MiddletownJournal.com

By Miaka

December 7, 2007 7:43 PM | Link to this

To all the non-smokers: Why do you see it as being a problem for the businesses to decide for themselves? I understand people not wanting to be around smoke, but taking our rights away is not the way to accomplish it. I used to be able to take working breaks in a warm smoke room…now I have to stand huddled outside in the cold where I get nothing done.

Mark my words…soon they will be taking away rights you care about and I hope you remember the day it all began…

By Roger in Cleveland

December 3, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Yes, the ban should be modified if not outright repealed. It’s a supreme violation of private property rights perptuated on voters of Ohio by a small minority with an unclear agenda and confusing ballot language.

Quite honestly, I do as much entertaining and shopping in Pennsylvania as possible (or I don’t go at all). I feel blessed to be so close to “America” here near the PA state line. My heart goes out to those in Columbus and other interior areas.

By Chuck

December 3, 2007 6:36 AM | Link to this

When the law was passed by 31% of registered voters I would not say that ” fact is they (Ohioans) overwhelmingly voted for it (as is),” said Combs.” he fact is most people did not think it (issue 5) would pass. Prempting the 14th Amendment and taking away property rights is not what the Republic of the United States was founded for. Leave it up to the business owner. Those people gloating about the passage of a law by a 31% of the state registered voters are not americans.

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 11:51 PM | Link to this

Marie - my husband and I own a business directly impacted by this ban. Where only people 21 & older go, you would think people could make a mature decision whether to go into a place that allows smoking. When people like you say “where is my choice?”, I tell them “you have the same choice my husband & I had. Go in debt, hock your home & buy your OWN business & then YOU decide what you want to do in it”. (and pray to God nannies don’t tell you what you can & can’t do in it)

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 9:12 PM | Link to this

see my previous post for list of cancer causes. So tell me, if all these things cause cancer (THEIR reports, not mine), why is cigarette smoke targeted? Why isn’t there outrage about all the children’s meals that are microwaved? How about the heavy use of cell phones, meat & eggs cooked at a high temp, or fluoridated water? Because THEY’RE POPULAR. CIGARETTE SMOKE OFFENDS SOME PEOPLE. Because cigarette smoke no more kills than your Sunday BBQ does. LIARS! Demand the TRUTH.

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 7:16 PM | Link to this

Did you know: microwaved food, hair dyes, talc, meat & eggs cooked at high temps, pesticides, lanolin, cosmetics, xrays & gamma rays, mocotoxins, tobacco, unhealthy diet, excess sun, alcohol, asbestos, viruses that cause genetic change, growth (tall people), nanotechnology, aging, family history, certain hormones. TRYING to link to cancer (not study but THEIR words TRYING to link) are: cell phones, fluoridated water, artificial sweeteners, caffeine are all listed as causes?. (sources: www.cancerhelp.org.uk ; www.cancerinq.org ; www.revolutionhealth.com).

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 7:14 PM | Link to this

TRUTH: www.forces.org/static_page/ori/complaint.php OFFICIAL COMPLAINT

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 7:12 PM | Link to this

To the people who bash business owners who fight for their property rights, why don’t YOU buy a business and let ME tell you how to run it? I cannot believe how the LIES people have been fed about SHS have turned to such hatred. Learn the truth for yourselves. There has been an official complaint filed with HHS, Office of Research Integrity on the Surgeon General’s report about SHS. Wake up AMERICA. YOU’VE ALL BEEN DUPED. You’re puppets in the Masters’ hands and you’re doing their bidding.

By Linda

November 30, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this

Do you know another dictator who inposed smoking bans on its people. if you guessed Adolph Hitler, Nazi Germany you are right. The ban was almost identical to the Ohio smoking ban.

First the smoking ban. Will the next right taken be a right you do not wish to lose? They are already working on alcohol and the obese.

Wake up Ohio

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 6:21 PM | Link to this

Bar owners are uniting.Right groups are uniting. We want our PROPERTY RIGHTS back.We want OUR BUSINESSES returned to us.Liquor sales are up.Bar receipts are down.What does this tell you? Instead of patrons going to an ADULT establishment to smoke & imbibe, where people have the maturity & sense to decide to enter a smoking establishment, they now GO HOME to do both AROUND THE FAMILY.Once the ACS & antis figure this out, what do you think they’ll do next?

By Linda

November 30, 2007 6:20 PM | Link to this

Ohio citizens should be outraged at Ohio. Write the Ohio legislators and inform them that you do not approve the smoking ban which causes the destruction of Ohio business owners private property rights.

Folks wake up, you have been lied to

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 6:16 PM | Link to this

If Congress & the Senate can conduct hearings into Communist actors/ directors in the 1940s & 1950s, then I call for hearings into the junk that has been passed off as science.If I, as a business owner, can lose my business & my right to smoke in a business & building purchased by my husband & me, then at the very least, these “reports” and “studies” can be scrutinized by experts NOT PAID by the RWJ Foundation, ACS, AHA, etc. Bars are closing at a rapid rate.

