Ohio residents - which smoking ban are you voting for this November?

[MrBond]

Ohio is going to have two competing smoking bans on the ballot this fall.

Here's what the ballot will say for Issue 4:

This proposed amendment would prohibit smoking in enclosed areas except tobacco stores, private residences or nonpublic facilities, separate smoking areas in restaurants, most bars, bingo and bowling facilities, separated areas of hotels and nursing homes, and race tracks. The amendment would invalidate retroactively any ordinance or local law in effect, and would prohibit the future adoption of any ordinance or local law to the extent such ordinance or law prohibited smoking or tobacco products in anyplace exempted by the amendment.

Here's what the ballot will say for Issue 5:

To enact Chapter 3794. of the Ohio Revised Code to restrict smoking in places of employment and most places open to the public.

The proposed law would:

* Prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment;
* Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence), designated smoking rooms in hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities; designated smoking areas for nursing home residents; retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business;
* Authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke;
* Allow for the declaration of an establishment, facility, or outdoor area as nonsmoking;
* Require the posting of ?No Smoking? signs, and the removal of all ashtrays and similar receptacles from any area where smoking is prohibited;
* Specify the duties of the department of health to enforce the smoking restrictions
* Create in the state treasury the ?smoke free indoor air fund;?
* Provide for the enforcement of the smoking restrictions and for the imposition of civil fines upon anyone who violates the smoking restrictions.

Here's the thing. Since Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment, even if both it and Issue 5 pass, Issue 4 will trump Issue 5. So a "Yes" vote on Issue 4 is essentially a "No" vote on Issue 5.

My gut says to vote Yes on 5, No on 4, which is probably what I'd do. If issue 4 passes, then no city can enact a stronger ban, which would suck because some cities already have stronger bans. Issue 4 would allow smoking in bars, which I'd like to see banned (or restricted to separate smoking section). Issue 4 is also sponsered by RJ Reynolds, which turns me off to the whole thing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'd say yes on 5, no on 4. 4 just doesn't seem as well thought out.

 

[dullard]

Did they do this in a fashion that you can only vote yes for one? Or can you vote yes for both.

This similar thing happened to my state several times (different issues). Opponents of the bills, put two competing versions on. 1/3rd vote 'yes' for option (A), 1/3rd vote 'yes' for option (B), and 1/3rd vote 'no' for both options. Since neither get >50% of 'yes' votes, the minority vote (those who voted 'no') wins.

That is a very evil, but successful way to let the minority win in the polls.

I would vote 'yes' for both if allowed. If not allowed, I would vote 'yes' for issue 5.

 

[Injury]

I'm voting for BOTH of them.

Better chance of getting one of them passed.

However, issue 4 is basically like saying "make a law to keep things how they are"

I got back from Ireland 10 days ago where there is a total ban on smoking indoors, and it was so freaking awesome to go in to a pub and not have to choke just to sit and enjoy some beer or come out smelling like crap.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

I would vote for whichever is most restrictive on smoking.

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: dullard
Did they do this in a fashion that you can only vote yes for one? Or can you vote yes for both.

This similar thing happened to my state several times (different issues). Opponents of the bills, put two competing versions on. 1/3rd vote 'yes' for option (A), 1/3rd vote 'yes' for option (B), and 1/3rd vote 'no' for both options. Since neither get >50% of 'yes' votes, the minority vote (those who voted 'no') wins.

That is a very evil, but successful way to let the minority win in the polls.

I would vote 'yes' for both if allowed. If not allowed, I would vote 'yes' for issue 5.

You can vote 'yes' on both. I was initially leaning that way, but like someone said, if Issue 4 passes, things will remain mostly the same and there is no chance that anything more restrictive could be passed without the amendment being repealed. At this point, I'd like to see 4 fail and 5 pass, but if both fail, that's OK too because it means there's a chance for something else in the future.

I haven't seen any TV ads for this yet, but I imagine there's going to be a lot of confused voters at the polls.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: MrBond
I haven't seen any TV ads for this yet, but I imagine there's going to be a lot of confused voters at the polls.

