Smoking-violation fines go unpaid

Full story: DispatchPolitics

The Ohio Department of Health and the attorney general's office have collected only one-third of the $2.2 million in fines levied for facilities that have violated the state's smoking ban since enforcement began four years ago, according to state data.
Comments
21 - 40 of 51 Comments Last updated Oct 14, 2013
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22 May 27, 2011
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
You fanatics can be so down right comical with your extreme phobias!
You oxygen-starved smokers' brains can be so downright comical with your inability to recognize satire!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#23 May 27, 2011
Freedom wrote:
Your kind actually {the rest of the insanity removed for taste}
Will you just STOP with this incessant, boring, boorish behavior and CEASE shoe-horning in your boilerplate line of crud every time anyone posts ANYTHING that doesn't echo your OWN ludicrous beliefs?

Doesn't the looneybin you are in have any restrictions on internet access for dangerous whack jobs like you?

Get over your "poor little SHS is being attacked by some claim about lacking a threshold that was ALL cooked up as part of a conspiracy against smokers and I wanna be able to spew smoke around ANYbody else's kids and WAAAH" self.

If you have paid ANY attention at all, you know that it is ONE of the standard approaches to carcinogens generally. It is a VALID approach to carcinogens generally. It was NOT something pulled out of thin air and crafted to bully smokers over the harmful effects of their effluvium.

Again, I'll make with the explanation (standard biology, not my own thinking):

SINCE a single MOLECULE of a CARCINOGEN has the POTENTIAL to cause the cell mutation that leads to a cancer death, ONE MOLECULE of exposure is technically ENOUGH to cause death.

A SINGLE cell becoming cancerous results in death because it multiplies far beyond what it should. A SINGLE cell generates ENOUGH other cells to overwhelm the system.

EXPOSURE to ONE molecule is, therefore, not SAFE.

THEREFORE NO exposure represents a SAFE level of exposure to a CARCINOGEN.

SHS contains MANY human carcinogens. SHS is, ITSELF, a human carcinogen (according to virtually every major health organization in the WORLD--and NOT just the US EPA so DON'T go there {again})

SO:

THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND TOBACCO SMOKE.

Got it through your peabrain yet?

You're a BORE, boor.

“I am quiet until I'm not.”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#24 May 27, 2011
Tracie D BABY wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would we do that? If you (the hitler lover) were drinking a pop filled with cooking oil and salt...would it affect my health??
NO?!! Then go for it!
Again, I know you're too stupid to realize what I'm pointing out here. That's kind of the reason why we are FORCED to FORCE people like you out of public view- you're too stupid to realize YOUR FILTHY ADDICTION is hurting/killing OTHER PEOPLE.
The bans were never meant to protect scum like you- you can still kill yourself if you want!(Just not around other people)
Be a good little hitler lover now and give me a good cry!!
A little over the top? I would say YES.
When you begin to force people to bend to your will, and do it thru legislation you are treading on a slippery slope.

For instance we know that CELL PHONES are a distraction in a moving vehicle, heavens let's make sure that we have our police out looking for violators and the fines should be about $1000.00 and two weeks of community service. THERE YOU GO!

Alcohol and driving don't mix, but the State of Ohio is in the liquor business and you can get a fill up and a 12 pack at any gas station, or if you prefer wine, that's also available.

I don't smoke, however in an open air arena I don't see the harm. If you knowingly walk into a bar or restaurant that says WE ARE A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT, don't complain about the smoke.

Driving your point home at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any more correct.

Whenever we tread on someone's right to live their life the way they choose we are a little less free.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#25 May 27, 2011
Freedom wrote:
<quoted text>
When you are forced to harrass your customer base...of course it is bad for business you dolt.
You health
Okay, now, take a deeeep breath--NO!--NOT THROUGH A CIGARETTE!

Oh, well, I guess I should know better. Whatever.

Now, while you add another layer of scum to your monitor, please take a shot at explaining how the fact that she doesn't serve food or that her place excludes people under twenty-one makes her harrass [sic] her customer base.

Oh, and PLEASE try to do it without paragraph after paragraph of boilerplate abusiveness. That is to say, "Don't be a bore, boor."
Dennis mixes booze w pill

Loveland, OH

#26 May 27, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
<quoted text>Bull$hitski snipped
Dennis, you poor idiot, you mix your meds with wine. That's dangerous!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#27 May 27, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
<quoted text>
A little over the top? I would say YES.
When you begin to force people to bend to your will, and do it thru legislation you are treading on a slippery slope.
How about when you force people to bend to your own will by the expedient of lighting up around them? Oh, they don't have the RIGHT to be nonsmokers if you are around?

It's clear enough to me just which situation involves using FORCE, even if that force is so gentle as the striking of a match or the exhalation of a breath or holding a bunch of burning toxic leaves close to your nose.

