I envision a cone of silence like Get Smart had. When a smoker lights up the cone comes down and he gets to keep all his smoke to himself. I dont care if they smoke in public as long as all the smoke stays with them.A big cone could drop and envelope the whole table. When done the air would be evacuated into their car.
Actually, no. It doesn’t prohibit smoking in “their own cabs”, just in company-owned cabs that are, at least in theory, shared by other drivers. If they own the cab, they can smoke in it.
The problem with the Ohio Law is some of the unintended consequences. There is a commission scheduled to publish a report in June of 2007 that will interpret this law. It has gotten pretty crazy with all the individual interpretations by legislators, lawyers and bureaucrats.
Some examples of interpretation include: 1) The idea that a truck driver, driving a company truck, will not be able to smoke in it because it is a workplace, 2) An individual who has a hospice worker or home health aid working in their home cannot smoke because their home is now a workplace, 3) Smoking areas cannot even be on sidewalks or areas where any traffic flows because it will expose people to second-hand smoke, 4) Smoking areas must be 200 feet from any STRUCTURE, because a window may allow smoke to come in, and finally my personal favorite, 5) If a covered area, set aside for smoking, is man made with at least three walls it is a building and smoking cannot occur in it.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
I dunno. On one hand, I’m a non-smoker who hates smelling the stuff. On the other hand, I’m sort of sympathetic to libertarian arguments that this whole banning of smoking leads to stuff like banning trans fats, then to fining restaurants who don’t serve enough healthy food, and so on forth down. And that’s assuming that they’re wrong that the dangers of secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated (not that it’s not still incredibly annoying).
In either case, I’m not sure how I feel about the argument that “if you don’t allow gays to marry, you can’t complain about your rights being violated in any other regard.” Viscerally, I agree, but it still feels WRONG to me in a way I can’t explain…
Wow, my feelings on this are a lot more conflicted than I thought…
Our city put in a smoking ban a few years ago and it really did help me quit, imho.
But anyways, I would say to the OP, give the smokers and pub owners more than a month to adapt and accept. Really, certain types of bars will get screwed by a ban like this (e.g bars that compete with the Legion Hall), others will suddenly see new customers that never went to bars before.
I personally think it eventually shakes out positive but it takes a little longer than a month. Not much though…year or two (my personal opinion based on here and a few other cities I’ve read about).
I’m not sure where you’re getting these “interpretations”.
If you look at the entire language of the anti-public smoking initiative by Smoke Free Ohio, none of the above eventualities seem to apply. For instance, private homes are exempt except if they are businesses, i.e. the homeowner runs a business out of them:
“(A) Private residences, except during the hours of operation as a child care or adult care facility for compensation, during the hours of operation as a business by a person other than a person residing in the private residence, or during the hours of operation as a business, when employees of the business, who are not residents of the private residence or are not related to the owner, are present.”
That appears to eliminate the example where health care workers come into a home.
I see nothing in the initiative that would establish a 200 foot rule or prohibit smoking on sidewalks. These claims sound like something made up by the bar and restaurant industry as an attempt to demonstrate that the law is unworkable. On the contrary, the law makes sense and contains reasonable exemptions.
We got a memo at my workplace about this the other day. My mall in downtown Cleveland is non-smoking already, but occasionally people will grab a cigarette in the back hallways or by the dumpsters at the loading dock. Not often, but it happens. No more. Now in addition to going outside, smokers have to go across the street to Public Square to smoke, which can be quite a trek. Hard to do on a 15-minute break. And my mall is in the basement of a cluster of office buildings, all of which have to send their smokers over to Public Square. Can’t wait to see the crowds…used to be just a few people at the doorways, but now they will all be huddling together on the Square for warmth.
And several restaurants have set up Smoker’s Tents already, but they all seem to have four walls and a roof, which I guess is a violation. Even though the walls are just canvas. I wonder if they have heaters in there, because it’s darn cold in these parts this time of year.
There’s a section in the initiative that says a proprietor must ensure that smoke does not enter the building through entrances, windows or the ventilation system, so that has been interpreted to mean that smokers cannot stand near the doorways or the building itself…which rules out the sidewalks.
I actually agree with many of your interpretations, but others are not. These are the result of having a law without the interpretations. Once this commission files it’s report, it will be much better.
I assure you, however, some of these rules have been discussed in many different places. I agree that many of them may be false rumors, but the language in the law seems to imply some of them
For example, look at this clause “An enclosed area is defined as a space with a roof or other overhead covering and walls or other side
coverings on all but one side.”
When some palces constructed smoking pavillions, they put roofs, and three walls to act as wind breaks. This law would make it illegal to smoke in an outdoor smoking area, do you think that is rational and makes sense?
The hospice situation is also a problem. For example, there are “live-in” care providers. Thus, as a result, local hospice providers where I am put out a memo directing families that they cannot smoke in their homes if they wish to use these services. Does that make sense, or is it rational?
In addition, there is a huge issue in Ohio State government right now about what this means: “The posting of no smoking signs is required in all public places and places of employment where smoking is prohibited.” How many signs?, every building, every area? I am not kidding when I say that some places are looking at purchasing 1,000’s of no smoking signs because of this.
This is the part of the law that is getting various interpretations as well
“including in outdoor areas under the control of the proprietor immediately adjacent to places of ingress or egress to the enclosed area; requires a proprietor to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter enclosed areas through doors, windows, ventilation systems or other means where smoking is prohibited,”
How far does it have to be in order to avoid having smoke come in? Take for example a very large building, the state has many. They have smoking areas away from doors, but they are still up against the building. This would require moving them. The current distance, many beleive is 20 feet. However, some have said this is not enough. There are many places where buildings are not 20 feet apart. This means no one can smoke, outside of the building for hundreds, in some cases, thousands of feet until no building is within 20-30 feet.