By Linda

November 30, 2007 6:13 PM | Link to this

A foundation (RWJF) that was founded by a pharmaceutical co. funds the smoking bans through the ACS and other do gooder societies. Wonder who profits from the smoking cessation products? What a shame that Ohio business owners have to suffer the losses.

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 6:12 PM | Link to this

Ohio, as well as other states of the U.S. and countries world-wide, has imposed a smoking ban brought about by the public panic based on the lies of the Surgeon General, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association. These studies are a joke, yet they are touted as “absolute proof” of a risk to those around cigarette smoke.

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 6:10 PM | Link to this

As a business owner of a bar, member of the Ohio Smokers Rights Group and member of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, I am calling for a Congressional Hearing into what has become the biggest lie perpetrated on the American People “Cancer Causing SHS”. As a business owner, my Property Rights, guaranteed under the Constitution, have been stripped. When we can no longer make decisions that impact our businesses, then we have lost our businesses.

By Linda

November 30, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

Ohio private proprty business owners are victims of regulatory taking of their property. Why should the owners pay the bills and taxes and a bunch of busybodies tell them they cannot allow a legal product or act on their own property…way to go Ohio, steal the owners property because of the American Cancer Societies lies to help the pharmas market those smoking cessation pills & patches. Why would anyone want to invest in a state like Nohio who takes regulates them out of business?

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

When I contacted one of these health organizations, I asked how they could quote X number of deaths due to SHS. They gave me an explanation which I asked for in English. To quote: “Epidemiologists use multivariate analysis to estimate the influence of one independent on the dependent variable while controlling for the impact of the other independent variable. It is just that - an estimate”. An ESTIMATE! We are imposing bans on ESTIMATES? These studies are ALL LIES, PEOPLE!!!

By gctavern

November 30, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

I’ve read all these comments and I don’t care if voters DID vote for a smoking ban. We are a REPUBLIC. Voters do NOT get to vote on E. Are we next to vote on what happens in YOUR homes? WE own these businesses, not the voters. WE pay the bills, not the voters. Let OUR patrons decide. And let OUR employees decide. They not only want to work around smoking patrons, they ALSO want to smoke. You’re only allowed a few characters so I will continue on further posts.

By jonathan

November 30, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

if you dont want to smell the smoke go to the gas station and by any beer you want in the bottle or a can and maybye on your way home stop at McDonald’s or somthing and leave the smokers smoke in peace and stop your whinning, ciggerettes have been around more than anyone why take it away, its ruining the buisness to bars and resturaunts!!!!!

By jonathan

November 30, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

if you dont want to smell the smoke go to the gas station and by any beer you want in the bottle or a can and maybye on your way home stop at McDonald’s or somthing and leave the smokers smoke in peace and stop your whinning, ciggerettes have been around more than anyone why take it away, its ruining the buisness to bars and resturaunts!!!!!

By jonathan

November 30, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

if you dont want to smell the smoke go to the gas station and by any beer you want in the bottle or a can and maybye on your way home stop at McDonald’s or somthing and leave the smokers smoke in peace and stop your whinning, ciggerettes have been around more than anyone why take it away, its ruining the buisness to bars and resturaunts!!!!!

By jonathan

November 30, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

if you dont want to smell the smoke go to the gas station and by any beer you want in the bottle or a can and maybye on your way home stop at McDonald’s or somthing and leave the smokers smoke in peace and stop your whinning, ciggerettes have been around more than anyone why take it away, its ruining the buisness to bars and resturaunts!!!!!

By StayingHomeAlso

November 30, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

I’m doing the same Kat. Maybe we need to start having more house parties so fun loving folks may assemble together. I know the ones I have been to have been quite fun affairs with live music, drinks, smoking if you choose and no antisocial nannies who do not see fit to get babysitters for the evening. From some of the bar owners I know, this nanny cheapness isn’t limited to being too tight to pay for a babysitter. The “tips” the nannies leave when they waltz into a club on a whim are an insult.

By Kat

November 30, 2007 4:22 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m staying home. All you non-smokers can support these businesses. If I have to go out, I’ll drive across the line and support that other states economy. I’m not spending in Nohio until this ban is modified or fixed.

By ItsAllAFraud

November 29, 2007 9:46 PM | Link to this

This message is for anyone who supports the ban based on alleged health risks. Can anyone — anyone at all — find a study which shows that said carcinogens, in a room where smokers are present and smoking, are in quantities sufficient to cause disease and/or death (usually measured in nanograms per cubic liter of air)? I doubt you will, because there is none. It doesn’t exist. Note that I am not referring to the former Surgeon General’s comments. I am referring to the raw data. It’s a fraud.

By LD

November 29, 2007 6:52 PM | Link to this

“LD, Maybe it is just you bro, my band is booked solid and I won’t play anywhere that allows smoking.”

