Events Calendar
In This Section
Community campaign collecting donations for Haiti victims
Family says Rottweiler was trying to rescue owner, didn't kill her
Job openings plunged by one-quarter last year
Downtown Akron restaurants serve up 79,000 pounds of cardboard for recycling
State Farm says it warned NHTSA on Toyota in 2007
Police say drunken man stole ambulance with patient inside
Witness: Demjanjuk's statements inconsistent
Most Read Stories
Another winter punch heading toward Ohio
Complaints against officer keep coming
Woman rescued after falling through rotting floor in house
Police say couple had 50 stolen hubcaps
Police: Ohio girl dies after fall into snow bank
Strip club hosts 'Lap dances for Haiti'
Teen driver crashes into Bath Twp. home
Police: Man tries to buy crack with credit card
Man robbed at Tallmadge Avenue eatery
Cuyahoga Falls residents come home to find burning couch on balcony
Four teens restrain man, take items from his Akron home
Cleveland named worst U.S. city for winter weather; Columbus is No. 8
Blogs:
First Bell - On Education:
State auditor cites Highland Athletic Booster Club
Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs
The Heldenfiles:
NBC Releases Olympics Announcer List
Akron Zips:
Zips favored on road against MAC West leader
Tribe Matters:
Blogmail response on Hafner
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated
Balanced Ledger:
QB in Browns future: another mock draft
Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs vs. New Jersey Nets
Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes grab 18 players on signing day
Varsity Letters:
Five local gridders to play in Big33
All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Republican Pre-Conditions
Akron Law Café:
Law, Love and Chocolate
Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.
Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend
HRLite House:
OFCCP Report
Akron Gamer:
Makers of 'Castle Crashers' unveil 'BattleBlock Theater'
See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering
By Stephen Majors
Associated Press
POSTED: 12:12 p.m. EDT, Aug 20, 2009
COLUMBUS: The state's draconian enforcement of a two-year-old smoking ban is requiring bars to exercise near total control over the actions of customers or risk fines during an already punishing economic climate, a conservative policy organization argues in a lawsuit.
The outcome of the lawsuit, now before a state appeals court, could have ramifications for bars across the state, which have received more than 44,000 complaints from individuals, 3,100 warning letters and 1,800 fines since enforcement began in May 2007.
Last week, Attorney General Richard Cordray ratcheted up enforcement to a new level, filing lawsuits for the first time against two bars he said have repeatedly flouted the law.
Cordray's view of the law is simple: Smoking isn't permitted in bars, and it's their responsibility to stop it. Zeno's in Columbus and O'Neal's Tavern in Cincinnati owe a total of nearly $50,000 in fines for roughly 20 violations between them but haven't paid pending the outcome of a case before the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County.
In the lawsuit, the Pour House of Toledo argues that a local health department inspector improperly cited the bar after witnessing a lit cigarette sitting in a mints can within a minute of entering. The bar's attorney, Maurice Thompson of the conservative Buckeye Institute, said the bar and the bartender did everything within their power to keep a customer from smoking.
''The bar owner has to be given a reasonable amount of time to, one, notice that someone is smoking, and two, get over to them and get them to put the cigarette out,'' Thompson said. ''The health department is not determining whether that's happening.''
The Pour House bartender testified that she asked the customer to stop smoking, and that he left in under a minute, leaving the cigarette burning in the mints box. She said she would have immediately gone to put the cigarette out, but had other customers to attend to.
Cordray, who is defending the Ohio Department of Health in the lawsuit, declined to comment on the details of the Pour House case, but outlined the responsibility of inspectors in general.
''It's a pretty straightforward responsibility that they have, which is, 'Do you see smoking activity or do you not?''' Cordray said. ''Under the law, the liability falls under the establishment.''
A ruling in favor of the Pour House could give more leeway to bars when they make arguments that they've done everything in their power to dissuade smokers, including putting up no-smoking signs, removing ashtrays and instructing smokers to leave or go outside.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, an industry lobbying group, is not a party to the lawsuit, but its members have concerns that the smoking ban isn't being enforced in a uniform manner.
''We do have concerns about someone's location essentially dictating how and to what degree the smoking ban is being enforced,'' said the group's lobbyist, Jacob Evans, who acknowledged the evidence is anecdotal based on conversations between bar owners. ''Regardless, we remind all of our members that the smoking ban is the law.''
