Smoking Ban To Be Enforced May 1st

[cincygreg]

A little earlier than originally planned. (many were thinking june). Letter for first offense then $100 for the second and the fines grow rapidly to $2500 for the 5th offense and beyond.

State To Levy Fines In Smoking Ban

POSTED: 3:25 pm EDT April 16, 2007
UPDATED: 7:17 am EDT April 17, 2007
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Thousands of Ohio bars, restaurants and other workplaces that have violated the state's new smoking ban will not face retroactive penalties once rules for enforcing the ban take effect next month, state health officials said Monday.
Compliance with the law, which took effect Dec. 7, has been spotty in some areas of Ohio while the state Health Department has worked to establish fines ?- up to $2,500 for multiple violators ?- and to clarify businesses that are exempt. About 17,000 alleged violations have been reported statewide.
The rules cleared a 10-member panel of lawmakers Monday without objection, meaning that penalties can be enforced the first week of May.

Business owners and smokers who flouted the law during the past five months will not be fined, said Kristopher Weiss, a spokesman with the Ohio Department of Health.
"Everything starts with a clean slate," he said.
The law, approved by 58 percent of voters last November, aims to protect nonsmokers and employees from secondhand smoke. It prohibits smoking in most public places, including restaurants, bars and offices. Exceptions include tobacco shops, certain private clubs, designated hotel rooms and enclosed areas of nursing homes.
About 82 percent of bars, restaurants and other workplaces in southwest Ohio's Hamilton County are following the law, according to reports filed by sanitarians who inspect the facilities.
But 102 workplaces meet none of the law's three requirements ? a ban on indoor smoking, removal of ashtrays and the posting of no-smoking signs, said Paula Smith, spokeswoman with the Hamilton County Health District, which has jurisdiction over county workplaces outside the city of Cincinnati.
Under proposed rules for enforcing the ban, smokers who disregard the law will be given a warning just once. After that, it's a $100 fine.
Business owners also face an initial warning letter, followed by fines of up to $2,500 for fifth time offenders.

2 weeks left, though most businesses are allready enforcing the ban so it shouldnt be a drastic change for most businesses.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 17, 2007 08:11 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>

[cincygreg]

And so it goes...

Suit challenges smoking exemption
Health Department allowed lighting up in some private clubs, veterans' halls
BY DAN HORN
The fight over who must observe Ohio's smoking ban is heading to court.

The American Cancer Society sued Wednesday in Franklin County to block enforcement of a rule that would allow people to smoke in some private clubs, such as veterans' halls.

The lawsuit targets an exemption that the Ohio Department of Health approved last month after receiving complaints from veterans' groups and a few other private clubs.

Under the new rule, clubs can allow smoking as long as only members are present and there are no children under 18.

The state health department's previous interpretation of the smoking ban required no smoking at those clubs.

The ban is in effect now, but enforcement won't begin until May 1 at the earliest.

"We feel we are more in line with the will of the voters having made this change," said Jay Carey, spokesman for the health department.

But the American Cancer Society's lawsuit accuses the department of flouting the smoking ban, which voters approved in November.

"The goal was to protect every worker's right to a smoke-free workplace," said Wendy Simpkins, spokeswoman for the Ohio division of the American Cancer Society. "They found this loophole that skirts the law."

The ban applies to locations outside the home, except for tobacco shops, some hotel rooms and some parts of nursing homes.

The dispute over private clubs centers on the definition of "employee." The ban bars smoking in clubs that have employees, but the clubs argued most of those employees also are members of the clubs.

The health department decided membership trumps a person's status as an employee, meaning the ban would not apply. The Cancer Society's lawsuit argues that the same definition of employee should apply to everyone.

The ban has been a source of controversy and confusion since its approval last November.

Many bars, restaurants and clubs have not been observing the ban pending final approval of the health department's rules.

The rules are intended to clarify the law, but they may not change the law that voters approved.

Most state leaders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars pushed for the exemption. Many local posts also supported it.

"Vets fought for their freedom," said Jep Stephenson, commander of VFW Post 3744 in Deer Park. "Now you're going to tell them you can't smoke in your own club?"

