-
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the progressive voters in Ohio that voted for the smoking ban.
Because of you we will no longer be able to have Barbeque or wood fired brick ovens.
Say good by to all the wonderful food that requires wood fires.
Just to name a few:
Pompedori?s Pizza
Jeff Ruby?s apple wood smoked steaks
Walt?s fall off the bone ribs
What?s next for the smoke Nazis, the grill in my back yard?
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 19, 2007 07:48 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>
-
Just heard that an additional 50 to 100 Cincinnati police officers may be needed to enforce the smoking ban.
Just think last year the city set a new record for murders, but we need to add police to write tickets for smoking.
I am sure that's why officer Jumper joined the force.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 19, 2007 07:52 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>
-
TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Ohio. Section 1. 3794.01 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (A) ?Smoking? means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted smoking device for burning tobacco or any other plant. ?Smoking? does not include the burning of incense in a religious ceremony. (B) ?Public place? means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted and that is not a private residence. (C) ?Place of employment? means an enclosed area under the direct or indirect control of an employer that the employer?s employees use for work or any other purpose, including but not limited to, offices, meeting rooms, sales, production and storage areas, restrooms, stairways, hallways, warehouses, garages, and vehicles. An enclosed area as described herein is a place of employment without regard to the time of day or the presence of employees. (D) ?Employee? means a person who is employed by an employer, or who contracts with an employer or third person to perform services for an employer, or who otherwise performs services for an employer for compensation or for no compensation. (E) ?Employer? means the state or any individual, business, association, political subdivision, or other public or private entity, including a nonprofit entity, that employs or contracts for or accepts the provision of services from one or more employees. (F) ?Enclosed Area? means an area with a roof or other overhead covering of any kind and walls or side coverings of any kind, regardless of the presence of openings for ingress and egress, on all sides or on all sides but one. (G) ?Proprietor? means an employer, owner, manager, operator, liquor permit holder, or person in charge or control of a public place or place of employment. (H) ?Retail tobacco store? means a retail establishment that derives more than eighty percent of its gross revenue from the sale of cigars, cigarettes, pipes, or other smoking devices for burning tobacco and related smoking accessories and in which the sale of other products is merely incidental. ?Retail tobacco store? does not include a tobacco department or section of a larger commercial establishment or of any establishment with a liquor permit or of any restaurant. (I) ?Outdoor patio? means an area that is either: enclosed by a roof or other overhead covering and walls or side coverings on not more than two sides; or has no roof or other overhead covering regardless of the number of walls or other side coverings.
I tried to tell some smokers that they needed to make sure that they voted FOR issue 4 and not against 4 &5 if they wanted at least to have a fighting chance. Voting against them both did no good since non-smokers make up over 70% of Ohio's registered voters. It seems weird to vote for something that restricts your ability to do something, even partially but for the smokers that was their only chance.
Since the number of states with bans is now in the teens, there is absolutely no chance of it being repealed so it is what it is.
The nonsmokers will always outnumber the smokers and that's just the way it is. I'm a non smoker who would have been fine with issue 4 being put into action had issue 5 not passed.
-
I heard the Chief of Police on the radio this morning, and when he was asked about enforcing the smoking ban, he laughed. Apparently, the CPD isn't responsible -- the Health Department is. Maybe Law Dawg can verify this?
What's going to happen at the Taste of Cincinnati? We haven't been to the Taste for a couple of years, but I seem to recall a lot of cooking smoke.
-
It's not an enclosed area gae, so I dont think it will be affected at all.
-
But it IS a workplace, isn't it?
-
CPD are not responsible for enforcing the smoking ban, the Health Dept is and it's only fines albeit stiff ones for repeated offenders up to and including losing your liquor license.
However, the only way we'd become involved is if a propriotor asked a smoker to put out a cig an they refused. Then we're involved but not for smoking but for disorderly conduct.
As to losing the restaurants you mentioned, I'm not sure where that's coming froom.....I didn't see anything in the text you quoted that mentioned wood burning as a violation. [img]confused.gif[/img]
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 19, 2007 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Law Dawg ]</font>
-
Look at the items in bold.
?Smoking? means inhaling, exhaling,burning, or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted smoking device for burning tobacco or any other plant.
I would think a grill is a smoking device. How about candles with a cotton wick? Or the fire place at Cracker Barrel?
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 19, 2007 02:27 PM: Message edited by: travelinman ]</font>
-
Well, with the fines set up the way they are now (still not 100% sure though) it'll be interesting to see how many times certain places will get burnt before they snuff it out.
Supposedly the fines will be $100 for the first one and then will jump up significantly each time after with a maximum fine of $2500 for the 5th offense.
I think it's stays at $2500 per after that.
I'm sure enough offenses will lead to things like reviews of liquor liscenses and things of that nature.
Good time to quit. There are grants available for businesses that want to help aid their employees in quitting their smoking habits.
call 1-800-quit-now
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 19, 2007 04:09 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>
-
Check this out...
Bangor Makes It Illegal to Smoke in Cars
Jan 09 11:04 AM US/Eastern
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present.
When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states.
People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.
"Let's step up to the plate and lead; our children are worth the fight," she said.
The ordinance, which was approved by a 6-3 vote, applies to any motor vehicles on any public roads within the city. Violators face fines of up to $50.
An amendment that was added Monday to the original proposal makes the violation a primary offense, rather than a secondary offense. That means police can pull over vehicles if they see somebody smoking with anybody under 18 in the vehicle; if it were a secondary offense, police would have to stop the vehicle for some other reason, such as speeding.
Several residents, doctors and representatives from the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce and the Fusion Bangor development group spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Pediatrician Robert Holmberg said the evidence is "incontrovertible" that exposure to cigarette smoke causes medical disorders in children, including asthma, bronchitis, ear infections and heart disease.
"Children are the most in need of the protection by public policy, because they can't protect themselves," he said.
But the ordinance also had its critics.
Councilor Susan Hawes, who voted against the law, said the police department should devote its energy to more important issues. There's already too much government intervention in people's lives, she said.
Aaron Prill of Bangor told the council that the ordinance was a "feel- good option" that was not intended to protect children but rather to "moralize" against smokers. Most smokers have enough common sense not to smoke around children, he said.
___