This has also brought up bus stops. They have roofs and walls on all 4 sides. Thus, smoking is prohibited in them and 20-30 feet around them. Is this rational?
The bottom line is that there are a lot of interpretations that must be examined. It is not wholly rational and is subject to interpretation by many more who may be irrational.
Quite frankly, they should have just stuck with, don’t smoke inside. When they started getting into egress, windows, ventilation and patios, it got really insane.
Sorry, gotta jump on the bandwagon here:
What if all the bars allow smoking? How is that a choice?
Aw, man. Too bad the games are exempt. For a second there I thought I might actually get to enjoy some stench-free blackjack.
This is the free-market in action.
The USA (in particular) has created a litigation-ready society, and the real driver for the smoking bans (IMO) is a geniune fear on the part of large hospitality chains that they will soon be subject to a class action suit for damages brought by bar workers who’ve contracted smoking-related diseases.
The evidence for illnesses from second-hand smoke is now so well-attested (and more importantly recognised by the courts) that there would be a clear failure of duty of care for bar owners to allow smoking.
Large chains are more at risk than smaller pubs / bars, and they will have put pressure on the Govt to legislate for an industry-wide ban - a “pick and choose” approach would leave larger chains with an impossible choice - 1) ban smoking and loose business, or 2) allow smoking and risk lawsuits.
I’m a bit troubled by the vague wording of this passage as well:
If interpreted literally, a resident could fall to the ground and the staff could refuse to enter the smoking area to assist them.
Huh? To me, legal recognition is integral to the concept of marriage. It needs to be legally recognized to be marriage.
The theory that the company owned cabs are shared by other drivers is ludicrous, of course, as most truck cabs are used by only one person at a time. Very very few have two drivers.
I’ll bet you’re not allowed to smoke in a coal mine, either. 
Sailboat
DianaG (or anyone else), any idea how close a smoker can be to a building in MA? There are probably laws stating such, but I think most people tend to ignore them. I smoke next to bus stations and the like all the time, and no one has given me a hard time in probably the last decade. I try to respect their rights, and they end up respecting mine. It seems we have ignored the law and reached some sort of equalibrium.
Actually, I was recently confronted for smoking in a non-smoking area by a security guard. He very politely asked “Excuse me, sir, if you are going to smoke, could you please go over there?” (This was maybe 20 feet away.) I said sure and he thanked me profusely, and everyone was happy.
Give people a chance to get over the shock of the ban and they can have an enormous capacity to respect each other.
I don’t know exactly what that’s about, but it seems likely that it’s designed to keep businesses from establishing essentially enclosed areas for smokers that will not be ventilated properly, thus exposing staff to high levels of secondhand smoke. You can have a smoking patio, but you can’t unduly enclose it to essentially create another room. At least, that would make sense to me.
What you’re referring to is not a result of state law but of a marketplace decision not to expose hospice workers to secondhand smoke. If the client wants to have services provided at home and not go to a hospice facility, that’s a decision he/she will have to make. Sounds sensible.
I see nothing in state law that says that signs must be posted in every room of a facility. This sounds like more groundless fears.
All the law says is that in situations where smoke seeps into areas covered by the law, that situation must be corrected. If it stops the practice of smokers congregating right by the entrance to a building so that smoke seeps indoors and you have a run a gauntlet of smoke to get inside, well and good.
Yes. You should be able to wait for the bus in an enclosure without having to breathe someone else’s smoke.
Again, a lot of this stuff sounds like nit-picking and rumor-mongering. If all parties involved act reasonably and comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law, it’ll work fine. The Health Department won’t have the time or patience to enforce the law on the basis of a relatively few unreasonable complaints.
In a couple of years all this will have settled down, people will have adjusted and we’ll wonder what the fuss was all about.
Not unlike many pieces of legislation, this one has gone way past the point where it ceased to offer relief, and is now a bunch of bullshit.
I smoked for 20 years and although I don’t miss the smell on my clothing or in my vehicle, it’s still clearly a matter of choice.
If Joe wants to have Joe’s restaurant, bar, or whatever as a smoking facility, then with a proper sign the folks who wish to be free of smoke can patronize another business. I see it as no different than a topless bar. If you don’t want to look at semi-naked women, don’t pull into the parking lot, don’t go inside, and don’t try to eliminate what a segment of the population enjoys.
To say that the world should be made smoke free just for you is idiotic and self-centered.
Unfortunately, idiocy and self-centeredness have been elevated to art form by the judiciary who fail to dismiss stupid lawsuits by defenestration of the plaintiff and counsel.
As a further note on “repercussions” of the Ohio law - it’s only necessary to look at the experiences in other states and locales that’ve gone smoke-free in public places to realize that the fears are groundless.
I know of no locale that has passed such a law where there have been massive unforseen business expenses, problems with nuisance enforcement/lawsuits or the like. Economic impact has consistently been reported (where actual income figures have been studied, and not just subjective perceptions) as neutral or positive. So if you look at the actual experiences in other places, it should be reassuring.
This reminds me of all the fussing that was done when Ohio passed a concealed-carry law a few years ago. If you listened to the opponents of the law, we were in for a whole bunch of Wild West shootouts and blood running in the streets. No such thing happened - small numbers of people got permits and felt safer, whether they actually were or not. And it should have been obvious that the law was no big deal, if people had actually bothered to look at the record in other states that had passed such laws.