Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme...

Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court

There are 21278 comments on the Business First of Columbus story from Apr 8, 2011, titled Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court. In it, Business First of Columbus reports that:

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a Columbus-based case that challenges the constitutionality of the state's indoor smoking ban, the Dayton Daily News reports .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Business First of Columbus.

The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

#22863 Apr 20, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. 25% of fire deaths are attributable to smoking. But that's a hazard mostly to the smoker (and their family.) The non-smoker is not at risk from that aspect of smoking. SHS gets the non-smoker's attention because it puts THEM (and their family) at risk.(At least that's what all of the US Surgeons General since 1964 say. I know there are some folks here that still dispute the point.)
What about a fire in an apartment building or a hotel? A fire in such a place caused by a smoker could cause the death of many non-smokers.
No Smoking Sign

Fort Collins, CO

#22864 Apr 20, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>What about a fire in an apartment building or a hotel? A fire in such a place caused by a smoker could cause the death of many non-smokers.
Don't you know? it's the non-smokers fault for entering the premises where smokers are enjoying a legal product on their personal private property!!! Can't they read the signs? geez........
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

#22865 Apr 20, 2012
No Smoking Sign wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you know? it's the non-smokers fault for entering the premises where smokers are enjoying a legal product on their personal private property!!! Can't they read the signs? geez........
Smokers have a responsibility to be careful so that their smoking does not cause a fire. Landlords have a responsibility to ventilate and fireproof their buildings properly, so that both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy their lifestyles without bothering each other.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22866 Apr 20, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>Smokers have a responsibility to be careful so that their smoking does not cause a fire. Landlords have a responsibility to ventilate and fireproof their buildings properly, so that both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy their lifestyles without bothering each other.
Landlords who are not owners arguably have the responsibility for making apartment buildings smoke-free, to maximize profitability and minimize chance of fires (for the owners), and prevent careless smokers from impacting the lives of tenants.

A smoker in an apartment building is going to step out into the common hallway to leave or step in from it on coming home. At the very least, smoke from inside the apartment gets into the hallway. Others using the hallway have to walk through that and/or open the doors to their own homes when coming or going, letting the smoke enter there.

Few apartment buildings have hermetically sealed units. Smoke spreads from one unit to another by a number of different pathways. If owners have to do expensive and extensive remodeling to make nonsmokers' units anywhere close to smoke-free when they share walls and/or halls with smokers' units--AND they can save a few hundred dollars a pop on preparing apartments for new tenants by NOT having smokers--what do you suppose the reasonable step would be?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22867 Apr 20, 2012

“Pay Attention”

Since: Dec 06

Cincinnati

#22868 Apr 20, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Landlords who are not owners arguably have the responsibility for making apartment buildings smoke-free, to maximize profitability and minimize chance of fires (for the owners), and prevent careless smokers from impacting the lives of tenants.
A smoker in an apartment building is going to step out into the common hallway to leave or step in from it on coming home. At the very least, smoke from inside the apartment gets into the hallway. Others using the hallway have to walk through that and/or open the doors to their own homes when coming or going, letting the smoke enter there.
Few apartment buildings have hermetically sealed units. Smoke spreads from one unit to another by a number of different pathways. If owners have to do expensive and extensive remodeling to make nonsmokers' units anywhere close to smoke-free when they share walls and/or halls with smokers' units--AND they can save a few hundred dollars a pop on preparing apartments for new tenants by NOT having smokers--what do you suppose the reasonable step would be?
<><><>< ><><>
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
"Landlords who are not owners".
How is that possible? Does the word Oxymoron come to mind?
No Smoking Sign

Littleton, CO

#22869 Apr 20, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>Smokers have a responsibility to be careful so that their smoking does not cause a fire. Landlords have a responsibility to ventilate and fireproof their buildings properly, so that both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy their lifestyles without bothering each other.
being on the fence is a safe place to be - but it doesn't serve any purpose. You can't be all things to all people - but I appreciate your effort.
Unfortunately, responsibility is not a concept widely practiced by any group. You can say "be careful" and stuff still happens. And landlords are not famously known for their willingness to act in the best interests of their tenants and will always take the road that benefits their bottom dollar. I don't see how smokers and non-smokers can ever accept or understand each others' points of view. Smokers think it's their god-given right to light up any time and any place they choose and non-smokers believe they shouldn't be subjected to someone else's habit, be it unhealthy, unpleasant or whatever the root of their distaste and discomfort.