Now, if you are ABOUT to light up and someone blasts you with the full force of a firehose, knocking you over and several yards away, then THAT is using force to bend you to their will, since it effectively stops you from subjecting them to SHS and involves PHYSICAL action.

Legislation is the use of persuasion.

Stop whining.

“I am quiet until I'm not.”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#28 May 28, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
How about when you force people to bend to your own will by the expedient of lighting up around them? Oh, they don't have the RIGHT to be nonsmokers if you are around?
It's clear enough to me just which situation involves using FORCE, even if that force is so gentle as the striking of a match or the exhalation of a breath or holding a bunch of burning toxic leaves close to your nose.
Now, if you are ABOUT to light up and someone blasts you with the full force of a firehose, knocking you over and several yards away, then THAT is using force to bend you to their will, since it effectively stops you from subjecting them to SHS and involves PHYSICAL action.
Legislation is the use of persuasion.
Stop whining.
I guess we will agree to disagree. Legislation is hardly the use of persuasion, it is THE LAW. That would make anyone disobeying the law a criminal. Fines and Court come with this method of persuasion.
And yet you didn't speak to my problems with alcohol or cell phones.

It's a pretty big world and lots of wide open spaces. If someone lights a cigarette in Centerville and I'm in Oakwood I don't feel that I'm in danger. If the establishment I walk into CLEARLY ADVERTISES THAT THEY OFFER A SMOKING ENVIRONMENT, and I insist on going in, it would be stupid of me to complain about the smoke.
It should be the owners right to establish boundaries, after all, the owner stands to loose or gain business depending on what his customer base is looking for.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#29 May 28, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess we will agree to disagree. Legislation is hardly the use of persuasion, it is THE LAW. That would make anyone disobeying the law a criminal. Fines and Court come with this method of persuasion.
True, to an extent. However, in order for a law to be legislated, people MUST first be persuaded, and in large enough numbers to result in action. It is the act of a large number of people coming to agreement.

A SMOKER, on the other hand, routinely acts AS ONE PERSON to impact the choices of everyone around.

A SMOKER acts in a manner that permits no dissenting viewpoint. A SMOKER, by engaging in the activity DEFINING a SMOKER, FORCES everyone around them to breathe toxic fumes.

There is NEVER any opportunity for a group decision, no one else matters, it is just ONE person dictatorially creating the "rule".

THAT is using FORCE.

THAT is denying the rights of others.
ponytailGRL wrote:
And yet you didn't speak to my problems with alcohol or cell phones.
I am sorry that you have a problem with alcohol. There is counseling available.

I am likewise sorry that you have a problem with cell phones. By the way, do you know that it is recommended that you use the speaker phone function and, otherwise, only put the phone up to your head when the connection has been made, because of the harm that cell phones can do?

HOWEVER, this is neither the ALCOHOL forum nor the CELL PHONE forum. It is the SMOKING forum. I reserve the RIGHT to address SMOKING here even to the exclusion of addressing ALCOHOL and CELL PHONES.
ponytailGRL wrote:
If the establishment I walk into CLEARLY ADVERTISES THAT THEY OFFER A SMOKING ENVIRONMENT, and I insist on going in, it would be stupid of me to complain about the smoke.
It should be the owners right to establish boundaries, after all, the owner stands to loose or gain business depending on what his customer base is looking for.
If it is well-known that smoking is the most preventable cause of death and serious disease in the country, it would be stupid to smoke.

If it is well-known that secondhand smoke is ALSO very high up on the list of preventable causes of death and serious disease, it would be heartless to smoke around other people.

If it is well-known that smoking is largely the result of nicotine addiction--a disease in itself--it would be stupid of a community to endorse the disease by catering to the addicts.

If it is well-known that smoking is largely the result of nicotine addiction, that it destroys the smoker and those around the smoker, that it creates expense for proprietors who clean their establishments after smokers have been there and unhealthy, unsanitary conditions for those who don't, it would be stupid AND heartless to permit smoking in an establishment.

If all these things are well-known, it would be stupid of a community to PERMIT establishments to foster these harms to the community solely so that the proprietors would not have to provide a service sufficiently valued that the customers could be trusted to step outside for a smoke without walking away.

And you think stupidity is an argument for YOUR side of the issue?

How stupid is THAT?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#30 May 28, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
Driving your point home at the top of your lungs doesn't make it any more correct.
Driving your point home at the top of everyone elses lungs makes it INcorrect. That's the issue.
ponytailGRL wrote:
Whenever we tread on someone's right to live their life the way they choose we are a little less free.
Tell that to the guy who lights up in public.

