Shifty headline

Issue to allow smoking in some places makes ballot
There's the headline.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — An issue that would ban smoking in most public buildings but allow it in bars, parts of restaurants and some other places, has enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 ballot, elections officials said Wednesday.
There's the first paragraph.

Think somebody at AP has an agenda? Would they mind explaining where people could smoke under the SmokeFree Ohio proposal that they can not smoke in NOW?

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/jeffrey.quick/mt-tb.cgi/9951

Property, smoke, and mirrors
Excerpt: Joshua Terschek, in a comment about my piece on Ohio tobacco initiatives: Well, it is clearly your belief that "the...
Weblog: The Quick and the dead
Tracked: September 29, 2006 04:07 PM

Comments

gravatar

Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: September 28, 2006 10:26 AM

I am confused by your last sentence.

A rival group, SmokeFreeOhio, has been collecting signatures for a ballot issue that would ban smoking in nearly all buildings outside of the home. Petitions from the group, backed by the American Cancer Society, fell short by 23,270 signatures. SmokeFreeOhio co-chair Tracy Sabetta said Wednesday that it planned to turn in about twice the number needed by Friday.

SmokeFree Ohio would ban smoking everywhere except the home, outside (probably with some restrictions like those around UH), and automobiles.

SmokeLess Ohio maintains the status quo here in Cleveland (smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc), but would overturn descisions by cities (such as Toledo) to disallow smoking in bars and restaurants.

gravatar

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: September 29, 2006 09:10 AM

The pre-emption element of the SmokeLess Ohio proposal might increase freedom in certain beknighted jurisdictions...at the cost of less freedom elsewhere. It's rotten ON PRINCIPLE; the law has no right to tell private property owners what to do with their property. If governments want to ban smoking in their buildings, fine; it's THEIR building (not "the people's" or some other abstraction). To support this because it is less obscene than the competing initiative is silly; I say vote NO on them both, and vote NO on any politician with the gall to run my property.

gravatar

Posted by: Joshua Terchek
Posted on: September 29, 2006 03:00 PM

Well, it is clearly your belief that "the law has no right to tell private property owners what do with their property."

This view is clearly not shared by everyone.

In fact, I (and probably many others) believe great progress has been made by made through the law telling private property owners what they can and can't do with their property. I am quite happy things like the FDA and OSHA exist insuring my food meets standards and my workplace is safe. Neither proposal is banning smoking everywhere...just in certain places. Also, I think few would argue that smoking is a fundamental right.

As someone who both works in the a health related field and is married to a former waitress I will be voting yes to SmokeFree Ohio.

gravatar

Posted by: jcj
Posted on: January 8, 2007 01:38 PM

what about alcohol ? olive garden, applebees pushesit i'd rather be burnt with a cigarette than ran over by a drunk driver cigarettes hurt but not worse than drinking ohio is in control !!! maybe strickland will do a better job than taft did thanks..judy

Post a comment





If you have entered an email address in the box, clicking this checkbox will subscribe your email address to this entry so that you are notified if any updates or additional comments occur on the entry.