Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban ...

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constitutional

There are 1192 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.

Gene Autry

United States

#956 Jul 8, 2012
KenTheKweer wrote:
<quoted text> And may it stink big time.
You do like ewe doodoo.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#958 Jul 19, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that other man applied to the government for permission to conduct business with the PUBLIC. He INVITED the PUBLIC onto the premises..
And EVERYONE has the RIGHT to DECLINE any invitation!! That is Freedom of choice by the merchant AND the consumer. That is capitalism, that is business. Plain & simple.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#959 Jul 19, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text> And EVERYONE has the RIGHT to DECLINE any invitation!! That is Freedom of choice by the merchant AND the consumer. That is capitalism, that is business. Plain & simple.
The simplicity is marred by numerous things--not the least of which is addiction.

However, without going there, consider the basis of societies and their formation. Societies are formed when individuals recognize the need for rules to give structure to interactions with other individuals. From that point on, individuals are "free" within the parameters established by the society. Capitalism exists against the background of a society. Rights exist within the structure of a society.

The Ohio Supreme Court is a construct within the structure of the society that exists in Ohio, and its functions INCLUDE determining the extent and priority of the various rights enjoyed by individuals.

Sorry for your luck, but you will have to either change society or choose a different one if you want your assertion to have any validity.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#961 Jul 20, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
The simplicity is marred by numerous things--not the least of which is addiction.
However, without going there, consider the basis of societies and their formation. Societies are formed when individuals recognize the need for rules to give structure to interactions with other individuals. From that point on, individuals are "free" within the parameters established by the society. Capitalism exists against the background of a society. Rights exist within the structure of a society.
The Ohio Supreme Court is a construct within the structure of the society that exists in Ohio, and its functions INCLUDE determining the extent and priority of the various rights enjoyed by individuals.
Sorry for your luck, but you will have to either change society or choose a different one if you want your assertion to have any validity.
Don't be sry for my luck. I am free to go any 'public place' that I want except the ladies room for obvious reasons, the least of which is that seeing certain females sitting on the throne would nauseate me & posssibly lead to blindness. I just flat out don't think that it's right to mandate EXCLUSION! Like so called Affirmative Action, set asides, the Black (only)Ms America contest etc etc. They are EXCLUSIONs created, funded, abused, protected & perpetuated by tax dollars. Non-Smoking is mandated by law or court allowance just like the aforementioned. ALL of them infringe on individual freedoms & at the same time create Special Groups in violation of the constitution which was created SPECIFICALLY to LIMIT government intrusion of individual freedoms & in fact to PROTECT individual freedoms. ALL of the founding fathers intended exactly that while writing the constitution & the Bill of Rights.
Example: NO WHERE in either document declares 'seperation of church & state'. Paraphrasing, It says that the Government shall NOT endorse any particular religion. Which it does not unless you want to consider prayer before each meeting of congress have had invocations lead by numerous & different demonanations for centuries. Yet somehow, the courts have disallowed prayers before school sporting events time & again even when it has been voluntarily practiced by groups that get NO tax dollars like the Scouts or a church group that happen to use a public school gym after hours or even less tax dollars than OUR so called representatives that are wholly tax funded including their support staffs, transportation, security, secretaries, janitors, coffee machines, offices & even their postage meters.
Do you see the inconsistancies, in fact call them conflicts?
azmac

Golden Valley, AZ

#962 Jul 21, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
The simplicity is marred by numerous things--not the least of which is addiction.
However, without going there, consider the basis of societies and their formation. Societies are formed when individuals recognize the need for rules to give structure to interactions with other individuals. From that point on, individuals are "free" within the parameters established by the society. Capitalism exists against the background of a society. Rights exist within the structure of a society.
The Ohio Supreme Court is a construct within the structure of the society that exists in Ohio, and its functions INCLUDE determining the extent and priority of the various rights enjoyed by individuals.
Sorry for your luck, but you will have to either change society or choose a different one if you want your assertion to have any validity.
The rules, regulations and taxes are there to destroy property rights, your freedom , business and jobs. With over 100 million without jobs and over 47 million on food stamps, I think the rules have done there job very well so far. It will get much worse very soon. By not following the constitution, this country is about to fall. Right now Obama is about to sign a treaty with the UN to take all our guns. This should prove very interesting.
The new rules that you people helped make are they can jail you for ever or kill you with no trial. They can now take all you own with no trial. They can decide what you will eat. They can now decide if you live or die. Their choice not yours. You are about to see all the new laws implemented.
james

Sunnyvale, CA

#963 Jul 21, 2012
When are people going to learn that cigarettes are bad for you, really bad.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#964 Jul 21, 2012
james wrote:
When are people going to learn that cigarettes are bad for you, really bad.
When are YOU going to comprehend what you read? NO ONE, repeat NO ONE on this thread has argued that smoking is good.
They primary discussion has been individual FREEDOM of choice.
IF you want to change the topic, start a new thread.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#965 Jul 21, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>They cannot choose to endanger me. Not with SHS, not with Asbestos, not with rotten food, not with lack of fire exits.....
You're sort of correct. THEY (the business owner) does NOT choose to endanger you. YOU choose to endager yourself IF you submit yourself to SHS, welding without eye protection, skateboarding without elbow & knee pads, spelunking without lighting etc. The CHOICE is yours to use your own brain...so to speak.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#966 Jul 21, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>You're sort of correct. THEY (the business owner) does NOT choose to endanger you. YOU choose to endager yourself IF you submit yourself to SHS, welding without eye protection, skateboarding without elbow & knee pads, spelunking without lighting etc. The CHOICE is yours to use your own brain...so to speak.
Pops - you have seen they way that most of the ant-smokers respond to posts on this forum - most of them decided to "Check their brain at the door" as soon as they learned to spout the anti smoking rhetoric.
Kyboy

Ft Mitchell, KY

#967 Jul 21, 2012
james wrote:
When are people going to learn that cigarettes are bad for you, really bad.
About the same time that CA people realize supporting Obama policies are bad, real bad.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#968 Jul 21, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
No analogy. You are talking about reckless driving, not drinking.
You're spewing garbage again Pops!!

