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

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The damn tobacco companies and their constitutional amendment. Ban smoking except in isolated enclaves on land owned by tobacco companies, as far as I'm concerned. Too many people around here smoke.

I still am always amazed when we walk into a restaurant with our nearly-three year old, and they ask, "Smoking or Non?" It should be child abuse to take a small child into the smoking section!

lmao. OMG dude. Letting your child watch an hour of TV a day will decrease his/her overall health way more than constant exposure to second hand smoke.

Congratulations -- you've combined stupidity with ignorance. Quite a feat! So, the multitudes of studies which have proven the dangers of secondhand smoke are wrong? Do you work for RJ Reynolds? A simple Google search revealed that link on about.com which details some of the implications of second hand smoke. Ever hear of asthma? Yeah, kids can easily get it by being in a smoking household. I used to work with a woman who smoked, and she just couldn't figure out why her son had such bad respiratory problems (she and her husband smoked indoors). You might also notice on that link where it says that the EPA classifies second hand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. Oh yeah, and second hand smoke can cause SIDS -- when has the TV ever killed a child unless it FALLS on them??

As for the TV bit, we're convinced that one of the reasons my daughter, who will be three in December, is speaking at a 4-5 year old level is because she watches TV occasionally. Plopping your kid at a daycare is far more detrimental than a little television.

Do you even have kids?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin

Yeah, every time there is some new regulation proposed we hear how the world will end. :roll:

Putting up a screen and a fan is not a hard or expensive job, and poeple won't suddenly stop drinking when the price of alcohol goes up by 10 cents a drink.

No, but each and every regulation and law passed slowly separates the rich from the poor.

Really? Ok, then let's see what happened to the rich-poor gap since Reagan came to power and the whole economic liberalization movement really started...

Recent Congressional Budget Office data show that the top 1 percent of the population received 11.4 percent of national after-tax income in 2002, points out Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a new study. That's up from a 7.5 percent share in 1979.

from here or that CEO-to-average worker pay difference is nearly 10 times higher today than it was in 1980 (from here).

Don't worry if reality contradicts what you say... you're an ideologue and you should never let facts get in the way.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Congratulations -- you've combined stupidity with ignorance. Quite a feat! So, the multitudes of studies which have proven the dangers of secondhand smoke are wrong? Do you work for RJ Reynolds? A simple Google search revealed that link on about.com which details some of the implications of second hand smoke. Ever hear of asthma? Yeah, kids can easily get it by being in a smoking household. I used to work with a woman who smoked, and she just couldn't figure out why her son had such bad respiratory problems (she and her husband smoked indoors). You might also notice on that link where it says that the EPA classifies second hand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. Oh yeah, and second hand smoke can cause SIDS -- when has the TV ever killed a child unless it FALLS on them??

As for the TV bit, we're convinced that one of the reasons my daughter, who will be three in December, is speaking at a 4-5 year old level is because she watches TV occasionally. Plopping your kid at a daycare is far more detrimental than a little television.

Do you even have kids?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html

Face it. Second-hand smoke isn't that bad. It can BARELY worsen asthma (if exposed to large amounts) and SIDS doesn't count because it's basically first hand smoke (since the fetus is still inside the womb).

All the second-hand smoke JUNK science relating to heart disease, ear infections, etc...are just that. Junk.

 

[Kelemvor]

4 doesn't seem any different than what most restaurants do now anyway so what's the point? And it has wording that nothing more can be done once that ammendment is put in which makes it completely stupid.

I'd go with 5

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Congratulations -- you've combined stupidity with ignorance. Quite a feat! So, the multitudes of studies which have proven the dangers of secondhand smoke are wrong? Do you work for RJ Reynolds? A simple Google search revealed that link on about.com which details some of the implications of second hand smoke. Ever hear of asthma? Yeah, kids can easily get it by being in a smoking household. I used to work with a woman who smoked, and she just couldn't figure out why her son had such bad respiratory problems (she and her husband smoked indoors). You might also notice on that link where it says that the EPA classifies second hand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. Oh yeah, and second hand smoke can cause SIDS -- when has the TV ever killed a child unless it FALLS on them??

As for the TV bit, we're convinced that one of the reasons my daughter, who will be three in December, is speaking at a 4-5 year old level is because she watches TV occasionally. Plopping your kid at a daycare is far more detrimental than a little television.

Do you even have kids?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html

Face it. Second-hand smoke isn't that bad. It can BARELY worsen asthma (if exposed to large amounts) and SIDS doesn't count because it's basically first hand smoke (since the fetus is still inside the womb).

All the second-hand smoke JUNK science relating to heart disease, ear infections, etc...are just that. Junk.

