Dec 6, 2006
Non-Cas Fan's Favorites
Non-Cas Fan Profile
As simplistic as your proposal seems, it is too complex -- and as most government programs do, it would grow. Someone would need to police (inspect) the signage, to see that the condition within the building hadn't changed, etc., etc. Your proposal would become as bloated and micro-managing as any other government method, eventually requiring stacks of paperwork and documentation to justify the sign selected by the business operator. And lawyers to bring the endless lawsuits from people who thought your sign said one thing, but was the other one in practice. It would be better just to have all businesses non-smoking unless otherwise posted, and be done with it. Don't want to breathe secondhand smoke, don't go in. Don't care one way or the other about secondhand smoke, walk on in, it's your choice. Your *informed* choice. Yes, I do believe that there *should* be some businesses that permit indoor smoking; and let them designate where it can and cannot be done if they *do* permit it. Why shouldn't factories be able to have an indoor smoke-break area for their workers? That's never made sense to me. Why shouldn't a business owner be permitted to smoke in his own office, or his company car? That does not affect anybody in the general public at all! But that is what the Ohio Indoor Smoking Ban has given us. And that mentality has progressed to legislations against smoking in parks, and in cars with minors -- even if it's a convertible with the top down, for crying out loud! As if the global atmosphere isn't enough to dissipate the particulates! Ah, well. Nobody ever expected politicians to grasp rudimentary science, I guess. Anyway, this has pretty much always been my position, as a freedom-loving non-smoker. I haven't changed on that since 2006, when this crazy thread started. Can't say that I haven't enjoyed the lack of indoor smoking, I just don't think this ban was the right way to get this result. (And it's still not enforced. You know how many places either don't have the right sign, or even a no smoking sign at all? Neither does the ban enforcement arm of the health department. Because nobody cares that the law is not being enforced, just so long as nobody is smoking indoors.) Ah well. As usual here, I repeat myself. Nothing here I haven't already said more than once, I'd guess. Tchau! (Aug 24, 2014 | post #81857)
Just Candid was one of my favorites. I truly liked her. (Apr 15, 2012 | post #78)
On a side note, in one of the other threads it was stated that "just candid" had passed nearly a year ago. Has there been any verification of this? Seems like Linda would have emailed me about that back then. (Apr 14, 2012 | post #75)
At this point, I don't even recall what may have pushed me to that point. I don't go there often (nor do I do it well when I *do* get pushed to that point), and I guess that makes it somewhat noteworthy or else you wouldn't even have brought it up. I never expected KHartman to be my conscience, but it seems whenever I got off my message and started to get personal on somebody, he'd usually chime in. He's one of the many I'd like to meet in person. ...And not that it's a great justification, but by topix forum standards, that *was* polite. (Apr 14, 2012 | post #74)
Listening to the family reminiscing about Linda, they all knew her position on the indoor smoking ban. They smiled and laughed fondly as they reflected on this common topic. Her oldest son, I'm trying to remember how he said it... but he basically said that he wouldn't have been able to handle all of the rough things that were said in the threads like his mom did. Everybody looked up to Linda for her stalwart and unfailing stance on what she believed. (Mar 28, 2012 | post #4)
Thanks, Jeff. That was me. I wish that I could have met her before this. And I also wish I could have been more effective in convincing her to quit smoking. It was a nice service. (Mar 28, 2012 | post #22170)
Yes, really. If I hadn't undertaken to read the text myself, I wouldn't have believed that the law would prohibit smoking in personal vehicles if they are used for business. Maybe there is some limitation in using the text of a proposed law in advertisements to oppose it, but they really could have done a better job of it. All I wanted was to be able to dine smoke-free, to take the kids bowling without exposing them to decades of accumulated continuous tobacco smoke. That's all. Why should I care if there's smoking in the strip clubs or other non-family venues? Ah, but I saw what was happening too lateI don't see it that way. Again, as a non-smoker, all I had an interest in was not encountering tobacco smoke where I eat. I considered bowling alleys a bonus in the ban. Didn't give a hoot about bars or strip clubs, and still don't. But that's what makes it a "standard template" to promote indoor smoking bans in restaurants and (sports) bars. (I recall the sports bar was a favorite haunt for good ol' Cas). As with most encroachments promoted by the left, they use "the children" as human shields. That is what I refer to as the "standard template". It's the same thing that is being used to ban smoking in personal vehicles. How's that effort going, by the way? Probably chugging right along... since the smokers are only about 20%, we can make a law to force them to do what we think is right, regardless what the science is. Just like the indoor ban. Oh well. Time to get ready for Linda's viewing. (Mar 28, 2012 | post #22103)
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. (Mar 28, 2012 | post #22102)
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... (Mar 28, 2012 | post #22098)
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. (Mar 28, 2012 | post #22097)