the best solution I can see is colonization of another life sustainable planet and one group or the other moves there - of course, by the time they finish fighting over who goes where, all the smokers will have died off and there won't be any need for bans.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

#22870 Apr 20, 2012
No Smoking Sign wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see how smokers and non-smokers can ever accept or understand each others' points of view.
Both sides understand the other point of view, but they just want different things. Most of the time, majority rules. Not that long ago, the majority of men smoked. And every place was a smoking place (except for church.) There were nonsmokers who didn't like it, but tobacco smoke was unavoidable. Some nonsmokers gave up their public life and mostly stayed home. It's been a very gradual change, but now only about 20% smoke, and the tables are turned. Bars were the last bastion of smokers (along with bingo games for older women.) No smoking everywhere is the rule now, and for some smokers that means they mostly stay home. This is a new feeling for some cigarette smokers, but was experienced a long time ago for pipe smokers. Even cigarette smokers weren't crazy about pipe smoke, and it was the first to away go in public. And eventually in private, too.(Ah, this making me get sentimental for the old days, when I would enjoy a bowl of Latakia on occasion.)
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

#22871 Apr 21, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Landlords who are not owners arguably have the responsibility for making apartment buildings smoke-free, to maximize profitability and minimize chance of fires (for the owners), and prevent careless smokers from impacting the lives of tenants.
A smoker in an apartment building is going to step out into the common hallway to leave or step in from it on coming home. At the very least, smoke from inside the apartment gets into the hallway. Others using the hallway have to walk through that and/or open the doors to their own homes when coming or going, letting the smoke enter there.
Few apartment buildings have hermetically sealed units. Smoke spreads from one unit to another by a number of different pathways. If owners have to do expensive and extensive remodeling to make nonsmokers' units anywhere close to smoke-free when they share walls and/or halls with smokers' units--AND they can save a few hundred dollars a pop on preparing apartments for new tenants by NOT having smokers--what do you suppose the reasonable step would be?
The "reasonable step" would be to make an apartment building livable and acceptable for all of its tenants.

If the corridors are properly pressurized (which is an important part of building fire safety, not just a smokers vs non-smokers issue) the smoke will not get into the corridors. I think I mentioned my parents' apartment building in one of my previous posts. The corridor pressurization was so strong that you could feel it when you opened their apartment door. My mother was a smoker and no other occupants of the building could smell the smoke. It simply isn't an issue in a properly designed building.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

#22872 Apr 21, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>The "reasonable step" would be to make an apartment building livable and acceptable for all of its tenants.
Yeah, and they'd also soundproof the walls, so you would never hear your neighbors that play heavy metal at 3am. And also make everything "pet-proof" on the inside.

But an easier solution is to just say "no loud music" or "no pets" or "no smoking." It's not the job of the landlord to make costly changes to their property to accommodate the needs of specific tenants.
Need A Light

Dorchester, Canada

#22873 Apr 21, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>The "reasonable step" would be to make an apartment building livable and acceptable for all of its tenants.
If the corridors are properly pressurized (which is an important part of building fire safety, not just a smokers vs non-smokers issue) the smoke will not get into the corridors. I think I mentioned my parents' apartment building in one of my previous posts. The corridor pressurization was so strong that you could feel it when you opened their apartment door. My mother was a smoker and no other occupants of the building could smell the smoke. It simply isn't an issue in a properly designed building.
Another reasonable step would be for anti's to purhase gas masks for their own satisfied remedy, where they think their life is endandered. In every case it is the anti who put the burden (costs) on everyone else for their personal hangups, and will suffer for as long as it takes for someone else to pay. If a motorcycle rider is forced to wear a helmut for unforeseen danger, why does an anti smoker not do the same, they would be the first to tell someone to wear a helmut.
The Canadian Sympathizer

Victoria, Canada

#22874 Apr 21, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and they'd also soundproof the walls, so you would never hear your neighbors that play heavy metal at 3am. And also make everything "pet-proof" on the inside.
But an easier solution is to just say "no loud music" or "no pets" or "no smoking." It's not the job of the landlord to make costly changes to their property to accommodate the needs of specific tenants.
I don't know of any apartment building that permits tenants to play loud music in the middle of the night. Some buildings permit pets as long as they are not noisy or dirty.