You're still winning, aren't you? That FOX News story is from 2001, and the original government report was from 1986. Try reading some current information, dated 27 June 2006:

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

And since you insisted on attempting to debunk a couple other things, here's this quote for you from the same press release:

Secondhand smoke exposure can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, the report finds. (emphasis added)

Stupid junk science Surgeon General! Amusingly enough, the last citation for the report (check the Executive Summary or the main report linked from this page, is entitled, Junking Science to Promote Tobacco. Did they write that for you?? LOL!!

So, I guess you don't have kids and really have no idea what you're talking about with your television reference.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
4 doesn't seem any different than what most restaurants do now anyway so what's the point? And it has wording that nothing more can be done once that ammendment is put in which makes it completely stupid.

I'd go with 5

Hey, guy, that is EXACTLY THE POINT! The tobacco industry is using #4 to trump #5 to keep the status quo and actually roll it back a little to open up cities where smoking has been banned already. Every time I think about it and how underhanded it is, it pisses me off. Unfortunately, I'm just a resident here but actually a citizen of Texas so I can't vote.

 

[jaskes]

I'm newly registered here, but I've lurked for a long time. To those that say this is nothing more than government regulation of private business, I have to disagree. There is plenty of existing regulation of these same businesses. There are laws enforcing building capacity maximums, food prep techniques, food temps, cleanliness of the establishment, pest prevention (rats, roaches, etc.), and a host of other things. All of which are designed to KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. Using the argument that business owners should be able to decide whether to permit smoking, should they also be able to decide to allow 200 people into a building designed to hold 50? And serve undercooked food, full of bacteria, prepared by a cook with open sores, on unsanitary plates in a restaurant overrun with rats?

 

[sswingle]

No on 4, Yes on 5

 

[waggy]

As a former business owner i would be pissed if this was passed now. While we were smoke free (MY RULE) to have the goverment come in and say i have to be smoke free is insane. That should be my choice. IF i lose costomers because i have people smokeing inside then that is my problem. I should be able to run the business how i see fit. (within the law of course. so don';t bring up the lame zoneing and saftey crap).


heh carefull with this argument! it got me banned from gottadeal for not fallowing the rest of the forum lol

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Congratulations -- you've combined stupidity with ignorance. Quite a feat! So, the multitudes of studies which have proven the dangers of secondhand smoke are wrong? Do you work for RJ Reynolds? A simple Google search revealed that link on about.com which details some of the implications of second hand smoke. Ever hear of asthma? Yeah, kids can easily get it by being in a smoking household. I used to work with a woman who smoked, and she just couldn't figure out why her son had such bad respiratory problems (she and her husband smoked indoors). You might also notice on that link where it says that the EPA classifies second hand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. Oh yeah, and second hand smoke can cause SIDS -- when has the TV ever killed a child unless it FALLS on them??

As for the TV bit, we're convinced that one of the reasons my daughter, who will be three in December, is speaking at a 4-5 year old level is because she watches TV occasionally. Plopping your kid at a daycare is far more detrimental than a little television.

Do you even have kids?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html

Face it. Second-hand smoke isn't that bad. It can BARELY worsen asthma (if exposed to large amounts) and SIDS doesn't count because it's basically first hand smoke (since the fetus is still inside the womb).

All the second-hand smoke JUNK science relating to heart disease, ear infections, etc...are just that. Junk.

You're still winning, aren't you? That FOX News story is from 2001, and the original government report was from 1986. Try reading some current information, dated 27 June 2006:

U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

And since you insisted on attempting to debunk a couple other things, here's this quote for you from the same press release:

Secondhand smoke exposure can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, the report finds. (emphasis added)

Stupid junk science Surgeon General! Amusingly enough, the last citation for the report (check the Executive Summary or the main report linked from this page, is entitled, Junking Science to Promote Tobacco. Did they write that for you?? LOL!!

So, I guess you don't have kids and really have no idea what you're talking about with your television reference.

The Surgeon General, the EPA...none of them respond to criticism to their studies. Google is your friend. There are PLENTY of articles out their debunking the studies. One guy offered a challenge. Name 3 people YOU KNOW that developed lung/heart problems BECAUSE of second-hand smoke.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: jaskes
I'm newly registered here, but I've lurked for a long time. To those that say this is nothing more than government regulation of private business, I have to disagree. There is plenty of existing regulation of these same businesses. There are laws enforcing building capacity maximums, food prep techniques, food temps, cleanliness of the establishment, pest prevention (rats, roaches, etc.), and a host of other things. All of which are designed to KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. Using the argument that business owners should be able to decide whether to permit smoking, should they also be able to decide to allow 200 people into a building designed to hold 50? And serve undercooked food, full of bacteria, prepared by a cook with open sores, on unsanitary plates in a restaurant overrun with rats?