Bass boy, this is comical and a PC way of saying, “Dude, your band sucks.” I can assure you, it does not. What does, however is the current law. I’ve been around the block long enough to know the score, too.

I also don’t work on those passing the hat wages on 5 band punk rock bills.., just so you know.

By Steve Hartwell

November 29, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this

I have a deficiency of the enzyme Aldehyde Dehydrogenase (ALDH) in my stomach that is needed to metabolise Alcohol into acetic acid (vinegar). Alcohol, unless broken down by that enzyme, is toxic to our bodies. In fact, if anyone were to ‘ingest’ just one beer through their anal cavity, that person could die. For me to conventionally drink a beer, I would gravely risk the same fate. An immediate immune response is triggered and symptoms typical to an allergy occur trying to get rid of the toxins. Even being in the same room with several alcoholic drinkers makes me very sick. Alcohol evapourates from alcoholic beverages and saturates the surrounding air. In places where alcohol is served, like licenced restaurants, I get very very sick when too many alcoholic addicts are sloshing down their alcoholic drinks. Why should I have to get sick at my favourite restaurant and even risk death from an alcoholic attack there because alcoholic addicted anti-smokers cannot wait till they get home to glug down their alcoholic addictions ?! I want alcoholic beverages banned from restaurants. Not just for myself either. It is well documented scientifically that Alcohol has been strongly linked to numerous ailments, such as heart disease and cancer and diabetes, as well as other maladies. Indeed, even though most non-drinkers do not immediately get sick as I do, there is evidence to indicate that exposure to evapourated alcohol over time could cause the same maladies in most people. Especially children have a much higher risk from evapourated alcoholic drinks. Evapourated Alcohol is a deadly invisible killer ! Ban Alcohol, if not for me and all non-drinkers, at least do it for the sake of the children !

By Thomas Laprade

November 28, 2007 10:57 PM | Link to this

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade

By Thomas Laprade

November 28, 2007 10:54 PM | Link to this

A private business is exactly that - private. It is the owners business. It is their money invested in the building, the inventory, etc. They are the ones taking the risk. If the owner wishes to allow smoking, that should be their right. If non-smokers do not wish to enter that business because of the smoking, that is their right.

I do not like government interference in private enterprise. Now it is cigarettes and the illnesses caused by them.

NEXT - what you eat! Such an uproar has been made about Americans being too fat and the fast food places were blamed. I have never been forced to enter a place where people were smoking. I have never been forced to eat fast food. I have never been told by a business, YOU WILL EAT ALL THOSE FRIES! or YOU WILL SMOKE THAT CIGARETTE! or YOU WILL FINISH THAT DRINK! The places that allow the smoking, serve the fattening food, or the alcohol are catering to what the public wants. Yet these places are blamed for the choices made by John Q. Public’s own free will! The next regulation is what kind of oil they can use to fry those french fries in that they want to regulate too!

Imagine a world where there will be a group of smokers huddled at one end of an alley, smoking. At the other end, there will be a group sneaking drinks of alcohol from a bottle in a paper bag. In the middle, there is a group casting furtive glances up and down the alley, hoping the people on each end do not see them and turn them in because they are eating cheeseburgers and fries - Super Sized!

The health risks have been stated - over and over. Let the individual make their personal choice if they want to take the risk or not! AND - keep private enterprise PRIVATE!

By Thomas Laprade

November 28, 2007 10:50 PM | Link to this

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of “second-hand” smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the “right” decision? Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, – whose customers are free to go elsewhere.

All decisions involve risks; some have harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

Thomas Laprade

By Thomas Laprade

November 28, 2007 10:48 PM | Link to this

As a non-smoker, I feel that proponents justify a ban by arguing that secondhand smoke is a health risk. But all sorts of human activities are risky — from contact sports to rock climbing, from skiing to swimming, from riding a bike to having sex.

Free societies allow people to make decisions that others don’t like. That includes allowing smokers to have bars and restaurants to cater to their preferences, just as nonsmokers should have establishments that cater to theirs.

Thomas Laprade

By Cathy

November 28, 2007 9:36 PM | Link to this

And to the person who said the people who smoke are affecting everyone in the bar and the alcoholic drink doesn’t bother anyone, WELL IT BOTHERS EVERYONE ON THE HIGHWAY AND THERE ARE ALOT MORE PEOPLE ON THE ROAD THAN IN A BAR,INCLUDING OUR CHILDREN. And for you people who think that smokers don’t vote “WRONG”. I smoke and I voted. Maybe we should think more on the line of how to get along, and PLEASE VOTE IN THIS NEXT ELECTION TO GET THE NUT OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE BEFORE WE ALL GO UP IN SMOKE!

By Cathy

November 28, 2007 9:20 PM | Link to this

Ya,know if the Government wants to BAN Smoking then maybe they should put their own cigerette down. It isn’t only cigerette smoke that is giving us cancer it is our water our air our food. What happened to freedom are we turning communists, to where we can’t do what we want. If you don’t like the bars that allow smoking go to one that doesn’t.And to the people who used to be smokers and are complaining (YOU JUST WANT A CIGERETTE)so shut up.