Although I haven't found a study on it, I would be willing to bet BIG MONEY that that the "Risk Ratio" for being "DRUNK" leading to "Reckless Driving" is going to be 100 or more times.- in fact "DRUNK" is universally considered the leading CAUSE of "reckless driving" - I say it's a GREAT ANALOGY!
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
You can stand beside someone who knocks them back for hours and not be personally affected.
Yea - I would say the odds are pretty good - but the odds are also pretty good that they will pull out a knife or gun and try to kill you - just because you "Looked at them funny"

The odds are going jump a LOT higher if that "DRUNK" had just been handed a "Pink Slip" or "Divorce papers" or an "Eviction notice" earlier in the day - aren't they Pops - he MAY just decide to "Take out" everyone in the place.- It's a common problem and easily verifiable - TOTALLY UNLIKE the "phantom" possibilities that you are refering to with SHS
Hugh Jass wrote:
Replace the lush with a chain smoker in that situation, though, and he automatically impacts all those around him.
SHOW US THE PROOF!!! that he is impacting ANYONE around him - "except maybe their sensibilities"
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#969 Jul 21, 2012
"Hugh Jass Jr"
You're spewing garbage again Pops!!
<quoted text>
Hey JUNIOR, YOU cut & paste from HUGH JASS (SR) & then argue with ME??? No wonder you took the moniker of Junior, as in the size of your thinking-or is that non-thinking?
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#970 Jul 21, 2012
pops wrote:
"Hugh Jass Jr"
You're spewing garbage again Pops!!
<quoted text>
Hey JUNIOR, YOU cut & paste from HUGH JASS (SR) & then argue with ME??? No wonder you took the moniker of Junior, as in the size of your thinking-or is that non-thinking?
Not refering to you pops - refering to him as pops Hugh Jass Sr.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#971 Jul 22, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
Not refering to you pops - refering to him as pops Hugh Jass Sr.
lol. Got it now.
Sadatagin

Montross, VA

#972 Jul 22, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>lol. Got it now.
Jr. Is not as bright as his pop.
pops

Cincinnati, OH

#973 Jul 25, 2012
Sadatagin wrote:
<quoted text>Jr. Is not as bright as his pop.
seemingly so but lets give JR a chance to develope a history or pattern of at least 3-5 posts. Especially since this particular thread has become multifaceted.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#974 Jul 25, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>Don't be sry for my luck. I am free to go any 'public place' that I want except the ladies room for obvious reasons, the least of which is that seeing certain females sitting on the throne would nauseate me & posssibly lead to blindness. I just flat out don't think that it's right to mandate EXCLUSION! Like so called Affirmative Action, set asides, the Black (only)Ms America contest etc etc. They are EXCLUSIONs created, funded, abused, protected & perpetuated by tax dollars. Non-Smoking is mandated by law or court allowance just like the aforementioned.
Shame on you stooping that low. People and specific activities are not equivalents. Genetically determined melanin levels is not analogous to smoking. It's amazing what addiction can do to the sense of proportion, and how long-lasting that effect can be in some people. You say you quit smoking? Did you then invest that money in tobacco stock or something?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#975 Jul 25, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>You're sort of correct. THEY (the business owner) does NOT choose to endanger you. YOU choose to endager yourself IF you submit yourself to SHS, welding without eye protection, skateboarding without elbow & knee pads, spelunking without lighting etc. The CHOICE is yours to use your own brain...so to speak.
Ah, so it doesn't matter in your world that the owners CHOOSE to endanger as many people as it takes to make the business profitable, and you think it shouldn't matter to the community as long as the specific INDIVIDUAL isn't targeted?

Choosing to endanger a random but large number of people is a bad thing.
Choosing to endanger a specific person or a specific group of people is a bad thing.
Each is a bad thing regardless of whether the other is involved or not.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#976 Jul 25, 2012
pops wrote:
<quoted text>When are YOU going to comprehend what you read? NO ONE, repeat NO ONE on this thread has argued that smoking is good.
They primary discussion has been individual FREEDOM of choice.
IF you want to change the topic, start a new thread.
Ah, yes, take it outside of this "individual freedom of choice" forum altogether. Man, the idiocy you folks get up to when I don't post for a few days.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#977 Jul 25, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
I say it's a GREAT ANALOGY!
Doing something because you are impaired by having indulged is not an analogy for indulging.

Starting a multi-million-dollar fire that destroys several homes and kills half a dozen people by carelessly handling your cigarette when you are finished smoking it is a better analogy for driving after you have been drinking.

I bet the odds of starting a fire with a lit cigarette are several hundred times higher for smokers than for nonsmokers. So what?

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.

Medicine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hawaii Raises Smoking Age to 21 - Could New Yor... 46 min Smokestopper 4
Vagus Nerve Disorder Causes Symptoms Treatments (Feb '12) 3 hr jaxwillis23 92
News Graves & Gilbert Clinic Welcomes Dr. Chhabra to... (Jan '14) 4 hr Red Rum 15
News Lee County administrator hospitalized 6 hr Never heard his name 2
News We may be able to reverse early Alzheimer's (Dec '14) 9 hr Cathy in MD 2
News Victims speak out on doctor who took explicit p... (Sep '14) 10 hr pailrider 23
News California moves to raise smoking age to 21 12 hr I like Nanny STATES 13
More from around the web