The difference between undercooked food and unsanitary plates is that they are an unknown hazard. Smoking isn't. People KNOW if a restaurant allows smoking and are free to leave. Terrible analogy.

 

[chambersc]

I'd vote no on 4 yes on 5.

The reason I'd vote no on 4 is because of the

except tobacco stores, private residences or nonpublic facilities,

Private businesses can still smoke. I don't agree with that.

 

[daveshel]

The smokers will find a way to make either measure useless. I was in California a few weeks ago and was looking forward to being able to go into bars. (I suffer from asthma and being anywhere near smoke sets it off bad, and all bars where I live are full of smoke, so I haven't been in a bar in years.) The smokers were right outside the doors, effectively blocking me out with a smoke barrier.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The Surgeon General, the EPA...none of them respond to criticism to their studies. Google is your friend. There are PLENTY of articles out their debunking the studies. One guy offered a challenge. Name 3 people YOU KNOW that developed lung/heart problems BECAUSE of second-hand smoke.

Name 3 people that have benefitted from it.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html

Face it. Second-hand smoke isn't that bad. It can BARELY worsen asthma (if exposed to large amounts) and SIDS doesn't count because it's basically first hand smoke (since the fetus is still inside the womb).

All the second-hand smoke JUNK science relating to heart disease, ear infections, etc...are just that. Junk.

I wouldn't think that a site called "smokingaloud.com" would have any bias towards the subject at all. NONE. :roll:

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: jaskes
Using the argument that business owners should be able to decide whether to permit smoking, should they also be able to decide to allow 200 people into a building designed to hold 50? And serve undercooked food, full of bacteria, prepared by a cook with open sores, on unsanitary plates in a restaurant overrun with rats?

Depends...is it cheap? Is it tasty?

If so, could you gimme the address of this place?

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

The Surgeon General, the EPA...none of them respond to criticism to their studies. Google is your friend. There are PLENTY of articles out their debunking the studies. One guy offered a challenge. Name 3 people YOU KNOW that developed lung/heart problems BECAUSE of second-hand smoke.

Name three people YOU KNOW with cancer. Cancer doesn't kill?
Name three people YOU KNOW with AIDS. Guess AIDS isn't a big deal.
Name three people YOU KNOW who've died from radiation poisoning. Nuclear waste is A-OK!

Personal experience means JACK. Just because an individual person hasn't encountered something is no proof of its nonexistence. That's what studies are for...you know, tracing the problem back to its cause, rather than just averaging everyone's experiences.

I find it even funnier that he sets the number at three. Three! "Oh, sorry, I only know two people who have developed cancer as a result of secondhand smoke, I guess the stuff's completely harmless!":laugh:

 

[GeekDrew]

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.

I've heard a lot of radio advertising for both, and I think that I have seen a TV ad or two, but I can't remember. It all begins to blur after a while.

OP, you might want to add this link to your original post:

Ohio Secretary of State Directive Number 2006-71: State Advertising

Included is the ballot language of, full text of, and arguments for/against all State Issues. Pages 13 - 15 are applicable to this thread.

I prefer not to state my opinion in a post, but I will vote in the poll.

<edit>

Please also note that to the best of my knowledge (accurate as of a week or so ago), State Issue #5 has not been certified to the ballot, and is in litigation in the Ohio Supreme Court. Do *not* consider this to be a statement on behalf of Ohio SoS. For current information about issue status, please inquire via the Secretary of State's website, or call the Elections Divison.

 

[AndrewR]

The Surgeon General, the EPA...none of them respond to criticism to their studies. Google is your friend. There are PLENTY of articles out their debunking the studies. One guy offered a challenge. Name 3 people YOU KNOW that developed lung/heart problems BECAUSE of second-hand smoke.

You're amazing. I'll break it out Barney-style for you.

1.) Did you read the sources of the Surgeon General report?

2.) Do you have kids?

Two simple questions for you. Enjoy!

Now, onto your "challenge". I didn't know her personally, but Dana Reeves (wife of ex-Superman) apparently developed lung cancer from second hand smoke. However, as someone has already pointed out, there are plenty of things which are proven to be harmful with which I have no experience. And, as I already mentioned, I knew a child who had severe respiratory problems from second hand smoke (he was around 7).

Anything else?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: 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.