By Bob

November 28, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

No, you cannot tell just anyone to leave, Perks. What a red-neck!

By LAW ABIDING CITIZEN

November 28, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

WHAT IS ALL THE BULL ABOUT LETTING BARS AND CLUBS DECIDE IF THEY WANT SMOKING IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS. IT IS NOT UP TO THEM, THE PEOPLE MADE THAT DECISION…MEANING YOU SMOKERS & NON-SMOKERS, THE MAJORITY PREVAILED. THEIR VOICE WAS HEARD AND ENFORCED. MAYBE IF ALL THE SMOKERS WHO ARE CRYING NOW WENT AND VOTED, THE OUTCOME MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT! YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME. EITHER SMOKERS DIDNT GO OUT IN FORCE AND VOTE THEN THERE IS NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THE SMOKERS..IT WAS DONE LEGALLY!

By brendaperks

November 28, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

I still think that if the non-smokers think they can open a non-smoking restaurant or bar and make a living on the non-smokers that are going to “flock” their business…..OPEN one yourselves. Use your savings, take out loans and put your time into opening one. Non of us have a sign on our doors that say we are PUBLIC, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL on them. We are PRIVATELY OWNED. We do not have to let people in our businesses. We can ask anyone at anytime to leave without explanation.

By Mike

November 28, 2007 8:03 AM | Link to this

Laprade seems to be an uneducated pompous idiot for stating there are no studies about second-hand smoke. I thik I’ll just say that there are no real people named Laprade. Same philosophy, just make a statement and pretend to have done your research.

By Nonsmoker

November 27, 2007 11:24 PM | Link to this

There have indeed been studies showing that ventilation systems don’t protect people from second-hand smoke. Here’s one article describing such a study conducted by a professor at Tufts University:

Nonsmoking Sections Of Smoking Bars And Restaurants Still Get Significant Doses Of Carcinogens, Particulates, Study Shows

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55576.php

By Katy

November 27, 2007 11:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry u have that condition. BUT we are not debating about alchohol we are debating about tobacco.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 11:07 PM | Link to this

I have never heard of that before. Brings a new perspective, however I believe that if you have difficulty being around alcohol you should not be at a bar anyway since a bar is an alchoholic place. Sorry you have that condition, you probably wouldnt want to go to a bar anyway right? That can be for another debat but right now its regarding smoking that causes cancer, a more common everyday disease.

By Steve Hartwell

November 27, 2007 10:02 PM | Link to this

I have a deficiency of the enzyme Aldehyde Dehydrogenase (ALDH) that is needed to metabolise alcohol into acetic acid (vinegar). Alcohol unless broken down is toxic to everyone’s body. An immediate immune response is triggered and symptoms typical to an allergy occur trying to get rid of the toxins. Alcoholic drinks evapourate and saturate the air of a typical licenced restaurant. Why must I have to get sick at the restaurant I want to go to where drinkers are having drinks with their meals ?

By Marie

November 27, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this

hey MICHAEL MCFADDEN….

When someone drinks at a bar, they are NOT affecting anyone else that is there. When someone smokes at a bar, they ARE AFFECTING other people, people like me who are ALLERGIC to it and cant even go anywhere. WHen you can come up with something that is correct, go ahead and post it. I am not saying anything bad about smokers, only that it is not fair that I cannot enjoy going out without getting sick. Dont even tell me to go elsewhere because I shouldnt have to.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 9:43 PM | Link to this

hey MICHAEL MCFADDEN….

When someone drinks at a bar, they are NOT affecting anyone else that is there. When someone smokes at a bar, they ARE AFFECTING other people, people like me who are ALLERGIC to it and cant even go anywhere. WHen you can come up with something that is correct, go ahead and post it. I am not saying anything bad about smokers, only that it is not fair that I cannot enjoy going out without getting sick. Dont even tell me to go elsewhere because I shouldnt have to.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this

hey MICHAEL MCFADDEN….

When someone drinks at a bar, they are NOT affecting anyone else that is there. When someone smokes at a bar, they ARE AFFECTING other people, people like me who are ALLERGIC to it and cant even go anywhere. WHen you can come up with something that is correct, go ahead and post it. I am not saying anything bad about smokers, only that it is not fair that I cannot enjoy going out without getting sick. Dont even tell me to go elsewhere because I shouldnt have to.

By Tom

November 27, 2007 9:06 PM | Link to this

This is where mob rule or true democracy shows its downfall. This is where individual is sacrificed for the common good, which is the plea of communism, socialism and other altruistic government philosophies.

We must protect an individual’s right to choose and we should respect a private enterprise to determine what is viable for their business. I suppose if we can get enough voters in Ohio to determine how large a house one can own or what type of car they can drive, people might get upset.