Many bar owners have been leery of the smoking ban all along, arguing that it hurts their businesses at a time when the economy has already cut their revenue. Some maintain the smoking ban is an unconstitutional infringement on private property rights, another argument the Buckeye Institute plans to take up.
About half the states have smoking bans that outlaw smoking in most public places, including bars and restaurants. Constitutional challenges — unsuccessful so far — have been mounted in a handful of them. In Nebraska, for example, an ongoing challenge argues that the exemptions in the law for some hotel rooms and tobacco-only retailers are unconstitutional because they pick winners and losers.
COLUMBUS: The state's draconian enforcement of a two-year-old smoking ban is requiring bars to exercise near total control over the actions of customers or risk fines during an already punishing economic climate, a conservative policy organization argues in a lawsuit.
The outcome of the lawsuit, now before a state appeals court, could have ramifications for bars across the state, which have received more than 44,000 complaints from individuals, 3,100 warning letters and 1,800 fines since enforcement began in May 2007.
Last week, Attorney General Richard Cordray ratcheted up enforcement to a new level, filing lawsuits for the first time against two bars he said have repeatedly flouted the law.
Cordray's view of the law is simple: Smoking isn't permitted in bars, and it's their responsibility to stop it. Zeno's in Columbus and O'Neal's Tavern in Cincinnati owe a total of nearly $50,000 in fines for roughly 20 violations between them but haven't paid pending the outcome of a case before the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County.
In the lawsuit, the Pour House of Toledo argues that a local health department inspector improperly cited the bar after witnessing a lit cigarette sitting in a mints can within a minute of entering. The bar's attorney, Maurice Thompson of the conservative Buckeye Institute, said the bar and the bartender did everything within their power to keep a customer from smoking.
''The bar owner has to be given a reasonable amount of time to, one, notice that someone is smoking, and two, get over to them and get them to put the cigarette out,'' Thompson said. ''The health department is not determining whether that's happening.''
The Pour House bartender testified that she asked the customer to stop smoking, and that he left in under a minute, leaving the cigarette burning in the mints box. She said she would have immediately gone to put the cigarette out, but had other customers to attend to.
Cordray, who is defending the Ohio Department of Health in the lawsuit, declined to comment on the details of the Pour House case, but outlined the responsibility of inspectors in general.
''It's a pretty straightforward responsibility that they have, which is, 'Do you see smoking activity or do you not?''' Cordray said. ''Under the law, the liability falls under the establishment.''
A ruling in favor of the Pour House could give more leeway to bars when they make arguments that they've done everything in their power to dissuade smokers, including putting up no-smoking signs, removing ashtrays and instructing smokers to leave or go outside.
The Ohio Licensed Beverage Association, an industry lobbying group, is not a party to the lawsuit, but its members have concerns that the smoking ban isn't being enforced in a uniform manner.
''We do have concerns about someone's location essentially dictating how and to what degree the smoking ban is being enforced,'' said the group's lobbyist, Jacob Evans, who acknowledged the evidence is anecdotal based on conversations between bar owners. ''Regardless, we remind all of our members that the smoking ban is the law.''
Many bar owners have been leery of the smoking ban all along, arguing that it hurts their businesses at a time when the economy has already cut their revenue. Some maintain the smoking ban is an unconstitutional infringement on private property rights, another argument the Buckeye Institute plans to take up.
About half the states have smoking bans that outlaw smoking in most public places, including bars and restaurants. Constitutional challenges — unsuccessful so far — have been mounted in a handful of them. In Nebraska, for example, an ongoing challenge argues that the exemptions in the law for some hotel rooms and tobacco-only retailers are unconstitutional because they pick winners and losers.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
Akron, Oh
Posted 12:57 PM, 08/20/2009
I'm a smoker and I agree no smoking in restaurants, stores, around children etc...but in bars? Please! I think this does fall someplace between unconstitutional infringement on private property, Not for all but most cases drinking and smoking go hand & hand.
Akron, OH
Posted 01:08 PM, 08/20/2009
I disagree with the bar owners stating that the ban has hampered their business. The bars that I frequent have not seen a decline in, rather an increase. I think one of the reasons why is that those that do not smoke or cannot be around it for medical reasons are more likely to go to the bar. Also, each of these establishments have gone to great lengths to accommodate the law and patrons, making their outdoor smoking area quite cozy. I do not believe that it is unconstitutional because even though it is private property, it is also for public use. What would be unconstitutional would be preventing homeowners from smoking in their homes.