I disagree. If 60% of the customers for a bowling alley didn't want smoking, the operators would most likely continue to allow smoking simply out of fear of alienating a significant portion of their patrons - even if they themselves would prefer no smoking. Do you really think someone else is going to decide to invest a half million dollars in equipment just to offer a smoke free bowling alley to compete with the smoking allowed alley? It's an easy cop-out for a lot of business owners - they don't have to make a stand and risk irritating their customers. If the gov't/people legislate it, their customers will continue to be patrons.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

The Surgeon General, the EPA...none of them respond to criticism to their studies. Google is your friend. There are PLENTY of articles out their debunking the studies. One guy offered a challenge. Name 3 people YOU KNOW that developed lung/heart problems BECAUSE of second-hand smoke.

You're amazing. I'll break it out Barney-style for you.

1.) Did you read the sources of the Surgeon General report?

2.) Do you have kids?

Two simple questions for you. Enjoy!

Now, onto your "challenge". I didn't know her personally, but Dana Reeves (wife of ex-Superman) apparently developed lung cancer from second hand smoke. However, as someone has already pointed out, there are plenty of things which are proven to be harmful with which I have no experience. And, as I already mentioned, I knew a child who had severe respiratory problems from second hand smoke (he was around 7).

Anything else?

1. Yes.

2. No, I'm only 21.

I grew up around second-hand smoke. I think it's disgusting and I don't smoke myself...but to say my mother literally abused me as a child because she smoked in the house every once in a while is offense to me.

My grandmother died of mouth cancer. Never smoked, never chewed, never was around second-hand smoke, and never drank. You will also hear plenty about people who die of liver cancer because they never drink.

Again, it's been proven that children can't develop respiratory problems such as asthma from second hand smoke...second hand smoke can only temporarily worsen them.

Anyway, the main topic is whether or not the government should ram it's fist up property owner's asses for allowing freedom of choice. I voted against it in my state, and I don't smoke and think it's disgusting. I'm sorry you disagree.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin

Yeah, every time there is some new regulation proposed we hear how the world will end. :roll:

Putting up a screen and a fan is not a hard or expensive job, and poeple won't suddenly stop drinking when the price of alcohol goes up by 10 cents a drink.

No, but each and every regulation and law passed slowly separates the rich from the poor.

Really? Ok, then let's see what happened to the rich-poor gap since Reagan came to power and the whole economic liberalization movement really started...

Recent Congressional Budget Office data show that the top 1 percent of the population received 11.4 percent of national after-tax income in 2002, points out Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a new study. That's up from a 7.5 percent share in 1979.

from here or that CEO-to-average worker pay difference is nearly 10 times higher today than it was in 1980 (from here).

Don't worry if reality contradicts what you say... you're an ideologue and you should never let facts get in the way.

Despite that movement, there are more regulations and laws today than in 1979.

 

[OutHouse]

^^ because issue 4, while issue 5 passed

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: AndrewR

The Surgeon General, the EPA...none of them respond to criticism to their studies. Google is your friend. There are PLENTY of articles out their debunking the studies. One guy offered a challenge. Name 3 people YOU KNOW that developed lung/heart problems BECAUSE of second-hand smoke.

You're amazing. I'll break it out Barney-style for you.

1.) Did you read the sources of the Surgeon General report?

2.) Do you have kids?

Two simple questions for you. Enjoy!

Now, onto your "challenge". I didn't know her personally, but Dana Reeves (wife of ex-Superman) apparently developed lung cancer from second hand smoke. However, as someone has already pointed out, there are plenty of things which are proven to be harmful with which I have no experience. And, as I already mentioned, I knew a child who had severe respiratory problems from second hand smoke (he was around 7).

Anything else?

1. Yes.

2. No, I'm only 21.

I grew up around second-hand smoke. I think it's disgusting and I don't smoke myself...but to say my mother literally abused me as a child because she smoked in the house every once in a while is offense to me.

My grandmother died of mouth cancer. Never smoked, never chewed, never was around second-hand smoke, and never drank. You will also hear plenty about people who die of liver cancer because they never drink.

Again, it's been proven that children can't develop respiratory problems such as asthma from second hand smoke...second hand smoke can only temporarily worsen them.

Anyway, the main topic is whether or not the government should ram it's fist up property owner's asses for allowing freedom of choice. I voted against it in my state, and I don't smoke and think it's disgusting. I'm sorry you disagree.

Are you that lobbyist from the movie "Thank you for smoking."?
Do you really think second hand smoke doesn't harm people? Especially when enclosed in a room, day in and day out for the better part of their developing years?

No, we do not KNOW FOR FACT that is harms people... but it's common sense.
Lungs are not made to be coated with tar and carcinogens. Again, common sense alone shows that a lung coated with tar and dehydrated from smoke cannot absorb oxygen as easily as a healthy lung.


Anyways... I am in Ohio and I am extremely happy that 4 was shot down and 5 was passed! I can now drink myself to death without accelerating it with second hand smoke.