By Transplant from Florida

November 27, 2007 9:03 PM | Link to this

Thankyou Mr. Laprade… I agree, there has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems. What people believe are “so called statements” there are no documented true studies.

By Michael J. McFadden

November 27, 2007 8:57 PM | Link to this

Marie wrote, “What I want to know is why is it a big deal for smokers to limit their intake…? Go in, have fun, and step out to smoke. Not a big deal.”

Marie, would it be a “big deal” if you went out to dinner found that the Anti-Alcohol folks had imposed a law insisting that you “step out to drink” your glass of wine with your meal? What’s the big deal? Pop outside, walk 25 feet and take a few gulps.

Michael J. McFadden Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

By Transplant from Florida

November 27, 2007 8:49 PM | Link to this

How much is true fact about second hand smoke? Let’s face it there are far too many people out there minding everyone elses business instead of staying in our own yard. The government does not think that people should smoke, be Gay, an illegal immigrant or fat. What’s next people. Micro chips? LOL that’s comming. We will be a nation of no freedoms in the future. And it’s coming very soon. This is all a smoke screen to control us.

By Thomas Laprade

November 27, 2007 8:24 PM | Link to this

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade Thunder Bay, Ont.

By Thomas Laprade

November 27, 2007 8:10 PM | Link to this

A smokeless environment

A smokeless environment I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else’s rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

Second-hand smoke is not a significant health risk.

By fathertime

November 27, 2007 7:42 PM | Link to this

I agree with lightningboy. Drop the stupid law and just rely on posted signs by the owners of the clubs, bars and other private businesses. Sure seems simple enough to me. Why we need Big Brother to tell us what’s good for us is beyond me. I realize some people are allergic to smoke, and if they can’t in to a place that allowed smoking I’m sorry. I want to race in NASCAR too but I can’t. Let’s have to vote done again, Yes ban smoking or No do not ban smoking, really simple, no more, no less.

By fathertime

November 27, 2007 7:41 PM | Link to this

I agree with lightningboy. Drop the stupid law and just rely on posted signs by the owners of the clubs, bars and other private businesses. Sure seems simple enough to me. Why we need Big Brother to tell us what’s good for us is beyond me. I realize some people are allergic to smoke, and if they can’t in to a place that allowed smoking I’m sorry. I want to race in NASCAR too but I can’t. Let’s have to vote done again, Yes ban smoking or No do not ban smoking, really simple, no more, no less.

By fathertime

November 27, 2007 7:40 PM | Link to this

I agree with lightningboy. Drop the stupid law and just rely on posted signs by the owners of the clubs, bars and other private businesses. Sure seems simple enough to me. Why we need Big Brother to tell us what’s good for us is beyond me. I realize some people are allergic to smoke, and if they can’t in to a place that allowed smoking I’m sorry. I want to race in NASCAR too but I can’t. Let’s have to vote done again, Yes ban smoking or No do not ban smoking, really simple.

By Granny

November 27, 2007 7:37 PM | Link to this

Remove all state taxes from ciggaretts. If cigarettes are such a killer why would states want to profit from the sale…..or is this a catch 22? Do you non-smokers profit by smokers taxes????? You want it all don’t you !!

By Jay

November 27, 2007 6:06 PM | Link to this

I understand that smoking ban and I agree and disagree with it in many ways. There was alot of confusion during that vote with two issues about the same thing on the ballot. It should go to a re-vote and the law rewritten to correct some of the issues that have been found. It should be a choice of the business owner to allow smoking. I don’t smoke and I don’t visit places that allow it, but that’s my decision not to patronize those places. Applebee’s was non-smoking prior to it. Yeah

By Elf

November 27, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this

BW3’s is not a family establishment. Please! It is a sportsBAR and meatmarket. You can see plenty of drunks and scantly clad people stumbling around any evening during the week.

You would be better off making popcorn and staying at home with your son to watch the game. Oh, and if you must have your wings try carryout.

I agree with LD. The bar atmosphere is quite different since the ban. I can understand how musicians would be affected by this issue.

By Bass Boy

November 27, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

LD, Maybe it is just you bro, my band is booked solid and I won’t play anywhere that allows smoking.

By smokemifyougottem

November 27, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

Randy said: “THE BIG PICTURE IS THERE ARE ALOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN HURT FINANCIALY FROM THIS SMOKING BAND.IF THE LAW STAYS IN EFFECT THEN YOU NON SMOKERS NEED TO STEP UP AND HELP SUPPORT THOSE THAT DEPEND ON TIPS AS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME.I WORK IN A WELL KNOWN RESTRAUNT IN THE CINCINNATI TRI STATE AREA AND IVE SEEN PERSONELLY HOW ITS EFFECTED OUR BUSSINESS.I HAVENT SEEN ANY NEW FACES.JUST A HINT TO ALL YOU NON SMOKERS!!!!!!!!!”

Randy, USE SPELL CHECK! What an uneducated hick!

