Local Bar Sued Over Smoking Ban

Local Bar Sued Over Smoking Ban

There are 1098 comments on the WJW Fox 8 Cleveland story from Aug 24, 2010, titled Local Bar Sued Over Smoking Ban. In it, WJW Fox 8 Cleveland reports that:

For the first time, a Cuyahoga County bar is being taken to court in connection with Ohio's smoking ban.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WJW Fox 8 Cleveland.

First Prev
of 55
Next Last
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1123 Dec 4, 2011
theotherredneck wrote:
Thanks for the new petty and insulting moniker.
You mean "drug addict"? That is neither new, nor insulting. It is simply a descriptive phrase, and a medically accurate one, by and large. The tobacco company execs made no bones about it in their internal documents--even during the last few decades of the time they were using public scoffing at the notion to help them foster the pandemic level of addiction that makes their industry not only possible but extremely profitable.

Addiction is what they were marketing, and there is documentation that they KNEW and accepted that smoking caused so many problems that it was on the way out--meaning they needed to find some other addictive substance to market (probably containing nicotine). Strange how many new nicotine delivery systems have appeared in the last decade or two, isn't it? Sticks, lozenges, even the e-cigarette. And then there is Reynolds's acquisition of NicoNovum--a European counterpart for Nicorette. They are trying to get that line of products through FDA approval. If they succeed, they will be able to profit from both sides when they apply the leverage they gained through decades of fraud and criminal marketing activities plus the slick public-opinion-shapers they've cultivated to keep public perception of "smoking cessation" focused on NRTs. After all, the longer they can stall what is clearly coming, the more billions they can pull out of the pockets of their customers--because those customers are compliant DRUG ADDICTS.

Sorry if your need for denial makes you see that perfectly applicable term as "insulting".
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1124 Dec 4, 2011
theotherredneck wrote:
In other words, true "neighborhood" bars in PA are one of the last places on earth where I can smoke.
Baloney. The vast majority of the country is unaffected by current smoking regulations. Walk down the street of almost any fair-sized city and you will see butts lying everywhere. More direct evidence is easy to find, too, and the effluvium that makes up part of that evidence is actually very difficult to avoid.

Yes, a growing number of jurisdictions are saying that you must not light up in parks, playgrounds and the like, and some cities have even prohibited smoking in multi-family housing situations, because the smoke affects everyone else in those buildings.

Still, "one of the last places on earth"? How embarrassing for you to portray yourself as such an idiot.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1125 Dec 4, 2011
theotherredneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And what's China's smoking policy? Do they let people smoke in bars?
THAT would be pretty sad! China, the best modern example of an oppressive government, allowing their citizens more freedom of choice than the U.S.A, which is supposed to be the beacon of liberty.
Actually, even in China, where the government has had a virtual monopoly on tobacco sales, there are efforts to curb public smoking. This is the same country where, a decade or two back, fertilizer manufacturing was causing such pollution that the communities downstream rejoiced when a pregnancy went full-term and resulted in a live birth--even though the children were inevitably malformed. The people living in those villages were grateful that there was a source of employment!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1126 Dec 4, 2011
theotherredneck wrote:
<quoted text>
According to me too. I also contend that not one of the 50 states makes any distinction between right/wrong and legal/illegal.
Do you imagine you've cleverly guided him into a logical corner by forcing him to admit that?
Your could use your same argument to defend all kinds of oppressive laws. Laws like state sanctioned slavery, and racial segregation. Or the laws that denied woman the right to vote in elections.
Who's side would you have been on in the struggle to end slavery? I can hear you now:"Sorry black guy, the law says I own you, therefor all your nonsense about right and wrong is irrelevant. Now pick my cotton!"
The bottom line is, in this battle between freedom and oppression, you're an the side of the oppressors. Pointing out the fact that it's legal oppression, doesn't change that fact.
Your argument here assumes that the nonsmoker who couldn't go anywhere in public without being subjected to the toxic effluvium from your kind's indulgence of their drug addiction was somehow NOT the victim of oppression. Smoking bans are the beginning of an effort to END that oppression. The economic pressures against abolition at least didn't field the resistance fostered by pandemic drug addiction.