If the indoor smoking ban didn't prohibit a business owner smoking in his own private office, or in his company vehicle, or if it didn't prevent him from setting up at his option an indoor smoking room for his employees that smoke... And you would need to assume that Ohio didn't already have law set up for businesses to legally prohibit smoking within their venues (we did)... And that is also assuming the purported dangers of brief exposures of SHS are not exaggerated as a health hazard to the general public (they are)... And you have to ignore the bare fact that the greatest location of SHS exposure (to even what I claim as potentially hazardous levels) is within the private homes of smokers... I know we needn't tread these same roads afresh. Little has changed in my absence... your arguments are the same, my counter arguments are the same. (Mar 27, 2012 | post #22037)
I agree. It won't -- or most likely won't -- be overturned, because we non-smokers do enjoy the lack of indoor smoke. I won't deny that the end has been an improvement. That has never been my beef with the indoor smoking bans. My issues were and always have been with the issue of property/owner's rights and the often specious arguments used to convince us to take them away. And even after all this time, there is a large number of Ohio businesses and organizations which are in violation of the law. How often have you seen a smoker behind the wheel of a business vehicle? I've seen plenty. How about a business vehicle with the proper "no smoking" signs? Doubtful you could spot any. But the smokers are out of the buildings, and that's all that non-smokers wanted so that's all that matters, right? I really doubted the Constitutionality angle they were taking with their case, but I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on Constitutional law. It always seemed to me that there were better angles to take shots at, but the better approach would have been to let the rest of Ohio know what this law written by Sabetta and the ACS (instead of duly elected legislators) really does to their business owner friends and neighbors who happen to be smokers. But the argument always seems to come back to "bars & restaurants, but especially restaurants", the standard template for the anti-tobacco movement. (Mar 26, 2012 | post #22019)
She's doing well, according to facebook. I think she's friends with "just candid" there, but that's just what I've heard from Linda. I haven't seen posts there about Chantix, though. Just the usual stuff people post & re-post on Facebook, but thankfully not those incessant game updates and requests. (Mar 26, 2012 | post #13)
Cas was not all that logical, and definitely not that respectful when posting to the smokers here. But at his core, I don't think he's a bad guy. Never did. In fact, I think under different circumstances, he and I would have gotten along quite well. If you were around back then, maybe you should remember that I took the moniker "Non-Cas Fan" as a counter to Cas' buddy who posted under the name "Cas Fan". It is not the ID I would have chosen had I realized it would be permanent, and I told Cas that; and also told him I would only use the name here because I couldn't change it. But if that is all that is required to become a villain, what does that make the rest of you (both sides)? I use the term "anti-smoker " because that is how you all (broad brush, generality, yeah, I know) tend to post here. The term "anti-smoker " is different from "anti-smoking " or even "anti-tobacco ", as I consider myself to be both of those. No, I don't expect any of you to believe it, but I have been saying it consistently since I first hit topix back in 2006. (Mar 26, 2012 | post #22002)
Only non-smokers posting here so far. Interesting. Linda's roots were in Harlan County, Kentucky, the next county over from where my grandparents lived and are buried, and where my father lived as a young child. She and I connected here on topix not just because I, too, oppose the Ohio indoor smoking ban, but because I think I understood her, at least to a point. No, I didn't always agree with her, especially with the tone of many of her posts here, and I always admonished her to quit. But she always sent me emails concerning the latest goings-on with the smoking ban in the Court after I left topix. I don't intend to tarry here for long, but when I saw news of her passing posted on Facebook I just had to return and pay my respects here. I know many of you other non-smokers didn't like Linda, but I don't think you wanted to look past the fact of her smoking to see her as a person. And the way most of you treated her I don't think she would have wanted you to know her beyond what she posted here. Good grief, one of you even hoped she had died and posted so back on March 12th!! What is *wrong* with you people?! I suspect that many of you will fade into the woodwork, because from what I've seen -- back then as well as now -- few smokers really fuel your fire the way Linda did. RIP, Linda (Mar 25, 2012 | post #4)
Q & A with Non-Cas Fan
That's not Science;
that's a shell game!
Riverside, OH (Mad River Twp)
Mac Depot, Bell Book & Comic, Marion's Piazza, Cassano's, Epic Loot, FOPcon, Chop Suey Carry-Out, Gyro Palace, Pepito's, Greek Isle Deli
I Belong To:
Fraternal Order of Police Associates
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm even nicer. Really.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
I think they make sense.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Myths, Lies, .... John Stossel
My wife and kids. Good Eats. Photography. Good friends.
On My Mind:
The Ohio Indoor Smoking Ban, Linda's passing in 2012
Blog / Website / Homepage:
I Believe In:
The forces of the free market. A mostly laissez faire government.
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC