Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme...

Smoking ban to go before Ohio Supreme Court

There are 21273 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.

TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

#22070 Mar 27, 2012
Joy wrote:
<quoted text>You shouldn't snort all those pills. You are a dope head at it's finest. I hear you like your meth and heroin too.
Oh was there something else brilliant you wanted to say besides the denial ridden silliness of "I don't know what she died of..." blah blah BS!

You are a dope which is clear from the few posts here, and your delusional ramblings of the smoking did not cause the cancer BS makes you look as foolish as linda often did in her ridiculous rants!

But that'ss okay, because you are in really good company with Kent from Maryland, Friskies, and azmac...

It amazing how many of these goobers want to take the crown of smoking queen goober on topix!

At least let her throne get cold before you fools try to claim it for yourself! Have a little more respect for linda than that, aye!
Jerry

Avon, OH

#22074 Mar 27, 2012
Sorry to read of Linda's passing. While we never agreed on anything, I will miss her. RIP
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

#22077 Mar 27, 2012
Joy wrote:
<quoted text>You shouldn't snort all those pills. You are a dope head at it's finest. I hear you like your meth and heroin too.
I wonder if these comments would be considered libelous?
Just me

Anaheim, CA

#22080 Mar 27, 2012
You did exactly the same thing a few days ago. In fact you went on some other Topix forum and found someone who posted under "Just me" from, I believe, Nashville and then reposted it here or on the Hermosa thread for some strange reason. While we're on the subject, why would you do such a thing?
frisky wrote:
" So damn stupid you don't know one poster from the other,"
Joy

Van Wert, OH

#22081 Mar 27, 2012
TruthBeTold wrote:
<quoted text>I wonder if these comments would be considered libelous?
How funny now you come up with that one. It doesn't go both ways for you does it?
Just me

Anaheim, CA

#22082 Mar 27, 2012
I just want to point out that you first state that your friend's death was due to the doctor "over medicating" her and then blame her death on "pharmaceuticals." The other thing that's interesting is that she died of a blood clot which is exactly what blood thinner's are supposed to prevent. In any case, sorry for your losses. Sounds like it's been a rough couple of weeks for you.
Joy wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what the cause of death was but she had brain cancer, leg cancer that had migrated to her lungs. It did not start out as lung cancer. Just like breast cancer when it migrates to another part of your body the cause of death is breast cancer. To put it better the area it was first diagnosed is the cause of death. However the cause of death in her case could have been many different illnesses that had nothing to do with cancer at all. Another friend of mine died last week from a massive blood clot in her brain that was caused from the doctor over medicating her on blood thinner. She did not nor did she ever smoke. She was 67.She died very suddenly. So all deaths are not caused by cancer.
This was another death caused by pharmaceuticals which kills more people than anything.
Joy

Van Wert, OH

#22083 Mar 27, 2012
Just me wrote:
I just want to point out that you first state that your friend's death was due to the doctor "over medicating" her and then blame her death on "pharmaceuticals." The other thing that's interesting is that she died of a blood clot which is exactly what blood thinner's are supposed to prevent. In any case, sorry for your losses. Sounds like it's been a rough couple of weeks for you.
<quoted text>
Hey duma## read this real slowly so you get it. OK>
She died from a blood clot which was produced from her brain bleeding due to pharmaceuticals (blood thinner))the doctor over medicated her on blood thinners. The doctor in Columbus said her blood was too thin which caused the bleeding which resulted in a clot. If you have ever had bleeding you do know it clots. I hope it was your son as he is going to be sued for over medicating her with a pharmaceutical (blood thinner)
Joy

Van Wert, OH

#22084 Mar 27, 2012
Oh she wasn't a smoker either which should surprise you as you think every death is caused from smoking. The doctors don't know what to do when one of their patients doesn't smoke, they don't know what to blame the illness or death.
Just me

Anaheim, CA

#22085 Mar 27, 2012
My apologies for having mistaken you for a nice person who can engage in a civil discussion. Now, once again, if the doctor over medicated her why did you also attribute her death to the pharmaceutical company?

