Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban ...

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constitutional

There are 1191 comments on the Cincinnati CityBeat story from May 23, 2012, titled Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constitutional. In it, Cincinnati CityBeat reports that:

Since 2006, the Ohio Smoke-Free Workplace Act has banned indoor smoking at public establishments and places of employment, making Ohio the first Midwestern state to enact a state-wide ban.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cincinnati CityBeat.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#482 Jun 3, 2012
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
Just to give an idea how stupid this law can get, when it got passed up here about 12 years ago, I had a buddy that worked as a welder indoors. Despite the fact he and others were beathing in fumes from hot metal and flux, the gubermint in their infinite wisdom said they couldn't smoke indoors at work for "health and safety" reasons LMAO.
The "gubermint", as you call it, IS protecting welders (in case you are unaware, courts are part of the "gubermint"
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_li...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#483 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
I got my info in print from an agent of Frost, Brown & Todd. Thats about all there is of this now. Conflicting info from seeming valid sources.
What info is that, and what "seeming valid sources"? If you're talking about the "minors in cars" thing, I have no position on that except that I haven't found anything that tells of an up/down vote on that one. I genuinely wondered about it.

For the rest, if you are talking about MY last post on the subject, my source IS the actual text of the law. Somebody else's opinion is just that--an opinion. If it opposes the wording of the law, then there is no contest to qualify as a "conflict".
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#484 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
Maybe it isn't a lck of comprehension on my part. Sometimes there are typo's, sentence structure,word usage etc.
I am not going to task myself listing your contraditions because you wouldn't accept the evidence anyway.
I will gladly accept actual evidence in the form of quotes. Refusing to "task yourself" with providing facts to support your allegations makes you a shit talker, nothing more. Sentence structure and word usage ARE what you fail to comprehend. That is the very definition of lack of comprehension on your part.
Freedom wrote:
You are a collectivist, and collectivists always places the communities safety over the rights of the individual.
You are an idiot. An idiot will always claim that an individual has a 'right' to harm the community.

It's not 'collectivists' that place a premium on the safety of the community. It's 'society' that does.

Please tell us what other ways are you free to harm the community?
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#485 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
I have absolutely NO comprehension as to how smoke permeates concrete & brick. It can NOT happen.
Ever notice how deep in denial smokers are about how much they stink?
Freedom wrote:
Where on earth did that ridiculous non sequitur come from?
Sorry, but that was simply a pathetic attempt to dodge the obvious.
Says the imbecile who constantly claims that because Hitler had a smoking ban, all smoking bans are fascist. Are all mustaches fascist as well? How about every train that runs on time anywhere in the world? Must be fascism! You are such a joke.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#486 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
I almost forgot to point out that even tho you are a whiner & a pansy, you are a conceited, self serving, selfish, closed minded idiot that thinks that YOU are the only one with rights. There are over 300 MILLION people in this country of which you are merely ONE. NOT the only one, but one of millions.
Quit thinking only of yourself & start being inconsiderate & respectful of others too. WHIMP
Time to take your medicine pops.
Gotta hand it to you, though. You kept it together for a few days. Ultimately, all you losers have is impotent, frustrated, rage.
Take comfort in the fact that you have at least found some compatriots here. Whining, abhorrent spelling and grammar, bile, self-pity, vitriol, ignorance, and hate are in unending quantities here amongst the smokers of topix. You will find a vibrant community of imbeciles here for you to join while your Betters mock you. You'll have to bow down to Freedumb, though. With his ability to cut-and-paste correctly spelled drivel, he is your king.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#487 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for pointing out a perfect example of infringement of personal rights.
Hey, chucklehead, there is a difference between "personal rights" and "business rights"==and in this case we are talking about RESPONSIBILITIES of persons and of businesses. A PERSON within his property is not RESPONSIBLE (in a legal sense--the moral/ethical issue is separate) for preventing the SHS exposure of others who enter his home. A BUSINESS SHOULD be--and in Ohio, IS--responsible for preventing that exposure.
pops wrote:
When the so called Ohio supreme court...
Ah, I see. You are so full of sour grapes that you want us to believe that the people who made the decision somehow were NOT the people who had that authority? Man, I'd hate to see how delusional you would become if you actually LIVED in Ohio.
pops wrote:
When the so called Ohio supreme court upheld banned smoking in the way that it did, it forbade anyone from opening a business for smokers only.
This ruling said a couple of things. One was that the existence of exemptions did NOT put the law outside the realm of public health. That was part of the Zeno's argument.