There will be challenges on both sides, but I dont see a whole lot of changes to the law. I think the smoking in private clubs may stand as being allowed though.

[cincygreg]

It just keeps going and going and going...

Last Updated: 5:36 pm | Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Judge asked to throw out smoking ban
BY DAN HORN | [email protected]
Bar and restaurant owners asked a judge Wednesday to declare Ohio?s smoking ban unconstitutional because it violates their customers? right to light up.

The businesses sued late last year in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court after Ohio voters approved the ban, which prohibits smoking in any enclosed public place or in any business with employees.

The law is supposed to take effect May 3, but the business owners want Judge Fred Nelson to grant an injunction blocking enforcement until their challenge of the law is decided in court.


They outlined their case for the first time Wednesday, arguing the new law violates privacy and property rights in Ohio?s constitution.

?Are you arguing there is a constitutional right to smoke?? Nelson asked.

?I believe you do have a constitutional right to make that choice,? said Lou Sirkin, lawyer for the businesses.

He said property owners have a right to use their property as they see fit, and that right includes allowing customers to smoke a legal product on the premises. If others don?t want to be around the smoke, Sirkin said, they can go somewhere else.

?The right to make decisions relevant to your own property is an inherent, fundamental right,? Sirkin said. ?Nobody is forced to go to these places.?

But lawyers for the state and the American Cancer Society, which supports the ban, said the new law is no different than other government health and safety regulations.

They said government has the power to impose rules that may limit some individual rights for the welfare of society. In this case, they said, the rules are intended to limit exposure to second-hand smoke and the health risks associated with it.

?Government has the right to regulate inherently dangerous workplaces,? said Donald McTigue, a lawyer for the American Cancer Society. ?We as individuals don?t live in a vacuum, we don?t live by ourselves. We live in a society.?

The state?s lawyers also argued that the constitution offers no protection to smokers who want to light up in bars or restaurants.

?There is no fundamental right to smoke,? said Peggy Corn, a lawyer with the Ohio Attorney General?s Office.

Sirkin, however, compared the property rights of his clients to those of homeowners in Norwood who recently won a court battle over eminent domain, or the government taking of property.

The state?s lawyers disputed that comparison, saying the law only regulated how property might be used ? not whether the owner is entitled to keep the property.

Nelson said he would decide by May 2 whether to grant an injunction blocking enforcement.

OK, who's turn is it next? It's really tough to keep up with this game of musical lawsuits. [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img] [img]eek.gif[/img]

[cincygreg]

OK, this is something you can use to find out who's had complaints registered against them so far.
Just put Cincinnati in as the city

SMOKING BAN WARNINGS ISSUED

Had the partial ban been voted for by the people and not the total ban, many would not be on this list.

[gae]

Just to keep Greg from typing to himself, I'll say again what I've said before.

I smoke. I prefer non smoking restaurants. When I finish my meal, if I feel the need, I'll simply excuse myself and go outside. Unless I'm by myself, I don't smoke in my car. I don't smoke in the truck, and I smoke in one room of the house.

That said, I don't appreciate the [fill in the invective of your choice here] who yell at me for polluting their air, when I'm at the edge of the parking lot, nowhere near the door of any establishment. (I'll paraphrase Churchill -- I can always quit smoking, but they'll always be small people.)

If Trav and I weren't so old and sitll went to bars, I might have a opinion on that, but I really don't. The last place I had a beer and a smoke was at a VFW. Prior to that, it was a "bar" in a DC hotel -- the bar itself was under renovation, so they gave the GoE folks a place to pay way too much for crappy beer and wine, but allowed them to smoke. It was adjacent to the restaurant; no walled barriers, so really, who is doing what for the money?

But back to the point. If establishment owners want to allow smoking, and their clientele accepts it, what's the problem? If Trav and I want to open a Bahama Bob's BBQ and Grill and find out that no one wants a smoking environment, we become non smoking or go out of business. If Trav and I want to open a Gargulous Gail's bookstore and coffeeshop and everyone WANTS to smoke? Guess what? We'd allow it or go out of business.

I know common sense is on a vacation, but dammit; I wish it would come back.

[cincygreg]

Hi gae!