Tell that to the tobacco execs who opted to maximize the addictive potential of the nicotine in their products.
just candid

AOL

#31 May 28, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Driving your point home at the top of everyone elses lungs makes it INcorrect. That's the issue.
<quoted text>
Tell that to the guy who lights up in public.
Tell that to the tobacco execs who opted to maximize the addictive potential of the nicotine in their products.
Try all tobacco ecs for mass murder and other crimes against humanity, then hang them We shoulden't let drug cos off the hook either as they often put $$$$ way above human life. Prime example is Pfizer with Chantix and their cover-up of data that shows it is very dangerois for people to use and has caused more deaths then they admitted to.
PS/ Let the lawyers feeding frenzy begin.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#32 May 28, 2011
just candid wrote:
Prime example is Pfizer with Chantix and their cover-up of data that shows it is very dangerois for people to use and has caused more deaths then they admitted to.
In light of conflicting studies and the comparatively small amount of data available, I think I would say "suggests" rather than "shows" at this point.
just candid

AOL

#33 May 28, 2011
New evidence shows they(Pfizer) covered up a lot of data showing the danger of using it. ouytight lide by omision of that data.
just candid

AOL

#34 May 28, 2011
* falshood and lies

“I am quiet until I'm not.”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#35 May 28, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
True, to an extent..
And you think stupidity is an argument for YOUR side of the issue?
How stupid is THAT?
Your opinion that smoking kills more people than alcohol is going to be difficult to prove.
A drinker gets behind the wheel of their car, figures that they are "alright to drive" and kills a family of four minding their own business.
A smoker gets behind the wheel of their car, drives home, has a 50/50 chance of getting lung cancer.

I'd rather face the smoker at 2:00am in the morning coming my way.

But then we tried Prohibition and it really didn't work very well. It's difficult to legislate morality.

AGAIN---> IF THE BAR OR RESTAURANT IS CLEARLY MARKED AS A "SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT" WHETHER YOU ENTER OR NOT IS YOUR CHOICE.

YOU ACT AS IF EVERY NON-SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT IS GIVEN A CHOICE THEY WOULD ALL ALLOW SMOKING. YOU DON'T SEE A PLACE FOR NON-SMOKING RESTAURANTS AND BARS?

To establish a law because some smokers are not courteous is heavy handed. But that's what we did. Of course the law was not really written when we voted on it. Kind of reminds me of Obama Care.
Did we really intend to put small businesses out of business? I don't think so. It just turned out that way.

If I had a good friend that smoked, I would not throw away the friendship. I can make it clear that if you come to where I live, there is no smoking, but if I come to where they live, I abide by their rules.

Either way one thing is sure, no one is enforcing the non-smoking law.
Fines are being ignored and the clientèle seems to be doing just fine.

Business will find a way.

Stupidity is to not learn from the past.

Again the comparison to Prohibition is a good one.
But it did make a lot of people very wealthy.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#36 May 28, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion that smoking kills more people than alcohol is going to be difficult to prove.
It is going to be difficult to prove that it is "my opinion" when it is stated by virtually every public health organization in the world that smoking is the #1 preventable cause of death.

That said, don't go off pretending that I endorse alcohol. I believe, in fact, that taking both alcohol and tobacco out of the legal marketplace would, over a generation or two, be the most effective step our country (or the world, come to that, though other problems overshadow these in some places) could take to salvage both the public health and the economy.

The social value of removing all the heartache caused by fetal alcohol syndrome alone would be immense.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#37 May 28, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
Again the comparison to Prohibition is a good one.
But it did make a lot of people very wealthy.
Any comparison to prohibition is Bushlit--whether on the severity issue, the motivation issue, or the enforcement issue.

As to your implication that it is simply discourtesy or morality that justifies REGULATION of a behavior that causes sickness and death among those exposed to the behavior, I think you are a bit misguided.

Addictive behavior is not something that can be legislated into courtesy. Efforts to legislate it into CONFINEMENT in order to reduce the harm are under way, and pharmacological efforts to reduce the instance of addiction are also under way.

Big difference.

“I am quiet until I'm not.”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#38 May 28, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Any comparison to prohibition is Bushlit--whether on the severity issue, the motivation issue, or the enforcement issue.
As to your implication that it is simply discourtesy or morality that justifies REGULATION of a behavior that causes sickness and death among those exposed to the behavior, I think you are a bit misguided.
Addictive behavior is not something that can be legislated into courtesy. Efforts to legislate it into CONFINEMENT in order to reduce the harm are under way, and pharmacological efforts to reduce the instance of addiction are also under way.
Big difference.
Well of course opinions can vary. I think Alcohol Abuse accounts for a large amount of misery. Spousal abuse, child abuse, traffic accidents causing the death of innocents or the death the abuser. Of course alcohol can be addictive, especially if you have an addictive personality.