Another was that being on a corner and therefore having difficulty adding on a patio did NOT earn Zeno's an exemption.

A third was that the law does NOT constitute an illegal "taking" of property.

Zeno's was absolutely NOT a "not-for-profit". That is one requirement for a "private club" exemption.

The requirements for that exemption are laid out by the law, and were never a part of the issues before the Ohio Supreme Court--though the existence (and impact on the law) of exemptions was.

I posted a link to the actual decision some time ago.

Here's something from close to the top:

"SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
"R.C. Chapter 3794, the Smoke Free Workplace Act, is a valid exercise of the state’s police power by Ohio voters and does not amount to a regulatory taking."
==========
If you can find something in the opinion that has anything to do with whether or not a private club can allow smoking, let me know and we can go from there.
Here is a URL for the opinion:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#488 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
YOU are still a whiner. Do you suggest that the person below you moves because YOU are irratated? I presume that he/she lived there 1st & even if they didn't, THEY are still NOT violating the lease rules.
Speaking up about a problem that has this much impact on his life does not make him a whiner. You seem unwilling to put up with someone's speaking up, though, when it does you no harm. I guess that would make YOU a SUPER-whiner in your worldview.

As to the suggestion involved, if any, is the legitimate suggestion that it would be better if it WERE a violation of the lease rules. That suggestion is based on the personal experience the poster has of the immediate harm that SHS exposure causes as well as on EVIDENCE accepted THE WORLD OVER by the medical community regarding the LONG-TERM harm that SHS exposure causes.
pops wrote:
I have absolutely NO comprehension...
So it would seem.
BluesCat1980

Lena, IL

#489 Jun 3, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>Speaking up about a problem that has this much impact on his life does not make him a whiner. You seem unwilling to put up with someone's speaking up, though, when it does you no harm. I guess that would make YOU a SUPER-whiner in your worldview.

As to the suggestion involved, if any, is the legitimate suggestion that it would be better if it WERE a violation of the lease rules. That suggestion is based on the personal experience the poster has of the immediate harm that SHS exposure causes as well as on EVIDENCE accepted THE WORLD OVER by the medical community regarding the LONG-TERM harm that SHS exposure causes.

pops wrote, "
I have absolutely NO comprehension..."

So it would seem.
Yeah you're right. He seems to want to point out other people's whining as he puts it. Talking about something that can clearly cause me health problems is not whining. I don't have the funds to live anywhere else. And besides, if Pops read my statements, he'd see that I never said this guy below can't smoke. Even if he opened a window, that'd make a huge difference.

