Two smoking bans will be on Ohio's ballot. As Ohio Goes has an important post on the difference between the two bans. Basically, Issue 4 is to smoking what Issue 3 is to education.
In addition to R.J. Reynolds and other organizations, Issue 4 is supported by the Cigar Association of America, the Lorillard Tobacco Co., the National Association of Tobacco Outlets Inc. and the Retail Tobacco Dealers Association.
R.J. Reynolds is bankrolling pro-smoking efforts in other states this year, including Arizona, where the campaign brazenly calls itself the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Committee.
NBC News did a story on the inherent dishonesty of the Ohio and Arizona efforts, noting that Smoke Less Ohio petitioners did not disclose the fact that their issue was being promoted by the tobacco industry.
There's also another difference: Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment whereas Issue 5 is a law. So if both pass, Issue 4 takes precedence.
And speaking of Issue 3 ("gambling for schools"), I saw a new OL&E commercial this morning. They are using a new deception tactic in the voiceover, saying something like "By limiting gaming to 9 locations around the state..."
By limiting gaming? Yes, that's what they want, to limit gaming. Here's how it might seem if other ventures adopted the gaming lobby's ad strategy:
Neocon Foreign Policy: By limiting U.S. troop presence to only Earth-based nations, we will provide much needed freedom...
Microsoft: By limiting Windows to only 100% of computers, we will help consumers...
Porn Industry: By limiting content to the internet, we will help reduce the prevalence...
GOP leadership: By limiting corporate control to only the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government at only the local, state and federal levels, we will ensure that ordinary Americans...
UPDATE: For more information about Ohio and Hamilton County ballot issues, see this post.
6 comments:
The fact the tobacoo industry is supporting issue 4 doesnt make it a bad issue. Of course they are for it. Issue 5 allows the government to choose for all businesses what their smoking policies should be. It is the new prohibition, the governement trying to invade our lives where they have no business being.
Issue 4 is a common sense approach, it bans smoking in the vast majority of public places, it does however allow some exceptions where it makes sense, Bars, bowling alleys and some eating establishments.
It allows these businesses to choose what they and their customers want. Those that find their customers prefer smoke free can be, those that don't have that option as well.
Yes issue 4 allows personal choice, almost like in a free country.
Issue 3, well despite the idiotic way its being tied to education, my only question there is, why exactly are gambling establisments illegal in ohio in the first place. Oh yea, government protecting us from ourselves again.
The basic argument for Issue 4 is the whole "government privacy" issue and the government overstepping its boundaries. The whole "modern day prohibition" thing. The fact of the matter is, it is an entirely different argument. By consuming alcohol, you do not force others to partake against their will, which is exactly what happens with smoking.
Joe says, "Issue 4 allows personal choice." Personal choice for who? The bar owners? The restaurant owners? Not me. I've been told by proponents of Issue 4 that I could chose NOT to patronize a bar or restaurant if I think it is too smoky. Why should I have to NOT go into a bar to watch the big game or dine in a restaurant that got a great review, because of the smoke? I hate smoke....I hate smelling it as I'm eating...I hate smelling it in my hair and my clothes after a night out. It is a privacy issue, of sorts. It invades MY privacy.
And let's be realistic. This is not another tactic for government to interfere with our privacy. The government is "not protecting me from myself". The government will protect me from OTHER people's sickening smoke.
And I'm not even going to get into healthcare costs and how we all are affected by them. It's time for Ohio to progress. If New York and California can do it, we can. I would like someone to tell me they've been to a bar in LA or NYC that folded because it didn't allow smoking.
I recently heard of a bar owner in Lake County that asked the question,"how are Republicans voting on this issue?" My first inclination is to say it is a bi-partisian issue. I'd like to what the spin would be to make it into a Republican/Democrat issue. Any thoughts?
Angela
I am a smoker. I am a bar owner. I am extremely confused as to what the outcome will be with these issues. Personally I would rather have 5 pass and 4 fail or both lose than have 4 win at all. While 4 would leave the decision up to me, even as a smoker, I would rather have my tavern be smoke free.
Yes, this coming from a smoker. My reason being is that 90% of the dirt I have to clean up each day is from cigarettes. Cigars stink and all it takes is one to blow the room up. I am lucky because I have an outside area that I can heat for the smokers if it is outlawed.
I have been to Ireland, a chilly winter, and as a smoker had to go outside to smoke. You meet people and you go home in the evening and don't stink.
As a bartender I have gone home many countless nights and have to jump straight into the shower because of the stink of smoke. I would love to not have that.
New York did it, California did it, Florida did it. Let's do it too.
Tavern Owner in Cleveland
Interesting perspective from someone in the business. Thanks for the comment.
One big problem with 4 is that it proactively overrules any local smoking bans. So if one part of town wants to set smoking restrictions, they're out of luck. They can't do it because Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment and prohibits local intitiatives. That's about as counter-democratic as you can get.
Anonymous,
The reason you are cleaning up 90% butts is because so many of your customers like to smoke while they drink.
I wish 4 & 5 BOTH would have failed.
We don't need a constitutional amendment (issue 4) that supercedes private business owners' choice in banning smoking if they wish to ban it in their establishment, and we don't need issue 5, forcing bar owners and tobacco shops to prohibit smoking in their establishments.
Unfortunately, 5 passed. Guess I will be staying home when I want a beer now. It's often too cold to go outside in the winter in Ohio, and I gotta have a smoke when I am drinking a beer.
Speaking of that, what's more harmful to people's health is drunk drivers leaving bars. Now that we're all for the government protecting us from ourselves, I think that police should stand at bars' doors and give every person leaving the bar who plans on driving a breathalyzer test.
Big brother must protect us from ourselves! Choice is too dangerous!
We need a prohibition revival not only on cigarettes, but also alcohol! It's only logical.
"Why should I have to NOT go into a bar to watch the big game or dine in a restaurant that got a great review, because of the smoke?"
Because you don't own the bar. When you own your own bar, you can ban smoking from it and that is your right. Besides, there are already plenty of restaurants without smoking sections, who ban smoking in their building.
Why should I have to be afraid to drive late at night on weekends because people are coming out of bars after drinking an intoxicating substance? How many people do you know who leave bars at "last call" who have had more than one beer and are "buzzed" or just flat out drunk?
Post a Comment