You seem intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why should all business establishments be forced to be smoke free? Can't adult's exercise a little responsibility? Sure they can, and most of them can read. SMOKE FREE------NON SMOKING
Seems like anyone could tell the difference.

You are starting to sound like the ACLU. If one person finds fault with a Christian Symbol on a public building that Symbol must be taken down.
Sounds just plain stupid to me. But as I said, opinions can vary.

So because we have the brains of livestock the Government must protect us, we are to brainless to read signs or think for ourselves, it all must be done for us.

I will continue to visit my friends that smoke, the whole second hand smoke thing is kind of iffy in my opinion. Proximity probably enters into the picture.

And as I said, no one is really paying the fines or paying much attention to the law. So it's another one on the books that will cost too much to enforce.

I think we may have come to the end of this discussion.

I doubt you will change my mind, I treasure my freedoms too much. Even if it's one I don't use, it's a bad idea to allow the Government to take it away. Give them an inch.....

I doubt that I will change your opinion.

Breathe deep, the Law is in effect and all is right with the world.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#39 May 28, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
<quoted text>
Well of course opinions can vary. I think Alcohol Abuse accounts for a large amount of misery. Spousal abuse, child abuse, traffic accidents causing the death of innocents or the death the abuser. Of course alcohol can be addictive, especially if you have an addictive personality.
All readily stipulated. I fail to see the relevance, however.
ponytailGRL wrote:
You seem intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why should all business establishments be forced to be smoke free? Can't adult's exercise a little responsibility? Sure they can, and most of them can read. SMOKE FREE------NON SMOKING
Seems like anyone could tell the difference.
You would think so--unless you take into account the psychological component of the pathology called "addiction". Look around anywhere there are nonsmoking areas or designated smoking areas. It will take no great amount of searching to find people standing RIGHT next to "no smoking" signs and puffing away. If challenged, they will as often as not argue anything from your personal right to say anything the right of the community to tell them to do to the basic "question" of whether smoking actually does any HARM--continuing to smoke the whole time.
ponytailGRL wrote:
You are starting to sound like the ACLU.
HARDLY!! The ACLU has long ago been caught taking money from tobacco companies in a clearly defined quid pro quo, and since beginning to receive HUGE "donations" they have completely reversed their original position and become staunch allies of Big Tobacco.

Look, if you check out my posts you will find that I support treating addiction as a goal, and restricting smoking as a means of limiting the harm that addiction causes in the meantime. Adequate treatment of nicotine addiction will make the question of regulation moot. No one will WANT to smoke, and it won't MATTER whether it is PERMITTED or not.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#40 May 28, 2011
ponytailGRL wrote:
I will continue to visit my friends that smoke,
Are they good enough friends for you to maintain a stance urging them to fight the addiction, or are you a good enough friend to do so regardless?
ponytailGRL wrote:
the whole second hand smoke thing is kind of iffy in my opinion.
Your opinion there puts you way out on the fringe. In Europe, a pair of bank managers were convicted of criminal manslaughter for refusing to transfer a clerk to a nonsmoking office. The woman had a severe asthma problem, and the bank was receiving subsidies for hiring her because of her disability. Whatever question you may raise about the fairness of blaming them, there was NO question that the SHS was the cause of her death. Nor is she the only one whose death has been found by courts to be the result of SHS exposure. And that is just the ACUTE effects.

I'm not going off into the whole litany of problems, but there is clearly NO justification for saying that "the whole second hand smoke thing" is questionable.
ponytailGRL wrote:
And as I said, no one is really paying the fines or paying much attention to the law. So it's another one on the books that will cost too much to enforce.
I believe the article mentioned that some have paid, some have been closed until they DO pay, and some are embroiled in court cases.
ponytailGRL wrote:
.
I doubt you will change my mind, I treasure my freedoms too much.
And treasuring freedom is why you support enabling your friends' abdication of their freedom to the tyranny of addiction? Help them regain their freedom, if it means so much to you!
masterofconcrete pourers

Loveland, OH

#41 May 28, 2011
Hey HUGHY, thought I'd clue you in

Ponytailgrl is aka John the Toilet everyday is a Holiday. The same one that was thrice convicted for stealing. The same one who stalks people on here. The same one that is unemployed. The same one that lives off his dad

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 1 hr woo-boy 30,529
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 2 hr Way To Go Boro 31,199
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 hr see the light 18,872
This is why I am an Ann Fan! 4 hr Ann Fan 3
looking for a text buddy (Nov '12) 11 hr bill 44
Aaron fannigan 23 hr he aint all into you 2
Found dog! (Dec '13) Wed Hero Officer Wilson 7
•••
•••
•••

Springboro Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Springboro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Springboro News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Springboro
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••