By Kate

November 27, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

I agree that if they are going to enforce non smoking in public places, they need to make sure they are enforcing it with everyone. There are to many bars still getting away with it and they are robbing the other businesses that are following the ban. I am thankful for the non smoking ban and hope even smokers understand the benefit that lies underneath it. God Bless.

By LD

November 27, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

It absolutely needs to be modified. If I wasn’t playing for many various church services and holiday theme programs this Christmas season, I would have few gigs to no gigs on the calendar.

December used to be the LOADED season for musicians…..before the smoking ban, that is.

By LightningBoy

November 27, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

There is no RIGHT to “smoke free air”. There is no RIGHT to smoke. Both of these are personal preferences. If you don’t smoke, don’t patronize a business that allows it. VOTE WITH YOUR FEET. Appropriate signage is all that was required to resolve this issue. Completely seperate “Smoking Permitted”, and “No Smoking” venues. It’s the simplest, safest, least intrusive, least expensive, and a much less SOCIALIST approach. The SHS hysteria and HATE generated by it is frighteningly disturbing.

By Kyle

November 27, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

The ban was passed by a fair vote of the general population, it’s time to get over that fact. The only problem is it’s unfair to the law-abiding businesses that are following the ban that the places that are defying it are apparantly getting away with it virtually scott free. If you are going to have a law there needs to be a group of people funded to support it, and pentalties sufficient to encourage people to do so. Right now this law has neither and the businesses are figuring that out…

By jack

November 27, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

Also, private clubs should not be exempt. I’ve heard the tired arguement about vets being given cigs by the govt. but that doesn’t make it right. My father was one of those WWII vets and he died from his smoking habit. I belong to many of the clubs and there are lots of non-smokers that have a right to be there too.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 3:09 PM | Link to this

What dont you understand? why should someone being allergic have to go to a place that is not a place they enjoy just because its non smoking? What I want to know is why is it a big deal for smokers to limit their intake and not have to have a ciggarette lit up all the time? Go in, have fun, and step out to smoke. Not a big deal. I have been trying to get my point across all day but I have realized some people will not look at both sides. I am glad the ban happend and people need to stop w/it.

By terri

November 27, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

If a business owner has the right to run his/her business the way they choose then they can make thier own decisions on smoking in their establishment. If you make more money on smokers, so be it…if you make more from non-smokers, post signs. People who do not want smoke will go to the non-smoking facilities. Those with allergies, can go to non-smoking facilities. Business owners should NOT have their hands tied.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

SMOKERH8R! WAY TO GO! You know why smokers constantly contridict themselves? because they dont know what to say to make a valid point. At a bar without smoking, you can drink IF YOU CHOOSE…at a bar with smoking, YOU ARE SMOKING EVEN IF YOU DONT WANT TO. Smokers keep saying for non smokers to go elsewhere, WHERE THE HELL IS THERE TO GO?? U CANT EVEN GO BOWLING OR TO A SPORTS BAR OR ANYTHING WITHOUT SMOKE…WHY SHOULD U BE ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE AND NON SMOKERS NO WHERE BESIDES THIER OWN HOME!?

By jack

November 27, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this

The reason bars and restraunts are losing customers is they are going to places that are breaking the law by allowing smoking. The solution would be much stiffer penalties for first offenses. They should not be able to use ignorance of the law as a defense. This would also provide more funding for enforcement.

By SuzeQ

November 27, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

The bottom line is that the public voted and the ban won. The election was held in November during a general election not some obsure time as one person indicated. Out of 236,969 registered voters 117,078 voted on this issue that’s a 49% turnout (not bad by US standards). 59% of people supported the “Smoke free” ban and only 36% supported the “smoke less” ban. The issues weren’t hard to understand. If this upsets you educate yourself next time an issue is up for a vote and get out there.

By Debbie

November 27, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

People who don’t smoke then shouldn’t go to bars. Drinking and smoking go hand in hand. If you go somewhere where their is smoking then just leave. We should have a right to smoke if we want to. If you don’t smoke then good for you but I do and my rights are being taken away.

By SmokerH8r

November 27, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

THANK GOD for the smoking ban! Let the smoking freaks kill themselves within the confines of their homes and automobiles! Check out this lady below here—“if smoking in public is banned, drinking should be too”—what a freak of nature. Can your drinking a beer near me cause me to get cancer and die? NO, but your nasty cigarette CAN. HIP, HIP, HOORAY FOR THE SMOKING BAN!!!

By Lebanonmom

November 27, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

I am a smoker. What irritates me is everyone talking about how second hand smoke kills. I can’t go to a public place and smoke a cigarette, however anyone over the age of 21 can go get drunk in public then drive home and kill someone. If smoking in public places is illegal than drinking should be too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By simplesolution

November 27, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

Here it is….why can’t restaurant/bars post signs saying “enter at your own risk…smoking is permitted in this establishment.” Then non-smokers and smokers alike can chose where they want to go. Owners can chose who they cater too and everyone is happy. HMMMMM??!