Anything done to excess may bother a tenant. If the music lover doesn't turn his music up too loud, he should be able to play at 3 am. If he can't, the sound proofing is inadequate. And he should be able to enjoy a smoke while he's listening, but if he is a chain smoker, he might overstrain even a good buildings's defences.
Need A Light

Dorchester, Canada

#22875 Apr 21, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
<quoted text>
Another reasonable step would be for anti's to purhase gas masks for their own satisfied remedy, where they think their life is endandered. In every case it is the anti who put the burden (costs) on everyone else for their personal hangups, and will suffer for as long as it takes for someone else to pay. If a motorcycle rider is forced to wear a helmut for unforeseen danger, why does an anti smoker not do the same, they would be the first to tell someone to wear a helmut.
Just a little addition.Going by all the deaths caused yearly by SHS. Using the numbers created by the anti-smoker agenda, just think how much money would be saved if only anti smokers would purchase a gas mask for their own good and immediate relief. Do they know enough to take it upon themselves and not be one of the numbers they generate right now ????
Need A Light

Dorchester, Canada

#22876 Apr 21, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know of any apartment building that permits tenants to play loud music in the middle of the night. Some buildings permit pets as long as they are not noisy or dirty.
Anything done to excess may bother a tenant. If the music lover doesn't turn his music up too loud, he should be able to play at 3 am. If he can't, the sound proofing is inadequate. And he should be able to enjoy a smoke while he's listening, but if he is a chain smoker, he might overstrain even a good buildings's defences.
I do know of a situation whereas a tenant who professionally shampoo'ed the carpets before moveout and was still charged a cleanup, but won in court. It may state you are not allowed animals on your contract of rental but is illegal to enforce in some cities. I believe noise falls under the city by-laws department same as private dwellings enforced by police and not a build superintendant.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#22877 Apr 21, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
It's not the job of the landlord to make costly changes to their property to accommodate the needs of specific tenants.
It's not the job of an overbearing Nanny State to mandate LEGAL lifestyle choices on private property.

The truth of the matter is the right to freedom of association provides the avenue where all personal choices are respected, and the free market is more than capable of keeping folks happy.

One only runs into problems when they feel their rights should exceed those of the rightful owner of the land, and they then turn to left wing collectivist principles to force their will on all...even though they hold no title to the land.

The right to freedom of association is an aberration to those who appeal to the collective, as individuality is not part of their scheme to force all into a mould of their world view.

Such folks are a danger to anyone and anything that does not conform to their myopic need to dominate others.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#22878 Apr 21, 2012
The Canadian Sympathizer wrote:
<quoted text>The "reasonable step" would be to make an apartment building livable and acceptable for all of its tenants.
If the corridors are properly pressurized (which is an important part of building fire safety, not just a smokers vs non-smokers issue) the smoke will not get into the corridors. I think I mentioned my parents' apartment building in one of my previous posts. The corridor pressurization was so strong that you could feel it when you opened their apartment door. My mother was a smoker and no other occupants of the building could smell the smoke. It simply isn't an issue in a properly designed building.
The fact of the matter is, when dealing with fanatics...good luck.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bloodless...

Bloodless coup as Indian vegetarians flex muscle

Once Jain and Marwari families move into a neighbourhood, they tend to take control of the housing society and exclude meat-eating tenants.

"I don't want the smell of meat from a neighbour's kitchen to come through my window," said Gita Parmar, a Jain housewife in Malabar Hills. "I live in a vegetarian housing complex because I want to be with like-minded people."