I was asking you a perfectly reasonable question and also extended my condolences to you for having lost two friends in such a short time and you respond that you hope it was my son that caused your friends death and that he will be sued? That was completely uncalled for.
Joy wrote:
<quoted text>Hey duma## read this real slowly so you get it. OK>
She died from a blood clot which was produced from her brain bleeding due to pharmaceuticals (blood thinner))the doctor over medicated her on blood thinners. The doctor in Columbus said her blood was too thin which caused the bleeding which resulted in a clot. If you have ever had bleeding you do know it clots. I hope it was your son as he is going to be sued for over medicating her with a pharmaceutical (blood thinner)
Old Guy

Fairfield, OH

#22086 Mar 27, 2012
Joy wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what the cause of death was but she had brain cancer, leg cancer that had migrated to her lungs.
On the Facebook page put together by her family they spoke of lung cancer and brain cancer, nothing about cancer of the leg. I think they are a more reliable source than you.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2029267998163...

In 40% of the cases lung cancer metastasizes to the brain. It seldom moves in the other direction.
Old Guy

Fairfield, OH

#22087 Mar 27, 2012
And, if she did have cancer of the leg bone:

"Cancer involving the bone in older adults is most commonly the result of metastatic spread from another tumor."

http://www.medicinenet.com/bone_cancer/page2....

In all likelihood, lung cancer was the primary cancer in Linda's case. It is a very common cancer in smokers and former smokers.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22091 Mar 28, 2012
No Smoking Sign wrote:
I get it now, you're just jealous that you didn't think of this and you're doing everything possible to sabotage it. Are you that shallow?
Sorry to differ, but I suspect that you really don't get it, and that you have given her too much credit when suggesting she might be "that shallow". I believe she is jealous of LINDA, who is getting all this attention.
scottshabott

Karachi, Pakistan

#22092 Mar 28, 2012
Doing smoking at public places it is so bad and disturbs other peoples who does not smoke.
The Ohio Supreme Court took the wright and good decision to make smoke free state for their peoples.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22093 Mar 28, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the link!
You're certainly welcome. I don't think I had seen that particular page until I went looking after reading your post and thinking there must be a better way for you. So, thank YOU for the inspiration.
scottshabott

Karachi, Pakistan

#22094 Mar 28, 2012
Doing smoking at public places it is so bad and disturbs other peoples who does not smoke.
The Ohio Supreme Court took the wright and good decision to make smoke free state for their peoples.


[url=http://www.mydermatologis t.com/proceduresandtreatments. php?page=proceduresandtreatmen ts&amp;subPage=]Miami Dermatologist[/url],[url=http: //www.mydermatologist.com/proc eduresandtreatments.php?page=p roceduresandtreatments&amp ;subPage=]South Miami Dermatologist[/url],[url=http: //www.mydermatologist.com/]Ken dall Dermatologist[/url],[url=http: //www.mydermatologist.com/]Cor al Gables Dermatologist[/url],[url=http: //www.mydermatologist.com/]Mia mi Botox[/url],[url=http://www.my dermatologist.com/]South Miami Botox[/url],[url=http://www.my dermatologist.com/]Kendall Botox[/url]
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#22095 Mar 28, 2012
No Smoking Sign wrote:
<quoted text>
you're a demented piece of manure - that was the first post on that thread - how do you figure I posted after you did? You hadn't even posted on that thread because I started the thing. As for "so every one can remember her in their own way" - I didn't read that in any of your posts.
Actually, very near the end of her post ( http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/TC2... ) she used the words "everyone" and "remember", as well as the phrase "in their own way".
She said, "I am sure everyone will remember Linda in their own way."

And you used those words and that phrase as well when you said, "every one can remember her in their own way".

You also said it in the second-to-last sentence of your post. JUST AS SHE HAD!! THAT is the CLINCHER, you copycat! Shame on you.

Both posts show as from the same day--so apparently, within Topix discernment, you posted simultaneously.

Okay, I need to get my tongue back out of my cheek lest I accidentally taste blood.

“That's not Science;”

Since: Dec 06

that's a shell game!

#22097 Mar 28, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who is often red-eyed and occasionally even bubbly-breathed from the smoke in my own living room (from smoking neighbors' apartments), I tend not to see this particular sort of regulation as requiring any stretch of reasoning to justify. The issue of whether "property rights" are a legitimate issue I won't touch, as it gets enough attention elsewhere.
(excerpted)
Smoking in one's dwelling is not on the same level as someone wanting to cater his business to a smoking clientele.