But I guess I just whine too much. LOL.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#490 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>In Ohio it DOES keep one from allowing smoking in any establishment depending on ones interpretation of the law. NO smoking indoors, NO smoking in an automobile IF minors are inside, NO smoking in the work place etc etc
Actually, you CAN smoke indoors. You cannot smoke in a business. You CAN smoke in a private club IF there are no employees. You still CAN smoke in a car with kids (why anyone would do this is beyond me) because the proposed law is still in committee.
http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/status129/senatebi...
It is relatively easy to check on the status of a bill instead of relying on a hysteria infused website put together by some nicotine addict who is frothing at the mouth.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#491 Jun 3, 2012
BluesCat1980 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah you're right. He seems to want to point out other people's whining as he puts it. Talking about something that can clearly cause me health problems is not whining. I don't have the funds to live anywhere else. And besides, if Pops read my statements, he'd see that I never said this guy below can't smoke. Even if he opened a window, that'd make a huge difference.
But I guess I just whine too much. LOL.
How can you NOT have enough money tomove somewhere else IF YOU are in section 8 housing when it is based on your so called income? Explain that one. YOU are still a liberal whiner. Get OFFof my tax dollars or shut the bleep up!!!
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#492 Jun 3, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking up about a problem that has this much impact on his life does not make him a whiner. You seem unwilling to put up with someone's speaking up, though, when it does you no harm. I guess that would make YOU a SUPER-whiner in your worldview.
As to the suggestion involved, if any, is the legitimate suggestion that it would be better if it WERE a violation of the lease rules. That suggestion is based on the personal experience the poster has of the immediate harm that SHS exposure causes as well as on EVIDENCE accepted THE WORLD OVER by the medical community regarding the LONG-TERM harm that SHS exposure causes.
<quoted text>
So it would seem.
It makes them a whiner when they say that they have NO options when in fact they do have options.
Some one that has section 8 housing CAN relocate to another section 8 complex with NO financial burden. That makes them a whiner when they have options. Quite likely on a bus line that will take them to the government office(s) that will perpetuate their governement checks.
I am not saying that SHS smoke is not an issue, Just that there are decisions/actions that can resolve the issue besides whining about it.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#493 Jun 3, 2012
BluesCat1980 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah you're right. He seems to want to point out other people's whining as he puts it. Talking about something that can clearly cause me health problems is not whining. I don't have the funds to live anywhere else. And besides, if Pops read my statements, he'd see that I never said this guy below can't smoke. Even if he opened a window, that'd make a huge difference.
But I guess I just whine too much. LOL.
I like the fact that you terminated one of my responses out of context. Good job. I never denied that there may be health problems involved here. IF I were to need an oxygen generator & the tenent downstairs didn't provide it, is their fault/responsability that I needed one?
IF I had serious allergies to pollen but did or wanted to shop at a farmers market should they supply me with a pollen mask?
Quit being a sissy that expect others to cover my backside. Waa waaa waaa. Crybaby. Make efforts to improve your own lifes situation.
Quit expecting others to do that. Whiner
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#494 Jun 3, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, chucklehead, there is a difference between "personal rights" and "business rights"==and in this case we are talking about RESPONSIBILITIES of persons and of businesses. A PERSON within his property is not RESPONSIBLE (in a legal sense--the moral/ethical issue is separate) for preventing the SHS exposure of others who enter his home. A BUSINESS SHOULD be--and in Ohio, IS--responsible for preventing that exposure.
<quoted text>
Ah, I see. You are so full of sour grapes that you want us to believe that the people who made the decision somehow were NOT the people who had that authority? Man, I'd hate to see how delusional you would become if you actually LIVED in Ohio.
<quoted text>
This ruling said a couple of things. One was that the existence of exemptions did NOT put the law outside the realm of public health. That was part of the Zeno's argument.
Another was that being on a corner and therefore having difficulty adding on a patio did NOT earn Zeno's an exemption.
A third was that the law does NOT constitute an illegal "taking" of property.
Zeno's was absolutely NOT a "not-for-profit". That is one requirement for a "private club" exemption.
The requirements for that exemption are laid out by the law, and were never a part of the issues before the Ohio Supreme Court--though the existence (and impact on the law) of exemptions was.
I posted a link to the actual decision some time ago.
Here's something from close to the top:
"SYLLABUS OF THE COURT
"R.C. Chapter 3794, the Smoke Free Workplace Act, is a valid exercise of the state’s police power by Ohio voters and does not amount to a regulatory taking."
==========
If you can find something in the opinion that has anything to do with whether or not a private club can allow smoking, let me know and we can go from there.
Here is a URL for the opinion:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/...
YOUR moniker says it all
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#495 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
Waa waaa waaa.
pops wrote:
It makes them a whiner when they say that they have NO options when in fact they do have options.
What are your options to repeal the smoking bans you detest so? You're doing a shitload of whining about it.
pops wrote:
Your neighbor IS OBIDDING BY THE LAW & their lease. I am STATEing the BLUNT thruth/facts. Whimp
So are the businesses that ban smoking. So quit your goddamned whining already. It is obvious that you have the spelling capabilities of a fifth grader to complement your reasoning and intellect. At least turn on your spell checker and make yourself look like slightly less of an ass.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#496 Jun 3, 2012
BluesCat1980 wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason you don't understand how this issue is bothering me, is because you obviously don't understand construction. In between our wall in the bathroom and kitchen are hollow. From the second floor through the 5th floor. All the electrical, sewage and water for apartment 520, 420, 320, and 220 all run up and down the same wall. Sp when he smokes, it rises up and gets into the wall cavity and ends up in my apartment.
YOU can not read or comprehend. I have done roofing, heating, plumbing, carpentry, air conditioning, ventilation (kitchen, basement, attics & baths) & I am here to call you a whimp.
QUIT making excuses that need crutches. YOU are still a whimp!!!!
Set goals & how YOU will achieve those goals whimp.
YOU are living on the tax payers dollars & need to respect that. Make efforts to improve your situation. WHIMP/tax sucker