Seems like exactly the strategy they did here in Nebraska. Confuse them. Then run ads stating that you can't vote 'yes' for both. In the end, the minority wins on both.

If I were you, I'd still want 4 passed. Then just repeal it and pass something better on next years ballot.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MrBond
Ohio is going to have two competing smoking bans on the ballot this fall.

Here's what the ballot will say for Issue 4:

This proposed amendment would prohibit smoking in enclosed areas except tobacco stores, private residences or nonpublic facilities, separate smoking areas in restaurants, most bars, bingo and bowling facilities, separated areas of hotels and nursing homes, and race tracks. The amendment would invalidate retroactively any ordinance or local law in effect, and would prohibit the future adoption of any ordinance or local law to the extent such ordinance or law prohibited smoking or tobacco products in anyplace exempted by the amendment.

Here's what the ballot will say for Issue 5:

To enact Chapter 3794. of the Ohio Revised Code to restrict smoking in places of employment and most places open to the public.

The proposed law would:

* Prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment;
* Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence), designated smoking rooms in hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities; designated smoking areas for nursing home residents; retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business;
* Authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke;
* Allow for the declaration of an establishment, facility, or outdoor area as nonsmoking;
* Require the posting of ?No Smoking? signs, and the removal of all ashtrays and similar receptacles from any area where smoking is prohibited;
* Specify the duties of the department of health to enforce the smoking restrictions
* Create in the state treasury the ?smoke free indoor air fund;?
* Provide for the enforcement of the smoking restrictions and for the imposition of civil fines upon anyone who violates the smoking restrictions.

Here's the thing. Since Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment, even if both it and Issue 5 pass, Issue 4 will trump Issue 5. So a "Yes" vote on Issue 4 is essentially a "No" vote on Issue 5.

My gut says to vote Yes on 5, No on 4, which is probably what I'd do. If issue 4 passes, then no city can enact a stronger ban, which would suck because some cities already have stronger bans. Issue 4 would allow smoking in bars, which I'd like to see banned (or restricted to separate smoking section). Issue 4 is also sponsered by RJ Reynolds, which turns me off to the whole thing.

im not sure i see any difference between the 2.
Also, I dont see how 4 would allow smoking in bars, while 5 wouldnt.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
I would vote for whichever is most restrictive on smoking.

yep.

except let 'em light up in their own homes. (i pity if there are children in the home though)

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: sao123

im not sure i see any difference between the 2.
Also, I dont see how 4 would allow smoking in bars, while 5 wouldnt.

Issue 4 bans smoking in all public places with some exceptions:

Restaurants with a smoking section
Bars or places with a majority of people over 21
Bingo halls/bowling alleys
Nursing homes and hotels (separate areas)
Race tracks

Issue 5 bans smoking in public places with some exceptions:

Nursing homes/hotels (separate areas)
Private clubs (think Elk's Lodge, not dance clubs)
Outdoor patios
Family owned places of business

The main difference between the two is Issue 5 bans smoking in restaurants and bars completly, while Issue 4 allows it if there's a separate smoking section (in restaurnts) and allows it always in bar as long as the majority of people are not minors (usually the case).

Issue 4 is nearly exactly the way things are now. Issue 5 would be more like NYC's smoking ban I believe.

 

[MrChad]

No to both. If their customers and/or patrons demand it, businesses can decide for themselves whether or not to permit smoking.

EDIT: I don't live in Ohio, just offering my opinion.

 

[Pepsi90919]

smoking bans kill

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MrBond
Here's the thing. Since Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment, even if both it and Issue 5 pass, Issue 4 will trump Issue 5. So a "Yes" vote on Issue 4 is essentially a "No" vote on Issue 5.

No it's not. Issue 4 just prohibits any local laws that are more restrictive, not state laws.

Issue 4 is pretty much the way it is everywhere anyway...

 

[lokiju]

I've lived in FL and now GA where they have total indoor smoking bans and it's great IMO, must suck for the smokers though.

But it's nice to be able to go out to eat and not have to smell smoke from the smoking section while eating.

I was visiting some family in TN which doesn't have any smoking bans at all (as far as I know) and when we went out to eat there were people sitting right next to us smoking and it really reminded me how much I hated the smell of smoke.

