Auroraadvocate.com - Who Said Businesses Would Not Be Harmed?

Home | Back

Who Said Businesses Would Not Be Harmed?

Email To A Friend
Printer Friendly
Comments

August 20, 2008

In November, 2006, Ohio voters were asked to decide Issue 5. The ballot language for Issue 5 stated there would be exemptions for outdoor patios, family owned businesses and private clubs. Nearly 2 years later, we know differently. In fact, I don't think there is one family owned business nor private club that IS exempt. As soon as the ink dried on the votes, those exemptions were taken away. SmokeFree Ohio claimed the small print was available on line and in newspapers but let's face it, it was not on the ballot language when voters voted. Voters read very carefully each issue before pushing a button. Eight words ("not open to the public" and "with no employees") would have spelled out that there really would be no exemptions; however it was left off the ballot at the polls. The Director of the Ohio Department of Health claims it was a space issue. Issue 5 was 216 words. Issue 4 was 2166 words, Issue 3, 924 words and Issue 2, 1054 words. Eight more words could have been included, but they weren't. I think we were deceived just like we were deceived when SmokeFree Ohio claimed the ban would not hurt our businesses! Liquor permit holders lost 61.44 million dollars in potential sales in just the first year of the ban. The same timeframe shows 1.4 MILLION MORE BOTTLES OF LIQUOR sold for home consumption. We've lost smoking customers who drink at home who were never replaced by the "hoards of new customers" we were promised. The coin machine industry (vending) is down 25%-35%. Three hundred thirteen drinking places ceased to pay sales taxes in 2007 (closed). The Gongwer Legislative News Service, dated August 15, 2008, said Ohio's 7.2% unemployment rate is the worst it's been since 1992. The top decline in jobs? Leisure & Hospitality beating trade, transportation and utilities COMBINED. Ohio doesn't need any more closed businesses or the unemployment figures to climb any higher. And it's not the economy, as the special interest groups would claim. Michigan's statistics just came out and their unemployment has remained the same. They currently have no smoking ban.

Ohio Senator Schuler and 12 other co-sponsors have introduced SB346 to rightly correct ORC 3794.0 to reflect the exemptions the voters approved when they approved Issue 5. Thank God for these 13 Senators!!

Please tell your friends, family, family owned businesses and your private clubs to contact their legislators. Our businesses depend on it. Businesses who wish to remain smoke free absolutely can. Those whose customers overwhelmingly want to have a smoker friendly place to patronize will drive the decision of the owner to be a smoking establishment. All that's required is a sign. We're all adults and can make adult decisions for ourselves and for our families. We don't need special interest groups pushing laws "for our own good".

We are hard working people who have sunk blood, sweat and tears into our businesses, some of which have been in families for generations and are neighborhood institutions.

We should not have to pay for a law with our businesses.

Comments

By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. Auroraadvocate.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

4.	Posted by snowbird August 24, 2008
	Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health. They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits. A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification. Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their will. It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be... No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry. It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers. An obvious majority. But, by the same token... From 50%-90% of the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers. Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"... Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele. Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place. A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed. People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor in comfort. They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips. It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well. Many compatible non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment. It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people. Especially when socializing. Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues. No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims. Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a given that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers.

3.	Posted by snowbird August 24, 2008
	Smoking bans means,it is against the law to use or permit a legal product on 'private' property. Is this the American way?? http://smokersclubinc.com http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com

2.	Posted by snowbird August 24, 2008
	Smoking bans means,it is against the law to use or permit a legal product on 'private' property. Is this the American way?? http://smokersclubinc.com http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com

1.	Posted by SStahl August 24, 2008
	Well said. That's an extremely well-researched opinion. However, I have two questions. First, if the "voters" have said that they want antismoking establishments, as defined by this law, then why aren't the "consumers" voting the same way with their feet and wallets? Something's amiss between what people voted for and what people are willing to pay for. Second, didn't an antismoking activist declare that he'd return to Ohio after a year and "prove" that the smoking ban would be good for business? I think that was Stanton Glantz, wasn't it? So, I think that's the answer to your question, "Who Said Businesses Would Not Be Harmed?" Stanton Glantz. Maybe someone from the ACS also said so. See, this is what happens when people base laws on junk science. Everything gets all confusing, and society becomes divided and hostile. It's a shame because Ohio's a very nice place. Anyway, best of luck with that unemployment rate.