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

Regina

#497 Jun 3, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Which suggests, if anything, that there should be more regulation of sniffing heated metal and flux, not less of smoking. Presumably there are some laws regulating that, aren't there?
Proper ventilation and large "smoke out" machines help to vent the fumes out of the building, but those fumes still gotta make it past your face. And since these machines are in place, it still makes no sense why they can't smoke if the smoke goes straight up and out of the building.
The point is, in some workplaces, the law makes ZERO sense. Tractor trailer owner/operators also had to fight for their right to smoke in THEIR rigs since the by-law considered a semi to be a workplace. So now, if you drive a company truck, you can't smoke in it. But if you drive your own truck, you can smoke in it.
It's a by-law that doesn't really work well as a blanket by-law.

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

Regina

#498 Jun 3, 2012
I DO NOT SMOKE wrote:
<quoted text>
The "gubermint", as you call it, IS protecting welders (in case you are unaware, courts are part of the "gubermint"
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_li...
You should learn to read ALL the links in the stuff you post.

This link is from the link you posted. http://www.weldinginfonetwork.com/litigation/...
The more salient points:
Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss more than 3,100 cases in the federal
multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding during the last 18 months.
&#56256;&#56544; The total number of cases pending against the welding defendants has
dropped by more than 50 percent in the last 18 months.
&#56256;&#56544; Mississippi state courts have dismissed hundreds of plaintiffs’ cases over the
last several months.
&#56256;&#56544; All six welding fume cases tried in 2006 resulted in defense verdicts.
&#56256;&#56544; Welding defendants have now prevailed in 16 of the last 17 cases brought to
trial.
&#56256;&#56544; Plaintiffs were forced to dismiss three MDL trial cases after discovery
revealed that one plaintiff faked his symptoms and two others lied about
illicit drug use.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#499 Jun 3, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>How can you NOT have enough money tomove somewhere else IF YOU are in section 8 housing when it is based on your so called income? Explain that one. YOU are still a liberal whiner. Get OFFof my tax dollars or shut the bleep up!!!
First, there is a difference between "Public Housing" and "Section 8 Housing".
Second, renting is not moving. Coming up with the extra money to move belongings is a significant barrier, particularly if your health is undermined by the constant influx of SHS into your home. Being too ill to deal with all the preliminaries to moving is also a plausible issue with that toxic miasma constantly messing you up.
Get the smokers out of the situation, and maybe more of the people in public housing would be able to pull themselves together and get off the dole.
But go ahead and defend the smokers' right to be sick if they want to, and to make everybody else sick by their choice of vector for "medicating" their disease. Nicotine addiction IS a disease. If they don't want to become healthy, why should anyone help pay to house them?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#501 Jun 4, 2012
These two segments are from a site I copied a while back but don't have a link to the original site. I can and will provide the citations given in the text, so you can find discussion of the cases involved if you like.
==========
SMOKE SEEPAGE

Since 1991, there have been at least 14 cases involving allegations of SHS seeping from one unit into another in a multi-unit dwelling. In 1998, a Massachusetts case broke new ground when a non-smoker refused to pay rent because of SHS exposure from a smoky bar on the first floor of her apartment. The tenant withheld the rent, alleging that the amounts of smoke seeping into her apartment deprived her of the quiet enjoyment of that apartment. A Housing Court judge ruled that the amount of smoke from the bar below had made the apartment "unfit for smokers and nonsmokers alike." The judge further ruled that "the evidence does demonstrate to the Court the tenants' right to quiet enjoyment was interfered with because of the secondhand smoke that was emanating from the nightclub below"
Gainsborough St. Realty Trust v. Haile, et al

As Kline has pointed out, there "are several legal theories available for residents of multiple dwelling residential buildings who are affected by ETS incursion, nuisance, covenant of quiet enjoyment and warranty of habitability." Additionally, the use of state regulations such as a sanitary code can "provide an effective, existing vehicle for resolution of ETS incursion problems".