The tobacco industry thrived for decades by keeping the general public ignorant of the true level of harm their product was doing, and in recent decades it has thrived by using slick PR and legal staff (bolstered by any credibility they could buy in the form of greedy scientists' signatures) to keep the public confused and to support the self-blinding denial of their customer base of DRUG ADDICTS.

Again, we are fighting that oppression. Sorry for your luck.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1127 Dec 4, 2011
awww wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are?
You must think so, or you wouldn't have persistently asked.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1128 Dec 4, 2011
theotherredneck wrote:
Government does have power to regulate business. The agency in charge of workplace safety is called OSHA. OSHA has addressed the issue of second hand smoke.
Do we REALLY need to eat your lunch over OSHA on EVERY thread on the forum?

OSHA has said, "leave it to the states and local jurisdictions. They are on track."

OSHA has said, "We are here to deal with issues that are specifically job-related, and SHS is not."

OSHA has said, "Congress should enact legislation to address this major health hazard because anything coming from OSHA would only be able to protect workers."

OSHA has said, "Cancer and heart disease are very real risks posed to workers chronically exposed to SHS in the workplace."

OSHA has said, "We only have PELs for a small subset of the chemical compounds in SHS and, even if we had standards for ALL of them, we believe there may be a synergistic effect that creates a hazard greater than the sum of the harms of the parts so that our approach would be inapplicable to SHS."

OSHA has said, "If you want good information on SHS, look to the EPA."

When you persist in ignoring all of that and proclaiming that OSHA somehow denies that SHS causes harm, it is clear that you are driven by the denial inherent in your DRUG ADDICTION.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1129 Dec 4, 2011
Newport Chatter wrote:
I don't claim to be smart but I am smart enough and educated enough to know that the only people QUALIFIED to interpret the words of our founders as they apply today, are members of the supreme court. However, I would take the views of an historian or legal professor from any major university very seriously.
Sorry, but I have to take issue here. Being on the Supreme Court does not automatically confer qualification, and NOT being on the Supreme Court does not automatically PRECLUDE qualification. I mean, hey, they appointed George W., for cryin' out loud!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1130 Dec 4, 2011
awww wrote:
you are a slave to the elitest point of view.
As opposed to nicotine addiction?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1131 Dec 4, 2011
theotherredneck wrote:
JUST......ADMIT......YOU...... ..DON'T........LIKE.....TO.... .....SMELL.........CIGARETTE.. ........SMOKE! Damn it!
Hey, don't burst a gasket. Of course I don't like to smell cigarette smoke. That, however, does not mean that there are not a multitude of other, far more important, reasons for regulating smoking in public places and reducing the impact public smoking has on smokers and nonsmokers alike.

Disliking the taste of bitter almonds does not negate the concern that cyanide could kill you.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1132 Dec 4, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we REALLY need to eat your lunch over OSHA on EVERY thread on the forum?
OSHA has said, "leave it to the states and local jurisdictions. They are on track."
OSHA has said, "We are here to deal with issues that are specifically job-related, and SHS is not."
OSHA has said, "Congress should enact legislation to address this major health hazard because anything coming from OSHA would only be able to protect workers."
OSHA has said, "Cancer and heart disease are very real risks posed to workers chronically exposed to SHS in the workplace."
OSHA has said, "We only have PELs for a small subset of the chemical compounds in SHS and, even if we had standards for ALL of them, we believe there may be a synergistic effect that creates a hazard greater than the sum of the harms of the parts so that our approach would be inapplicable to SHS."
OSHA has said, "If you want good information on SHS, look to the EPA."
When you persist in ignoring all of that and proclaiming that OSHA somehow denies that SHS causes harm, it is clear that you are driven by the denial inherent in your DRUG ADDICTION.
Oh, sorry, "otherredneck". I hadn't noticed this thread for a long time, and failed to realize how long ago you had posted the erroneous, deluded about OSHA on this thread.
smokinmama2000

