Post by The Big PINK One♥ on May 10, 2007 8:19:32 GMT -5
All 50 states have laws on the books restricting or prohibiting smoking in certain areas. These smoking bans can be limited to having individuals smoke in designated areas, to broader bans restricting smoking in all public places. The range and manner of the restrictions fall under the ordinances and laws of each state.
Arguments for the ban go right to the heart of the public domain and studies showing that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen that adversely affects the health of those coming into indirect contact with cigarette smoke. The issue becomes even more contentious when states prohibit smoking in cars and homes of foster parents when children are present, and in some states even to preventing parents from smoking in cars with children. In the case of foster parents such issues speak to the government’s responsibility to police the public/private domain and to provide for a safe environment free from undo harmful affects for those for whom the government is directly responsible; in the case of the latter instance it speaks to a proactive move to limit exposure of secondhand smoke to those who have no way of avoiding such exposure.
But there are those who make the argument that the government has no place interfering in an individual’s choice to smoke or infringing on that right in private or the public domain. Their voices, unfortunately, do not carry much sway against the weight of medical science and state law, which leads to contentious showdowns when concerted constituents feel that their rights are being unduly infringed upon, or businesses feel that they are relinquishing competitive advantage when other, private clubs are exempted from smoking bans. That is the case of what is transpiring in Ohio where a ban passed last November would restrict smoking in bars, restaurants, and other the public domains.
The exceptions to the rule are for private fraternal clubs that meet certain criteria: those qualifications being that it is a stand alone building; a social, nonprofit organization; has no employees; no persons under age of 18; only members of club are present in club’s building; and holds D-4 liquor license. If an organization meets all these criteria it is exempt from the law. But if the club has functions where children or adults not club members enter the premises smoking would be prohibited.
These exemptions are placing fraternal orders in untenable situations as they try to remain in compliance with the ordinances, as well as dealing with bar and restaurateurs who see the exemptions for these groups as unfair, and believe they will loose business to these private clubs once the new law starts to be enforced, which was to begin on May 1st. However, a legal challenge has been filed and a judge ruled not to exempt certain private clubs from the statewide ban on smoking in public places. The delay is only for 14 days until the court can meet to further examine a possible injunction on the exemption. The judge’s order went into affect on April 30, and the hearing is scheduled for May 14th .
It is an issue that speaks to public vs. private interests and profits vs. social interests. Which set of interests will prevail, or will there be a compromise. Now it is up to the court work out the snarls. Let me leave you with this: “No wonder books stopped selling. . . . It didn’t come from the Government down, There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no!” (Captain Beaty, Fahrenheit 451). No, “it didn’t come from the Government down” we Ohioans voted it in, the States obligation to infringe on our right to smoke and now it is up to the State to decide where and when we can smoke
Arguments for the ban go right to the heart of the public domain and studies showing that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen that adversely affects the health of those coming into indirect contact with cigarette smoke. The issue becomes even more contentious when states prohibit smoking in cars and homes of foster parents when children are present, and in some states even to preventing parents from smoking in cars with children. In the case of foster parents such issues speak to the government’s responsibility to police the public/private domain and to provide for a safe environment free from undo harmful affects for those for whom the government is directly responsible; in the case of the latter instance it speaks to a proactive move to limit exposure of secondhand smoke to those who have no way of avoiding such exposure.
But there are those who make the argument that the government has no place interfering in an individual’s choice to smoke or infringing on that right in private or the public domain. Their voices, unfortunately, do not carry much sway against the weight of medical science and state law, which leads to contentious showdowns when concerted constituents feel that their rights are being unduly infringed upon, or businesses feel that they are relinquishing competitive advantage when other, private clubs are exempted from smoking bans. That is the case of what is transpiring in Ohio where a ban passed last November would restrict smoking in bars, restaurants, and other the public domains.
The exceptions to the rule are for private fraternal clubs that meet certain criteria: those qualifications being that it is a stand alone building; a social, nonprofit organization; has no employees; no persons under age of 18; only members of club are present in club’s building; and holds D-4 liquor license. If an organization meets all these criteria it is exempt from the law. But if the club has functions where children or adults not club members enter the premises smoking would be prohibited.
These exemptions are placing fraternal orders in untenable situations as they try to remain in compliance with the ordinances, as well as dealing with bar and restaurateurs who see the exemptions for these groups as unfair, and believe they will loose business to these private clubs once the new law starts to be enforced, which was to begin on May 1st. However, a legal challenge has been filed and a judge ruled not to exempt certain private clubs from the statewide ban on smoking in public places. The delay is only for 14 days until the court can meet to further examine a possible injunction on the exemption. The judge’s order went into affect on April 30, and the hearing is scheduled for May 14th .
It is an issue that speaks to public vs. private interests and profits vs. social interests. Which set of interests will prevail, or will there be a compromise. Now it is up to the court work out the snarls. Let me leave you with this: “No wonder books stopped selling. . . . It didn’t come from the Government down, There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no!” (Captain Beaty, Fahrenheit 451). No, “it didn’t come from the Government down” we Ohioans voted it in, the States obligation to infringe on our right to smoke and now it is up to the State to decide where and when we can smoke