Kline RL. "Smoke knows no boundaries: legal strategies for environmental tobacco smoke incursions into the home within multi-unit residential dwellings". Tobacco Control 2000;9:201

Similarly, a resident of a mobile home park, to gain access to the park's clubhouse successfully, used the Federal Fair Housing Act, which bans discrimination against the disabled and families with children.
Inman B. "Amended Fair Housing Act takes on new discrimination". San Francisco Examiner, January 15, 1995, E-1
==========
The rest is from a government site:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/hud...

"Tenants negatively impacted by smoke drift have the right to seek legal action against landlords who do not make adequate provisions to protect them from
second hand smoke."

"Nuisance
• A private nuisance exists when one person unreasonably interferes with another person's interest in real property.
• Defined as any smoke, smell, noise, gas or fluid which materially interferes with the ordinary comfort of an occupant or injures his property.
• The landlord may also be held liable, even when he is not creating the nuisance, if the landlord actively participates in the continuance or fails to take action to ameliorate the nuisance."
"Gorman v. Sabo, 210 Md. 155 (1956)"
==========
"Warranty of Habitability and Right to Quiet Enjoyment"
"• Most states provide these by statute or common law.
• Landlords have a responsibility to provide safe housing which is fit for occupancy.
– Should the smoke intrusion cause a tenant to lose use of certain rooms at certain times, the landlord would be in breach because the property is no longer fit for habitation, even where the landlord is not causing the problem.
– In successful cases, plaintiffs have been awarded significant reductions in and reimbursement of rent, and monetary damages for moving and cleaning costs and medical bills."
==========
"The Americans with Disabilities Act
and Fair Housing Act say:
– Persons cannot be discriminated against in workplaces, public places or in housing due to disability;
– having severe breathing problems or chemical sensitivity constitutes a disability (conversely, addiction to smoking is not)
– Therefore, these facilities are required by the ADA and/or FHA (and parallel state statutes) to provide reasonable accommodations to persons with conditions caused by or aggravated by SHS, including possibly making the facility totally smoke-free."
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#502 Jun 4, 2012
Here's some more food for thought, from that same HUD site.

"Poyck v Bryant, 2006 NYSlipOp 26343
– Secondhand smoke drift may form sufficient basis to proceed with private causes of action for breach of warranty of habitability against landlord for smoke drift from one apartment into another.
Harwood Capital Corp. V. Carey, Boston Housing Court, No. 05-SP00187
– Landlord ordered tenants from a one-bedroom rental Condominium for smoke drift, despite lack of a nonsmoking clause in the lease, and landlord statements that smoking would be permitted inside the unit. Court upheld eviction finding smoke drift constituted a nuisance.

Merrill v. Bosser, 12 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 885b
– A Florida Circuit Court found excessive secondhand smoke drift to constitute an actionable trespass, nuisance, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Damages and remedial expenses ordered.
Fox Point Apt. v. Kippes,No. 92-6924,(Lackamas County (OR) Dist. Ct. 1992)
– Tenant sued landlord, alleging breach of the statutory duty to keep the premises habitable and the covenant of peaceful enjoyment. The jury unanimously found a breach of habitability, reduced the plaintiff's rent by 50 percent and awarded the tenant medical costs."

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 Our Opinion: Resources needed for addiction fight 20 min junkies are scum 1
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 35 min Essjayxo 6,908
News Is it worth having surgery to remove your tonsils? (May '07) 6 hr Harley2016 19
News Parents refuse vaccination also because of friends 9 hr ADVERSE EVENTS 1
News CMA urges end to non-medical exemptions for vac... 9 hr ADVERSE EVENTS 1
News The foods that help set the mood AND improve er... 12 hr deandrea 1
News Memorable milestone: NMMC Women's Hospital mark... 13 hr Democrats 1
More from around the web