Akron, OH
Posted 01:14 PM, 08/20/2009
I've said all along it would have been easier to have businesses, such as restaurants and bars to have separate areas, divided by walls and air handlin' systems, to allow each person a choice of the venue they choose to enter into.
Personally, I think it's the property owners right to choose to have smokin' or no smokin'.
Non-smokers, such as myself, could then choose to patronize one business or another.
Dade City, Fl
Posted 01:32 PM, 08/20/2009
In Bars and Bowling Alleys smoking should be allowed. This was a stupid law written by someone stupid and passed by stupid people which are the majority in Ohio. That's one reason why I left Ohio.
I don't smoke and I find this law more distasteful than cigarettes.
Posted 01:57 PM, 08/20/2009
and what about the rights of the worker in the Bar? why should they be subjected to second hand smoke?
when I travel to other states that still allow smoking find myself leaving the establishment sooner than expected and tahn have to get my clothes cleaned as they reek of smoke.
Akron, Oh
Posted 02:07 PM, 08/20/2009
All bars, smokers, and non smokers should be happy that there are Electronic Cigarettes. It allows smokers to still get the full experience of a real cigarette, without causing second hand smoke. Since they do not burn anything (including your lungs) they do not violate any laws. People should stop being hard headed. Go out, have your fun at the bar, but dont break any laws or offend people around you. I got my electronic cigarette at www.vcignature.com . I choose this electronic cigarette because it is black with a blue LED light that glows when i take a hit. There is no mistaking it for a cigarette. I ask my bartender before i begin vaping if it is ok with them. 9 times out of 10 they are happy to keep me bellied up to the bar. Cmon ppl, these things arnt new anymore. Dont get your favorite bar in hot water because they dont want to loose smoking customers. Instead turn your bar into the the coolest place to be all over again.
Akron, oh
Posted 02:16 PM, 08/20/2009
i agree with betamax. if there is different rooms then thats fine. what sucks about this law is that since you can't smoke inside somewhere, when you walk out of a place (especially if its raining) people are crowded around the enterance and you get choked out. i'm not a smoker, but i'd rather have the people inside and in a diff section then me, instead of hitting me in the face with in when i'm going to and from.
North Canton, OH
Posted 02:26 PM, 08/20/2009
@Mars: My wife and I both love bowling but are both asthmatic. Unfortunately, until the smoking ban, both of us would either be unable to go or simply leave after only one game. Why must others like myself suffer the difficulty smoking causes on my breathing to allow someone to smoke? It's not just about smokers rights, it's about everyone's rights. If they want to smoke, run outside for a quick burn.
akron, oh
Posted 02:40 PM, 08/20/2009
Seriously, are hashing this up again?
Betamax is on the mark, individual property owners should have been allowed to choose. If all the non-smokers are so adamant about not being around smoke, then there would be a market for "non-smoking" establishments. A savvy business owner would have self regulated to make a profit.
If nothing else allow a certain number of bars (ie. places were the only food you can buy are nuts or bags of chips) to purchase smoking licenses. That would generate revenue (unfairly on smokers again)and give a people a place to enjoy their perfectly legal pleasures.
Akron, OH
Posted 09:47 PM, 08/20/2009
State regulators supporting public drinking establishments, funded with money derived from people not obeying the law, customers wages or independent business profit.
This is defiant of demands of Natural Law: what Mother Nature, God, Mayor Don, or Whatever Power decreed to be the reality of the real world, God, democracy, capitalism, the US Constitution, and free, fair, and affordable commerce.
Demanding every corporation, farmer, business, outsourcer sweatshop, Betamax, crackhouse and nonprofit, tax-exempt, organization and Church; markets the cost; in the wholesale and retail price of his or her product and service; Of beer consumers paying for drinks; and every workers, consumers, and taxpayers living (including pension and health care [yes, even Obama's health care]); enabling them to love, nurse, nurture, discipline, protect, and provide for every child (job) they conceive (due to excessive drinking); and fund schools, infrastructure, national security, government services (but not the APD), but without spending too much or Overtaxed Voter will have a hissy-fit; with money derived from wages, bailouts, or independent business profit!
Akron, OH
Posted 09:48 PM, 08/20/2009
I just thought I'd save Loren Eberly some time, lol
Posted 03:22 PM, 08/21/2009
Smokers have no rights. If ya don't care about your own body, then your not going to care about someone else's rights. and to build walls to keep the smoke in the smokers room would be a lot of money