Even things like going to the bowling alley now are much more enjoyable.

 

[OutHouse]

at least you got a choice. in colorado the law makers passed a bill banning smoking in all public placeses EXCEPT for casinos.... gee i wonder if tax revenu had anything to do with that.

 

[Amused]

I wouldn't vote for either. Smoking bans are a violation of private property rights.

Contrary to what the socialists would have you believe, a business is private property. The owner has the right to cater to whomever he pleases. If you don't like it, tough titties.

Notice: I am not a smoker and I despise the smell of cigarette smoke.

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: MrBond
Here's the thing. Since Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment, even if both it and Issue 5 pass, Issue 4 will trump Issue 5. So a "Yes" vote on Issue 4 is essentially a "No" vote on Issue 5.

No it's not. Issue 4 just prohibits any local laws that are more restrictive, not state laws.

Issue 4 is pretty much the way it is everywhere anyway...

Everything I've been reading says Issue 4 trumps Issue 5 if both pass.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061004/NEWS09/610040417

From the last paragraph

If both pass, Issue 4, a proposed constitutional amendment, would overrule the stricter Issue 5, an initiated statute. Issue 4 would also overturn stricter anti-smoking laws enacted in Toledo, Bowling Green, and 19 other cities.

The fact that it would overturn the "stricter" law in Toledo is a joke. The smoking ban in Toledo is a joke. We used to have a strict smoking ban and it was awesome. No smoking anywhere, restaurants and bars over a certain size could have separate smoking sections, but they had to be sealed off from the regular sections. They replaced it with a less strict ban a year or so ago and it's like there's no ban at all.

The fact that the "stricter" smoking ban of Toledo could be overruled by Issue 4 was one of the main reasons I'm not voting for it.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MrBond

Originally posted by: sao123

im not sure i see any difference between the 2.
Also, I dont see how 4 would allow smoking in bars, while 5 wouldnt.

Issue 4 bans smoking in all public places with some exceptions:

Restaurants with a smoking section
Bars or places with a majority of people over 21
Bingo halls/bowling alleys
Nursing homes and hotels (separate areas)
Race tracks

Issue 5 bans smoking in public places with some exceptions:

Nursing homes/hotels (separate areas)
Private clubs (think Elk's Lodge, not dance clubs)
Outdoor patios
Family owned places of business

The main difference between the two is Issue 5 bans smoking in restaurants and bars completly, while Issue 4 allows it if there's a separate smoking section (in restaurnts) and allows it always in bar as long as the majority of people are not minors (usually the case).

Issue 4 is nearly exactly the way things are now. Issue 5 would be more like NYC's smoking ban I believe.

Item 4's language is abiguous and unclear... I read it to imply that all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys etc had to have seperate designated smoking areas.

#4 needs to be written out clearly like 5.

 

[sswingle]

Places with "seperate smoking areas" is a joke. Most resteraunts idea of a seperate smoking area is saying, this table is smoking, and this table next to it is not smoking, like an invisible line down the middle of the room, which does absolutely nothing.

 

[compuwiz1]

People who smoke suck.

 

[DainBramaged]

VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

I like freedom. The freedom to not be bothered by smoke. If you want the freedom to kill yourself by smoking, fine. I'll hurry things up and let you borrow a gun.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

I like freedom. The freedom to not be bothered by smoke. If you want the freedom to kill yourself by smoking, fine. I'll hurry things up and let you borrow a gun.

I'll pistol whip you with it, then holster the gun and keep it.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

I like freedom. The freedom to not be bothered by smoke. If you want the freedom to kill yourself by smoking, fine. I'll hurry things up and let you borrow a gun.

I'll pistol whip you with it, then holster the gun and keep it.

Why do I have a feeling you're under 18?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

I like freedom. The freedom to not be bothered by smoke. If you want the freedom to kill yourself by smoking, fine. I'll hurry things up and let you borrow a gun.

I'll pistol whip you with it, then holster the gun and keep it.

Why do I have a feeling you're under 18?

28. I'm sick of the wussyfication of America. I have been around to notice the difference of people that mind their own business versus people being offended left and right.