By Jeff M

November 27, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

What I would like to know is why are all you pink lung health nuts going to bars any way? If your worried so much about your health what ya doin drinking? Don’t you know alcahol is bad for you. Also, why can’t a bussiness owner choose the clientel they cater to? If an owner wants to let people in who smoke then you just spend YOUR money elsewere and I will spend MINE there! So, why don’t you pinklungers just mind your own beezxaz!

By Jeff M

November 27, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

What I would like to know is what are all you pink lung health nuts going to bars any way? If you worried so much about your health what ya doin drinking? Don’t you know alcahol is bad for you. Also, why can’t a bussiness owner choose the clientel they cater to? If an owner wants to let people in who smoke then you just spend YOUR money elsewere and I will spend MINE there! So, why don’t you pinklungers just mind your own beezxaz!

By Marie

November 27, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

NICK, Listen, all your saying is true, but you have to think about it this way… We need all the factories that pollute the air, we DONT need People smoking where others are either allergic to it or whatever. Tobbacco is a choice, it’s plain and simple, if you do it, than you do it but have respect for those that dont.

By Mike

November 27, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Too bad the smoking bad isn’t being enforced here in Middletown. I’d love to know of one bar that I could go to that isn’t filled with smoke. As it is, I just stay home to avoid it. Having said that, I don’t believe the ban will hurt business at all, as people like me will start to go out.

By NICK

November 27, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

PEOPLE ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT CIGARETTE SMOKE THEY NEED TO SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT IT. THINK ABOUT THE STEEL FACTORIES LIKE AK STEEL AND ALL THE OTHER FACTORIES OUT THERE THEY POLLUTING THE AIR WE BREATH THE CARS AND TRUCKS WITH THE EXHUAST FUMES AND THE WATER WE DRINK I COULD KEEP GOING BUT YOU GET THE POINT THIS IS AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE I CANT TELL IF THEY OWN A BUSINESS IT SHOULD BE THE OWNERS SAY IF HE WANTS TO ALLOW SMOKING OR NOT

By Mike

November 27, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Randy, If you have to complain about tips being down, you probably should choose a different career path than the restaurant service industry. I still spend my money, and I love the love smoking ban. Maybe I should bring a dead skunk into the restaurant, just because I love the smell. Surely you wouldn’t be offended, as it would be my right to do so. You know smoking is bad for you, quit complaining and just quit.

By Mike Holly

November 27, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

I support the smoking ban and voted for it last year. People should not smoke in public and endanger the health and well-being of others.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

First to THE 16 YEAR OLD…Honey your 16 AND HAVE NO CLUE YET ABOUT REAL LIFE, WHY ARENT YOU IN SCHOOL? For SAM, most people dont take their kids out when they are sick but if they do, they didnt make the child sick, SMOKERS ARE MAKING PEOPLE SICK! All of you are being sooooo rediculous. For Goodness Sakes, IS BEING ABLE TO BUY A PACK OF CIGS AND SMOKE IN A BAR THIS IMPORTANT TO YOU? PEOPLE ARE ALLERGIC TO IT AND THEY SHOULDNT HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM EVERY ENTERTAINMENT PLACE BECAUSE OF YOU!

By blacklung

November 27, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Yes,smoking IS a RIGHT.It is in the Bible.Laminations 3:34 - Thou shalt have the right to smoke.It is also in the Constitution Amendment 13,look it up. GIVE ME A BREAK!There is no RIGHT to smoke. That’s like me saying it’s my RIGHT to smack smokers in the face.Then telling you that you know I am a smoker smacker so you just shouldn’t come around me if you don’t like it.It’s harmful to others so neither of those are a RIGHT.It’s my RIGHT to go have consensual sex with a prostitute. WRONG!!!

By minor tired of whinning

November 27, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

im tired of hearing adults complain about things they brought upon themselves. you voted for this ban and now you see what has happened. however i do believe the ban should be slightly modified.

By Randy

November 27, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

THE BIG PICTURE IS THERE ARE ALOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN HURT FINANCIALY FROM THIS SMOKING BAND.IF THE LAW STAYS IN EFFECT THEN YOU NON SMOKERS NEED TO STEP UP AND HELP SUPPORT THOSE THAT DEPEND ON TIPS AS A PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME.I WORK IN A WELL KNOWN RESTRAUNT IN THE CINCINNATI TRI STATE AREA AND IVE SEEN PERSONELLY HOW ITS EFFECTED OUR BUSSINESS.I HAVENT SEEN ANY NEW FACES.JUST A HINT TO ALL YOU NON SMOKERS!!!!!!!!!

By Bass Boy

November 27, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

I would offer this as a totally different perspective. I play in a band that performs weekly in bars. I have noticed at some places where the ban is in place that the day after a show I still have a voice left. Where smoking is going on I can’t speak for two days following the show. I think the ban is a good thing for me and my health and will now not preform any place that allows smoking to continue. It is the Law. You had your chance to vote and there are no do-overs. Deal with it.