Not clear if your living room is in a house separated from the apartment building, or an additional part of the apartments... I can't imagine so much smoke from an apartment complex that it would have that effect through general atmospheric conditions ("often red-eyed and occasionally even bubbly-breathed from the smoke"), so it sounds like you have an issue to raise with your apartment manager.

After all, you may be getting critical exposure to SHS. You could consider moving to a smoke-free apartment.

“That's not Science;”

Since: Dec 06

that's a shell game!

#22098 Mar 28, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>(excerpted)
As noted in the oral arguments in this case, enforcement requires response to a filed complaint. While vehicles belonging to businesses may be in violation, they are far less likely to engender complaints. Complaints are far more likely to come from victims than from someone simply noticing a violation. If the victim and the violator are one and the same, how likely is a complaint?(excerpted)
<quoted text>
"Victim"? This is a Health Code not a Criminal Code. "Complainant", sure, but "victim" doesn't seem appropriate, since the word does not appear in ORC 3794 nor does the tone of a violation of it identify a victim.

How is anyone victimized by Wal-Mart not having the appropriate No Smoking sign? How is anyone victimized by catching a whiff of smoke while indoors when they likely had to walk past the active smokers standing just outside the door and breathe just as much or more smoke thereby? Even if someone lights up right next to you, you are not a victim.

The raw truth is that the smoking ban law is *not* widely followed and *not* widely enforced. Kinda like the speed limit laws in that regard. Kinda.

Hmm... weird. I just looked at the version of ORC 3794 online, and it no longer indicates that the No Smoking sign needs to have the complaints phone number, but it doesn't indicate any changes have been made. I will reassess my argument with regard to this portion of the indoor smoking ban, and adjust it appropriately. I'm pretty sure I have old copies of the full text in a box somewhere...
No Smoking Sign

Littleton, CO

#22100 Mar 28, 2012
frisky wrote:
<quoted text>simultaneously , my ass, i knew you were an idiot, i just didn't realize how big of one until now. my post # 21896 PAGE 1014
NSS post # 21918 PAGE 1015
NSS POSTED AFTER ME... 22 SUM POSTS LATER.
Then NSS MADE THE THREAD...... LINDA"S GREATEST HITS.
I thought for a minute there you were a little above the rootlessness of the nonsmoking anti's on the SMOKING FORUMS , but you aren't , you wallow in the same shit.
good lord, woman - I'm well into my 60's - is it so difficult for you to comprehend that I may have run across that term at least a few times in my life. I didn't see the post where you mentioned it. I DON'T READ ALL OF YOUR ASININE POSTS BECAUSE YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

“That's not Science;”

Since: Dec 06

that's a shell game!

#22102 Mar 28, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
(excerpted)
<quoted text>
You point to the fundamental nature of the initiative process as if it were somehow damning. Initiative measures are, by and large, put together by non-government groups who then collect signatures to see if there is adequate support to give the people the chance to decide whether what those outside groups have put together should or should not become law.
That's not a bad thing about this law. It is simply the way things work. When an initiative is put on the ballot, everyone with any grasp of civics KNOWS that it was not put together by "elected legislators". It was put together by "duly authorized citizen groups".
<quoted text>(excerpted)
That, I would argue, is precisely *why* the Initiative process is damning. It is Pure Democracy, "mob rule".

Sure, it is a legal process now, but certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind when they were deciding what form of government we should have. I can't remember when the Initiative became a legal option in Ohio, but it is always an end-run around the Legislators we elect to represent us.

Ohio legislators weren't taking action on creating an indoor smoking ban... why not? Was it simply that they were all in the pocket of Big Tobacco? Or was it that the current law was satisfactory, had businesses chosen to use it? Hmm.

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.

Smoking Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News U.S. House bill would exempt e-cigarettes from ... 23 hr Ronald 9
News Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino Unveils $40M Expansion Apr 25 Stewart 3
News Callaway Liquor Store takes advantage of tribal... (Feb '09) Apr 25 Wilbur 5
News Smoking causes wrinkles Apr 24 Stink Stink 21
best cigarette for a first time smoker? (Jul '08) Apr 24 olivia 80
News It's time to increase state cigarette tax Apr 19 Ronald 69
Strongest Cigarette (Jun '06) Apr 18 Idc 302
More from around the web