snake-oil pitchmen.' They are lying to you. They are playing games with your livelihood.

It is too late for us here in Victoria. Hopefully you can learn from our mistake. Had we of known of the impact a smoking ban as, we would have fought. Now we must pay the price for our complacency. The smell of fascism is much o unpleasant than the smell of any amount of secondhand smoke. To the 'concerned' citizens who advocate a local smoking ban or bylaw: Butt out of other people's business. You are brainwashed fools. Go back to your smoke-free 'caves.'

Well it Must be true if Otto and SheLion say it. Or try this...

Restaurant Smoking Bans Do Not Hurt Tourism

Smoking bans in restaurants do not hurt tourism, and may actually increase business, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study, published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA), examined hotel revenues, comparing figures before and after smoking bans were enacted, in three states and six cities.

The researchers looked at hotel revenue in California, Utah and Vermont, and the cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Mesa and Flagstaff, AZ, and Boulder, CO. In each location, the tobacco industry and opponents of the bans claimed that tourism would suffer as a result of the restaurant smoking bans.

Hotel revenue actually jumped in half of the locations after the bans were enacted. "Before many of these laws were passed, there were very specific predictions of catastrophe voiced all over the country by the tobacco industry and their toadies," said Stan Glantz, the UCSF professor who conducted the study. "Those dire warnings simply were not true."

The study also shows that international tourism rose in California and New York City.

Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance (NSA), said the study is "an advocacy piece masquerading as research" and that it used "too broad an ax, too broad a methodology to understand what is going on in very specific circumstances."

Glantz argues that the study shows that the dire predictions of the industry and its front groups were unfounded. "At some point people are going to stop believing the industry since every claim they've made about smoking laws has been proven wrong," Glantz said.

Glantz adds further that the main criticism raised by the tobacco industry -- through the NSA -- is that the only reason they found increasing tourism revenues is that business was going up anyway. Glantz provides two responses to this:

1. They controlled for the health of the underlying economy and the tourist economy in particular.
2. The criticism begs the question: The industry claimed that the ordinances would make tourism go DOWN. It never did. They are now arguing about whether the ordinances affected how fast tourism was going up.

Sources:
"No Change In Tourism After Passage Of Smoke-Free Restaurant Laws," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, May 26, 1999, p. 1911;
Eric Bailey, "Smoking Ban's Effect On Tourism Studied," LOS ANGELES TIMES (on-line), May 26, 1999;
Tracy Boutelle, "Study: Smoke Ban Won't Hurt Tourism," ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 25, 1999;
"Smoke-Free And The Bottom Line," WASHINGTON POST, May 26, 1999, p. A9.

Ohio high court: Health boards can't ban smoking in bars, restaurants

08/28/2002- CNN.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Local health boards in Ohio have no authority to ban smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 6-1 ruling, the court called the goals of anti-smoking activists well intentioned but said state law does not allow them to overrule the Legislature, which exempted bars and restaurants.

"We refuse to extend by mere implication the authority of local boards of health beyond clearly stated and well-defined limits," said Justice Andy Douglas, writing for the majority.

Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented without giving a reason.

The court's decision went against a ban approved in June 2001 by the Toledo-Lucas County Board of Health.

The ban was challenged by Arnie's Eating and Drinking Saloon, a popular sports bar.

U.S. District Judge David Katz had kept the ban from taking effect while the lawsuit was pending, and he asked the Supreme Court to clarify state law.

Louis Tosi, a lawyer for the bar, argued that state law exempts restaurants and bars from the definition of a public accommodation for the purpose of limiting smoking.

Tosi said the issue came down to the rights of business owners to run their establishments.

"What this case is about is unelected officials laying down a trump card over the people in the electorate," Tosi told the Supreme Court in April.

An attorney for the county board cited state law that allows local health boards to enact regulations "for the public health."

"When this court makes a determination that they have power to regulate indoor smoking and pass regulations that promote the public health, those regulations take the force of state law," board lawyer Andrew Ranazzi told the justices.

he only other comprehensive smoking ban in Ohio is Meigs County in the southern part of the state. The county health board approved the ban in November, including bars and restaurants, and it is being enforced.

In 1999, a judge barred the Delaware City-County Board of Health from enforcing a rule regulating smoking in public places.

The Licking County Health Board in 1992 required restaurants to set aside a nonsmoking section and banned smoking in most public buildings, including private stores. That ban survived federal challenges and is in effect.

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.

After the air clears

As New York fumes over a proposed smoking ban, local bar patrons reflect on nearly five years of butting out

By Cynthia Hubert -- Bee Staff Writer - (Published September 4, 2002)

Restaurant Smoking Bans Do Not Hurt Tourism