By minor tired of whinning

November 27, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

about 3000 people die every year from second hand smoke but in one year 43,000 people died in a motor vehicle accident so are we going to tell people that they cant drive because it could be dangerous to their health? everyone is aware of the dangers presented when you get into a vehicle as well as they know the dangers of smoking and being around it but we are still given the choice to do both and except children who arent given a choice to do either. think about it

By Granny

November 27, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Eliminate all ciggarette taxes. Suddenly everyone will decide that hey, maybe the revenue was more important. Chaching!!

By minor tired of whinning

November 27, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

you all keep addressing the dangers to children and how worried you are for children. i’m a child. i’m 16 years old and i see the dangers and damages done by cigarette smoke, but still, i think individual establishments should have the rights to decide for themselves. we can’t argue about businesses being hurt if it doesn’t affect us. so let the business owners vote or choose for themselves and we can all just settle down a bit.

By joe

November 27, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

Chief………….I think your issues run deaper than the smoking ban and voting. So far you have been the only NASTY one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Sam

November 27, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

If you or your kids have a cold, the flu, pneumonia, chickenpox or any other airborne pathogen do you stay out of public establishments? I would rather smell smoke from the other side of a restaurant then have someone that is sick sitting next to my family. How much work is missed from the flu being passed around? Should the goverment make us wear masks and rubber gloves if we show signs of a cold? The flood gate is open…what’s next?

By chief

November 27, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

To all The idiot Nasty smokers. The goverment did not impose this ban on you it was voted in by people who pay attention to elections. If smokers had any common sense they all would of showed up at the polls instead of killing themselves or there family members by smoking!!! QUIT YOUR CRYING AND PAY MORE ATTENTION ELECTIONS…

By Carolyn

November 27, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

I am ELATED my RIGHT TO BREATH has finally been recognized. Smoke has kept me from enjoying things others did because of the damage it would do to me phyiscally. I am sure, my rights were more violated than those being ask to not smoke in a public place. What about the McDonald’s.. Now our children can go to a restaurant that is intended to draw them and be free of the damage to their lungs, heart, and brain cells second hand smoke has.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

I know I keep posting things, but I really want people to understand a persons point of view that is severely allergic to smoke. Patty-No one is taking smokers rights away, smokers are aloud to smoke in their homes and outside, by any means, Smokers are taking non-smokers rights away by telling them to leave if they dont want to breath it. How is that fair? We are not going up to you at the ZOO where you are smoking around our children and telling you to leave if you dont like it.

By preacher,franklin,ohio

November 27, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

no,leaveit,along,geter,for,jesus,god,bless,you,all.

By Rob

November 27, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

If smoking is so bad…why do they continue to sell ciggs…DUH!!! What GOVNT will do to make a buck…but then again we all know this.

Next you wont be able to get Home Owners Insurance if you smoke in your house.

By minor tired of whinning

November 27, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

my grandmother has owned a restaurant for over 20 years, her business hasn’t suffered but people do tend to get annoyed when you remind them of the smoking laws.if the place is a chain like wendy’s or BW3’s or anything like that, the top of the cooporation should decide and the small mom and pop kinds of places should have the right to decide for themselves but maybe set down some laws on cleanliness and exhaust in the building if they decide to allow smoking.

By preacher,franklin,ohio

November 27, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

no,not,at,all,keep,it,way,it,is,geter,doneforjesusgod,blessyouall.

By Marie

November 27, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

MY BAD, PATTY. NOT PATTIE.

By marie

November 27, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

PATTIE—Obviously you didnt read the other posts. How would you feel if you were severly allergic to smoke and you couldnt go ANYWHERE with your family or friends? Not even bowling? Why are people so selfish? It’s like, smokers CHOOSE to smoke, I didnt CHOOSE to be allergic, why should I be punished? IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO TAKE UR SMOKING OUTSIDE? MY GOODNESS. You say you grew up with it and your fine, HAVE YOUR LUNGS BEEN CHECKED? I AM GUESSING NOT. It is truley sad that u are so one sided.

By Patty

November 27, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

I think this is a sad time when people take away the rights of others. I have a simple solution, put is back up for a vote and put it in plain easy reading and see what happens then. If it is passed again, so be it. Are they scared to do this? We are living in a sick society. I was raised in a home of smokers and it didn’t kill anyone of us! I think this is a personel choice. If ya don’t want to go in a bar that allows smokers, stay out and go somewhere else. Plain and simple………

By Nonsmoker

November 27, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Where is the balance in this story? Patrick Carroll, president of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, has an obvious bias. Where is the other side of the story? Surely other businesses in the state have thrived despite the ban. Many other states like New York have done quite well after passing similar laws - and seen declines in lung disease. It’s against the law to shoot someone, why should it not be against the law to kill someone with cancer-causing chemicals in the air?