Elyria, OH

#1133 Dec 5, 2011
Well, I have an idia. How about the people of OHIO PUT IT BACK ON THE BALLOT to vote again,since they were lied to about the wording of a smoking ban?Clubs(Eagles,VFW,Moose,ect .)The ban laws stated that IF a BAR served food,it could not allow smoking. Well, state law ALSO says all bars have to provide food to its coustermers, that includes small bags of potatoe chips,ect.It does NOT say a bar has to have a kitchen to COOK food! Also, I have another idia, IF you don't want to be around smokers, DON'T go to the bars that allow smoking!!Non smokers can open their own bars for non smoking people.That way everyone is happy.
smokinmama2000

Elyria, OH

#1134 Dec 5, 2011
theotherredneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And what's China's smoking policy? Do they let people smoke in bars?
THAT would be pretty sad! China, the best modern example of an oppressive government, allowing their citizens more freedom of choice than the U.S.A, which is supposed to be the beacon of liberty.
WE DO NOT LIVE IN CHINA!!!!!!!!!!
clueless

Cleveland, OH

#1135 Dec 5, 2011
I have some major GAS, if you don't like to smell that i suppose that they will make a law and tell me I have to stand outside when i Pass. Tell BIG BROTHER to stay the hell out of everyone's life's.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1136 Dec 5, 2011
smokinmama2000 wrote:
Well, I have an idia. How about the people of OHIO PUT IT BACK ON THE BALLOT to vote again,since they were lied to about the wording of a smoking ban?
Well, I have an idea. Why don't you take that one to the people of Ohio and see if there are enough people who think it is worth squandering the time, money, and effort? How about you just do a survey and see if the people of Ohio are, by and large, willing to put up with all the denialist smokers' rights crap being pushed in their faces all over again just because you and yours don't like the outcome of the vote?

How about, instead, the STATE of Ohio takes the money it would cost to go through all that again and puts it into funding smoking cessation/prevention efforts to reduce the number of nicotine addicts so that fewer people will be bothered by the law and more of the smokers who wish they weren't can be made happier?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1137 Dec 5, 2011
smokinmama2000 wrote:
<quoted text>WE DO NOT LIVE IN CHINA!!!!!!!!!!
This is the "world wide web".
Even More Freedom

Valley City, OH

#1138 Dec 6, 2011
Just strip the owner of his liquor license if he can not operate the establishment within the law. Done. Problem solved. Then all you whiners will still be outside by the dumpster.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#1139 Dec 6, 2011
Even More Freedom wrote:
Just strip the owner of his liquor license if he can not operate the establishment within the law. Done. Problem solved. Then all you whiners will still be outside by the dumpster.
But by the dumpster of a classier joint.
lilwolf386

Bellevue, OH

#1140 Sep 12, 2013
so, why not ban everything that has been "known" to cause cancer. Cell phones, pesticides, phenylalanine, fluoride (just to name a few) it's all a guess. What about babies born with cancer? What causes that? and that could be banned how?(think China and the baby limit)...last I checked "freedom of speech" was still legal - kinda...just voicing my opinion

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 55
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbia Station Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lights on Saddlebrook Ln 16 hr Neighbor 1
Review: Patient First - John Kavlich MD (May '09) Oct '16 Chrissy 65
The Harell Clan - Drug Dealers all week - Open ... (May '15) Oct '16 Middie 5
News Obituaries 10/26/11 (Nov '11) Oct '16 Roger Terri 47
News Pence to campaign in Rossford on Friday Oct '16 Carol Cervenec 1
white trash in columbia station= midview area (Jan '14) Mar '16 MIDVIEW MIDDIE 1974 3
Cowardly Thomas Truelson (Mar '13) Mar '15 Secrets 3

Columbia Station Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbia Station Mortgages