Should be intersting to see how all the lawsuits and evething unfold but, the list of places that were 'reported on" is extensive.

People who want to smoke with dinner or whatever will still go to places that allows it (probably accross the river) others will simply tough it out and might een find themselves being able to go without a smoke after their meal. Interestingly enough, that may lead them to think that they can go without one at other times as well and they may even quit smoking all together [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]eek.gif[/img]

Wonder how it's gonna be once the fines start!?!?!?

[Lew]

And you know, as Jumper has alluded to before, it's a good thing he and his colleagues don't have much else going on; going around enforcing the smoking ban should give them somthing to do, break the monotony of their jobs.

[cincygreg]

Maybe they should all take up smoking so they can bust each other. [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wonder.gif[/img]

Then again, maybe not.
The police will only be involved if someone who's smoking refuses to stop and the law has to be called.

[cincygreg]

Well, here we go.
Today is officially day 1 of the enforcement of the smoking ban.
ws ? This time for real: No smoking

Last Updated: 7:41 am | Thursday, May 3, 2007
This time for real: No smoking
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
COLUMBUS, Ohio ? County health officials today will start enforcing a statewide smoking ban.

Cincinnati and Hamilton County officials planned to meet with bar and restaurant owners this afternoon to review the rules.

Details of the ban should be common knowledge by now, said Rick Setty, the director of environmental health in Mahoning County. ?I don?t think anybody in their right mind could use the excuse that they didn?t know about it,? he said.

A Hamilton County judge on Wednesday refused to block enforcement of the law, saying that Ohioans don?t have a constitutional right to smoke or to own businesses allowing smoking.

Common Pleas Judge Fred Nelson rejected the order sought by a group of bar and restaurant owners who sued last year.

Some proprietors were grumbling about an anticipated drop in business. Others were looking forward to a level playing field in which every bar and restaurant in the state will be required to crack down on those who light up indoors, leaving bars that allowed smoking in recent months without a competitive advantage.

The ban, which could bring fines of up to $2,500 for multiple violations, took effect Dec. 7. But implementation was delayed while state officials hashed out rules governing enforcement.

The statewide law prohibits smoking in most public places, including restaurants, bars and offices. Exceptions include tobacco shops, certain private clubs, designated hotel rooms and enclosed areas of nursing homes.

Chris Biechele, owner of Cheers in Sandusky, followed the ban for three days in December, and saw business drop by half as smokers stayed home or went elsewhere.

?It just crushed me,? he said. ?If that was any indication, I probably won?t be in business in six months.?

The owners of Talegator?s in Dayton continued with a no-smoking policy, even after the December reprieve, and regret the decision, said manager David Dickerson.

One group of about 20 regularly crowded the place on Sundays to watch NASCAR, but went elsewhere because of the ban. ?Hopefully, some of them will be coming back,? Dickerson said.

Those enforcing the ban ? approved by 58 percent of voters in November ? will rely on written and online complaints to local and state health officials. County and city health officials will then investigate and issue a warning letter for a first violation, said Kristopher Weiss, an Ohio Department of Health spokesman.

Ashtabula, Highland and Portage counties have informed the state in writing that they won?t be able to carry out enforcement, an option allowed under the law, Weiss said. Health officials in neighboring counties will be asked to help with investigations, Weiss said.

Portage County?s health commissioner said last month that his department can?t enforce the state?s new smoking ban due to a funding shortage.

The state health department sent informational letters to about 280,000 businesses in December and invited local health officials to five regional training sessions around the state since last week.

Businesses face a $100 fine for a second violation, $500 for a third, $1,500 for a fourth and $2,500 for a fifth, a department statement said.

Individuals would get a warning the first time, and a $100 fine for second and subsequent violations.

Business owners and smokers who flouted the law during the past six months will not be fined, Weiss said. The department received more than 17,000 complaints during that period, but that slate has been wiped clean, he said.

Most people likely will comply with the ban voluntarily, Cincinnati health department official Dale Grigsby said.

?We don?t expect a lot of problems,? he said. ?The world?s not going to come to an end.?


Dont smoke 'em if you got 'em
unless you wanna go outside to do so.