Shopkeeper Bhavesh Shah, a Jain, who lives in a vegetarian block in Breach Candy, said: "Our housing society asks new tenants to sign a declaration. If they're found cooking meat, they're thrown out."
--------

Sounds familiar...eh? LOL

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#22879 Apr 21, 2012
Need A Light wrote:
<quoted text>
Another reasonable step would be for anti's to purhase gas masks for their own satisfied remedy, where they think their life is endandered. In every case it is the anti who put the burden (costs) on everyone else for their personal hangups, and will suffer for as long as it takes for someone else to pay. If a motorcycle rider is forced to wear a helmut for unforeseen danger, why does an anti smoker not do the same, they would be the first to tell someone to wear a helmut.
Hey Needy, it is the SMOKER who puts the burden on everyone else. How many smokers died because they could not have a cigarette. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH. Since the selfish smokers cannot act responsibly around decent people, we have to legislate behavior for them.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#22881 Apr 21, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Both sides understand the other point of view, but they just want different things. Most of the time, majority rules. Not that long ago, the majority of men smoked. And every place was a smoking place (except for church.) There were nonsmokers who didn't like it, but tobacco smoke was unavoidable. Some nonsmokers gave up their public life and mostly stayed home. It's been a very gradual change, but now only about 20% smoke, and the tables are turned. Bars were the last bastion of smokers (along with bingo games for older women.) No smoking everywhere is the rule now, and for some smokers that means they mostly stay home. This is a new feeling for some cigarette smokers, but was experienced a long time ago for pipe smokers. Even cigarette smokers weren't crazy about pipe smoke, and it was the first to away go in public. And eventually in private, too.(Ah, this making me get sentimental for the old days, when I would enjoy a bowl of Latakia on occasion.)
First off, being a majority should not mean minorities rights can be trampled upon. When such a thing happens you have tyranny of the majority, which is what we have right now.

Second, there were no laws forcing anyone to allow smoking, and one was free to open places of their own if it really bothered them that much. What we have now is not free choice, but laws that threaten the use of violence if all do not bow down to the almighty state, and that is a HUGE difference indeed.

Also, your claim of everyplace allowing smoking simply is not true, as I'm pushing 50 and recall all kinds of places where smoking was not allowed. Even back when I was quite young there were owners who did not like the smell, and they were indeed well within their rights to ban it on their own land, so they did.

The solution is not to apply a one size fits all approach backed by the use of state sanctioned violence, but instead lies within the free market which relies on the right to freedom of association.

Under such a system, everyone's rights are respected, as the free market always finds a way to cater to differing desires.
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#22882 Apr 21, 2012
No Smoking Sign wrote:
Smokers think it's their god-given right to light up any time and any place they choose
That is an outright falsehood and a poor attempt to raise a strawman.

I've seen this nonsense many times before, and it's nothing but pure rubbish.

All of the smokers I know and who I've seen posting on smoking topics simply wish for the rightful owner of the land to set the policy. If this was the case rather than a one size fits all approach backed by the use of violence, there would indeed be places that catered to the specific wants of their clientele.

The reality of the matter is what we have now is one side demanding every place and everyone cater to their desires...or ELSE!
Freedom

Chicago, IL

#22883 Apr 21, 2012
I DO NOT SMOKE wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Needy, it is the SMOKER who puts the burden on everyone else. How many smokers died because they could not have a cigarette. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH. Since the selfish smokers cannot act responsibly around decent people, we have to legislate behavior for them.
Decent people do not enter another person's property while demanding the rightful owner of the land bend to their will on land they have no right to be on in the first place.

Decent folks use their right to freedom of association by going to places where there are others who are like minded rather than demanding every place and everyone cater to them...or ELSE.

It's comical that you call others selfish, when your kind is unwilling to allow a place to even exist that does not suit you.

In fact, that goes beyond selfish...as that is downright narcissistic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Report: Gov't Granted $750 Million Obamacare Fu... 23 min Raydot 4
News Quinlan ISD police rearrest teacher accused of ... 44 min Joey 1
News Gov't report: 8 states had significant drop in ... 58 min John McCharlie 16
News Confucius tourist attractions ban smoking 3 hr Good News 1
News Sanders defends call to raise taxes to fund hea... 15 hr Liberte 30
News Implantable device translates thought into acti... 15 hr jeanette buckland 1
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 15 hr hlahla 6,708
More from around the web