Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme...

Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court

There are 21275 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.

azmac

Bullhead City, AZ

#19198 Jan 11, 2012
Jerry wrote:
<quoted text>
EXACTLY. Because a-Holes like you buy Japanese!!! NOW you are finally getting it.
And people like you support a company that takes taxpayer money to build plants in other countries to take our jobs. At least my car gave an American a job. The money Government motors makes goes into one of the big shots pockets and then he sends it to a bank out of the country so he does not have to pay taxes. GM is now teaming up with China. Yep you support a great company that supports other countries. Gm also supported Hitler as did Ford and standard oil. Your computer, TV, game machine all made in other countries. Most clothes are made in other countries. In fact most every thing you buy comes from another country. What two car companies make cars that hold their value? Honda and Toyota. Your ignorance shows every time you post.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#19199 Jan 11, 2012
bar60 wrote:
the smoking bans are not part of the United States Consitution.
Finally you are correct about a document that you are consistently unable to spell the title of.

Smoking bans are NOT part of the Constitution.

They are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, they are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you even realize that you are actively arguing for our side? Probably not.
azmac

Bullhead City, AZ

#19200 Jan 11, 2012
dpx55 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you don't even understand what you wrote. You did NOT say "that's what he should be able to do by the Constitution."
Look above at what you said:
"Only the owner has the right to run his business. He wants a dirty place, serve rotten food,it is his right to do so."
Get your story straight assmac and stand on what you post; or better yet, just stop posting such blatently wrong and utterly stupid ideas.
So I have to spell out every thing like you are a 2 year old.Yes a business owner should be able to run his business as he sees fit. No restrictions. B y t h e c o n s t i t i o n.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#19201 Jan 11, 2012
azmac wrote:
<quoted text>
So I have to spell out every thing like you are a 2 year old.Yes a business owner should be able to run his business as he sees fit. No restrictions. B y t h e c o n s t i t i o n.
you are the very definition of "clueless."
Reality Speaks

Grove City, OH

#19202 Jan 11, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I think my case is made.
you proved yourself a fool for sure

it is called satire

prove smoking kills with any higher percentage of users, than tose with aids die of the disease.

Count Africa in your little excercise.

The whole point Skippy is it is not up to you to decide, you and other may think so; but reality always wins.

See admendment 18 as a perfect example of run away do gooding!

PS: you can smoke now, just like you could drink then.
bar60

Dayton, OH

#19203 Jan 11, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Finally you are correct about a document that you are consistently unable to spell the title of.
Smoking bans are NOT part of the Constitution.
They are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, they are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Do you even realize that you are actively arguing for our side? Probably not.
you're really tough on the spelling situation....I could say I spilt pop on my keyboard the other day and some of the keys stick and it is wore out.......
a little more effort on who writes what would be helpful...since it was TruthBeTold who tryed to associate equal rights with the smoking ban... I was just giving my opinion... and I am not on the smoking nor the non smoking side ...as I write what I think... my opinion is that even though the smoking ban are not listed directing in the U S Constitution ...some State Constitutions may have a clause in their Constitution that upholds the smoking bans ....mainly I think the bans are a city to city issue.
azmac

Bullhead City, AZ

#19204 Jan 11, 2012
dpx55 wrote:
<quoted text>
you are the very definition of "clueless."
You are clueless. You know nothing about the constitution or our history. Yet you try to sound like you do but it only shows your ignorance.
It really no longer matters as the damage is done as you will soon see. This will make you happy as you will see less and less of me. Much to do to get ready for what is coming. When you are starving just think of me having plenty to eat. Also remember you and your kind helped bring about what is coming.

Since: Jan 12

Brisbane, Australia

#19205 Jan 11, 2012
Wonderful! It is just a slow form of involuntary suicide! It should be outlawed everywhere, or at the very least make the playing field equal and legalize marijuana and other less harmful substances.
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

#19206 Jan 11, 2012
bar60 wrote:
<quoted text>so, you say you are foreign, how long have you been in this country ?
The egual rights for black and white people are the same in the states, and if you apply for citizenship you also will share in all equal rights according to the Constitution of The United States, and the smoking bans are not part of the United States Consitution.
I have no clue what you are trying to articulate...but what you clearly missed, is what I replied to!

You said the bans are a fad...and then rambled on about fads in this country...I pointed out to you that many solid things in this nation were considered fads by those in denial!

Now the smoking bans are in the same category of being a "fad" only to those who are in denial about them....talk to us in 20 years! hahahaha
Reality Speaks

Grove City, OH

#19207 Jan 11, 2012
TruthBeTold wrote:
<quoted text>I have no clue what you are trying to articulate...but what you clearly missed, is what I replied to!
You said the bans are a fad...and then rambled on about fads in this country...I pointed out to you that many solid things in this nation were considered fads by those in denial!
Now the smoking bans are in the same category of being a "fad" only to those who are in denial about them....talk to us in 20 years! hahahaha
skippy...refer to admendment 17 of the constitution & then discuss fads.

it won't take 20 years Skippy, about 2 more ought to do it.

it is you in denial; and you could not articulate a dinner bell.
bar60

Cincinnati, OH

#19208 Jan 11, 2012
TruthBeTold wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently, it is still quite effective, or else you wouldn't have mentioned it!
Besides the term is accurate for 90% of you smokers posting here, yourself included!
You honestly think you could just up and quit...you are hooked, obsessed with, and addicted to smoking both in a physical and mental way, the denial is a natural part of addiction.
Addiction is a terrible thing and can make the addicted do and say some pretty ridiculous things, even deny, deflect, and defer the addiction!
And that, is an addict in denial!
Now want to talk about something that "constitutes a flaw in writing as it is trite", is thinking that pro ban people are in some way anti-smoker...the reality is pro ban people could care less if you smoke, so long as you do it outside!
The term "anti-smoker" is nothing more than a method for smokers to place themselves as the victim, to look for sympathy...the truth and reality is...everyone else are the victims of a smokers selfish and toxic habit!
Including dealing with the litter smokers leave behind when they flick their butts on the ground!
In the future, try not to be a hypocrite with such huge double standards!
you don't know what anti means......
smokers don't use the word anti to seek sympathy... they use it to describe your distaste for smokers. gee.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#19210 Jan 11, 2012
azmac wrote:
<quoted text>
You are clueless. You know nothing about the constitution or our history. Yet you try to sound like you do but it only shows your ignorance.
It really no longer matters as the damage is done as you will soon see. This will make you happy as you will see less and less of me. Much to do to get ready for what is coming. When you are starving just think of me having plenty to eat. Also remember you and your kind helped bring about what is coming.
You obviously know NOTHING - yes, NOTHING about the documents you profess to be an expert about. You are a danger to the nation. Perhaps you should defect to Mexico. There, you can server rotten food to anyone you want.

Clueless fool.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#19213 Jan 11, 2012
dpx55 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. There are at least 11 references to health in the Ohio Consitution. One of which clearly and explicitly states that the State Legislature has the power and authority to regulate public health ANYWHERE that Ohioans are employed.
By the way, ANYWHERE includes privately owned businesses.
Need a reference to it AGAIN? Article 2, Section 34 - Welfare of Employees
It's in your own link that you provided.
Learn to read, assmac.
No comeback to this one assmac? Can't deny the written word, clear as a bell in the Ohio Constitution?

I thought not, clueless fool. Run to your bunker. The end is near because you can't smoke in an Ohio bar anymore.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#19216 Jan 11, 2012
bar60 wrote:
you're really tough on the spelling situation....
Just using you as an example to Hugh in hopes that he'll get what I'm talking about.
bar60 wrote:
I am not on the smoking nor the non smoking side
This is dishonest. You've already displayed a remarkable lack of integrity, so I am not surprised by bald-faced lie. Are you bipolar or is somebody else logging into your account? You swing wildly from day to day.
bar60 wrote:
my opinion is that even though the smoking ban are not listed directing in the U S Constitution ...some State Constitutions may have a clause in their Constitution that upholds the smoking bans ....mainly I think the bans are a city to city issue.
More disjointed gibberish. At least you spelled Constitution correctly. If you truly thought this, you wouldn't have been wailing about the US Constitution earlier. You don't have coherent thought, you just blurt out what appeals to you at the time without any thought.
bar60

Cincinnati, OH

#19217 Jan 11, 2012
TruthBeTold wrote:
<quoted text>I have no clue what you are trying to articulate...but what you clearly missed, is what I replied to!
You said the bans are a fad...and then rambled on about fads in this country...I pointed out to you that many solid things in this nation were considered fads by those in denial!
Now the smoking bans are in the same category of being a "fad" only to those who are in denial about them....talk to us in 20 years! hahahaha
this is what you said ..."you mean like equal rights for black and whites. by the way asbestos, otc codine, coke-cain, and smoking indoors is still a no no, back to the drawing board with you'"
bar60

Cincinnati, OH

#19218 Jan 11, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Just using you as an example to Hugh in hopes that he'll get what I'm talking about.
<quoted text>This is dishonest. You've already displayed a remarkable lack of integrity, so I am not surprised by bald-faced lie. Are you bipolar or is somebody else logging into your account? You swing wildly from day to day.<quoted text>More disjointed gibberish. At least you spelled Constitution correctly. If you truly thought this, you wouldn't have been wailing about the US Constitution earlier. You don't have coherent thought, you just blurt out what appeals to you at the time without any thought.
you are ridiculous and argumentative.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#19219 Jan 11, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
skippy...refer to admendment 17 of the constitution & then discuss fads.
I'm curious, what does election of senators by popular vote have to do with fads or smoking bans?

I have a feeling you are referring to a different part of a document you obviously haven't even bothered to actually read.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#19220 Jan 11, 2012
bar60 wrote:
you are ridiculous and argumentative.
I am right and you are way beyond your depth.

“"Sanity is not statistical." ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#19221 Jan 11, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Identifying someone's ignorance as evidence of their ignorance is insecure.....Gotcha.
Ignorance is not measured by spelling abilities. Ignorance is measured by a lack of thought and the ability to express it. You are welcome.

“"Sanity is not statistical." ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#19222 Jan 11, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>I am right and you are way beyond your depth.
You need a comma after "right" since it is a compound sentence joined by a conjunction.

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 Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 20 min unknown 6,959
News New research offers clues to cause of Crohn's d... 24 min Stephany McDowell 1
News Why I take my daughter with me to the gynecologist (Dec '14) 2 hr pailrider 319
News Study finds 20M would lose health coverage unde... 2 hr swampmudd 119
News 30 solid scientific studies that prove vaccines... 10 hr VACCINES MAIM KILL 1
News Autism symptoms detected in vaccinated baby mon... 10 hr VACCINES MAIM KILL 1
News Fury over plan to screen anti-vaxxer documentar... 10 hr VACCINES MAIM KILL 1
News What does a low blood platelet count mean? (Jun '07) Sep 23 cellist 894
More from around the web